Difference between revisions of "Southall v. M'Keand"

Revision as of 12:43, 17 February 2014

Southall v. M'Keand, Wythe 95 (1791),^[1] was a case involving a dispute over a parcel of land in Richmond that was a prize in a lottery William Byrd III held to help pay his debts.

Background

In order to help pay off some debts he had accumulated, William Byrd III held a lottery in 1767.^[2] Prizes in this lottery were parcels of land taken from Byrd's holdings in Richmond. Byrd divided his holdings into unimproved lots, which would be awarded in half-acre portions; and improved lots, which were occupied tenements. The occupied lots' tenants had improved their lots to various degrees, and some tenants occupied more than half an acre of land. M'Keand was one of the tenants.

After the lottery tickets were sold but before the drawing, Byrd started surveying and laying out the lots, intending to reduce the size of the improved lots to half an acre each. Byrd's tenants objected to that plan, so most of the improved lots were awarded according to whatever amount of property their tenant had occupied. M'Keand, though, did not object to the reduction, so his tenement as given away in the lottery was reduced to half an acre. Some previous tenants in M'Keand's tenement had occupied extra land adjacent to that half-acre lot; Byrd sold this adjacent land to M'Keand, who later sold it to Powell, who in turn sold the land to Mayo, who further sold the land to Carter.

Southall won M'Keand's tenement in the lottery. Southall believed that his prize included the adjacent occupied land to M'Keand's half-acre lot. Southall quickly notified M'Keand that Southall claimed the adjacent land to the half-acre lot, but Southall did not file a bill in Henrico County Court to enforce his claim until about 14 1/2 years later, after M'Keand had made £1000 worth of improvements to the land.

The Henrico County Court dismissed Southall's bill, and Southall appealed to the High Court of Chancery.

The Court's Decision

The High Court of Chancery ordered a survey to be made of the disputed land and given to a District Court jury, along with a plan for the City of Richmond (which indicated that the land attached to the winning lottery ticket would be half an acre in size), and ordered the District Court jury to determine the boundaries of M'Keand's tenement. After a hung jury, the second jury determined that the City of Richmond plan properly set out the area attached to the lot, and found in favor of M'Keand. The District Court judge, however, entered a verdict certifying that the evidence favored Southall. The High Court of Chancery voiced its approval of the District Court verdict, but also stated that the plan posted by Byrd for the City of Richmond was fair and that the parties should therefore be bound by it. As a consequence, the High Court of Chancery held that Southall was not entitled to the adjacent land purchased by M'Keand as a matter of equity, and upheld the County Court's decision dismissing Southall's bill.

Southall appealed the HCC's decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.^[3] The SCAV held that Southall was entitled to the full bounds of the area occupied by M'Keand, not just the half-acre parceled out by Byrd, since that was the agreement Byrd had reached with the other, objecting tenants, and an observer from a distance such as Southall had no reason to know that M'Keand specifically hadn't objected. Furthermore, the SCAV said, M'Keand had notice of Southall's claim. However, the SCAV continued, since Southall waited so long to enforce his claim in court, he was not entitled to the extra value M'Keand had added to the land in the meantime. Therefore, the SCAV said, Southall was entitled to the value of the land at the time M'Keand bought it from Byrd. Since Powell was not aware of the cloud surrounding the title to the land, the SCAV said, Southall had no claim against him Powell or Mayo. Since M'Keand was dead by the time of the SCAV's decision, the SCAV remanded the case to the HCC to revive Southall's claim against M'Keand's estate.

Wythe's Discussion

Wythe goes into an almost line-by-line dissection of the SCAV's opinion. He criticizes the SCAV's statement that the District Court's verdict shouldn't be considered to settle the issue of where the boundaries of Southall's property lie, since the verdict was against the evidence; Wythe was also displeased with the SCAV's comment that it was unusual for the HCC to accept such a verdict. Wythe rhetorically asks the SCAV if the Chancellor is bound to always agree with the District Court judge's interpretation of the facts. The editor of the Wythe's Decisions volume, though, notes that the SCAV's comments were likely meaningless asides leading up to their statement that they would review the case de novo.^[4]

Wythe also takes issue with the SCAV's assertion that all lottery winners, including Southall, had a right to expect that the prize would be the territory as occupied by its tenants, since tenants on that land prior to M'Keand kept a public tavern on some of the adjacent ground. Wythe pointed out that the plan of Richmond describing the lottery prize plots which was displayed in Williamsburg delineated M'Keand's property as half an acre, no more. Wythe argued that the prior tenants' occupation was not consistent enough to have attached the property to the M'Keand lot.

References

1. ↑ George Wythe, Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery, (Richmond: Printed by Thomas Nicolson, 1795), 95.
2. ↑ "William Byrd III", The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site, http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biowbyrd.cfm
3. ↑ Southall v. M'Keand, 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 336 (1794)
4. ↑ Wythe 102.