Difference between revisions of "Jones v. White"
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Jones v. White''}} ''Jones v. White'', Wythe 111 (1791), was a case that discussed when courts of equity could properly consider actions concerning conflictin...") |
m |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Jones v. White''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Jones v. White''}} | ||
| − | ''Jones v. White'', Wythe 111 (1791), was a case that discussed when courts of equity could properly consider actions concerning conflicting titles to land.<ref>George Wythe, ''[[Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery]],'' (Richmond: | + | [[File:WytheJonesVWhite1852.jpg|link={{filepath:WytheDecisions1852JonesVWhite.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WytheDecisions1852JonesVWhite.pdf|''Jones v. White'']], in [https://wm.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01COWM_INST/g9pr7p/alma991006014269703196 ''Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery, with Remarks upon Decrees by the Court of Appeals, Reversing Some of Those Decisions''], by George Wythe. 2nd ed. (Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1852).]] |
| + | [[Media:WytheDecisions1852JonesVWhite.pdf|''Jones v. White'']], Wythe 111 (1791), was a case that discussed when courts of equity could properly consider actions concerning conflicting titles to land.<ref>George Wythe, ''[[Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery (1852)|Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery with Remarks upon Decrees by the Court of Appeals, Reversing Some of Those Decisions]],'' 2nd ed., ed. B.B. Minor (Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1852), 111.</ref> | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| − | |||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| − | Henry Hatcher obtained a survey for a tract of land in 1740 but was not granted title to that tract until the respective letters of patent were sealed in 1756. Elisha White, the appellee, purchased | + | Henry Hatcher obtained a survey for a tract of land in 1740 but was not granted title to that tract until the respective letters of patent were sealed in 1756. Elisha White, the appellee, purchased Hatcher's tract from him for valuable consideration sometime in 1761/62. White alleged that the reason for the delay between the survey and the grant to Hatcher was due to a dispute between the governor and the people of Virginia regarding a fee demanded by the governor for his signature on grants such as the one that was to be made to Hatcher. During this delay, in 1744, Wood Jones, the appellant's father of the same name, paid a similar disputed fee and was granted a tract of land that subsumed the land that was to be granted to Hatcher. When White discovered Jones's interest in the land, he filed a petition for grant of the land to himself, which was granted in 1764. White also sued Jones for possession of the property, but Jones died before answering White's bill. White then brought a bill of revivor against Jones’s son and heir. Jones denied having any notice of Hatcher's survey, and argued that this dispute did not belong in a chancery court. The county court granted title to White and ordered Jones to pay costs. Jones appealed this decision. |
==The Court's Decision== | ==The Court's Decision== | ||
| − | The High Court of Chancery reversed the decision of the county court | + | The High Court of Chancery reversed the decision of the county court. Whether White asserted that the grant to Hatcher was to operate retroactively from the day of commencement, or that Jones Sr. had acquired title to the land through surreptitious means, the High Court of Chancery said that White could have gotten a proper remedy from a court of common law. Therefore, White had no grounds for bringing the case to an equitable court such as the High Court of Chancery, especially considering how much time passed between Hatcher gaining title and White’s attempts to assert title for himself. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the holding of the High Court of Chancery but affirmed the result. The court declared that, "[W]here fraud is suggested and proved, courts of equity have competent jurisdiction, are most usually and properly resorted to, and can afford ample and adequate relief."<ref>''Id.'' at 114.</ref> The court did not reverse the result because White failed to prove either the allegations in his bill or any fraud on the part of Jones Sr. |
==Wythe's Discussion== | ==Wythe's Discussion== | ||
| − | Wythe agreed with the Court of | + | Wythe agreed with the Court of Appeals' decision and stated that the H.C.C.'s decision rested upon the faulty foundation that so long as White had a remedy available at common law, he should have sought it. Wythe also made the point that the Court of Appeals' decision did not disturb the doctrine that the date of effect for a claim of title may relate back to the date of commencement when a subsequent grantee knew of the other grant or perhaps even the survey done for such a grant; but where such knowledge was not charged or proven, the relation would be inadmissible in court if it would harm an innocent person’s interests. |
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
[[Category:Cases]] | [[Category:Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Procedure]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Real Property]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:26, 29 March 2022
Jones v. White, Wythe 111 (1791), was a case that discussed when courts of equity could properly consider actions concerning conflicting titles to land.[1]
Background
Henry Hatcher obtained a survey for a tract of land in 1740 but was not granted title to that tract until the respective letters of patent were sealed in 1756. Elisha White, the appellee, purchased Hatcher's tract from him for valuable consideration sometime in 1761/62. White alleged that the reason for the delay between the survey and the grant to Hatcher was due to a dispute between the governor and the people of Virginia regarding a fee demanded by the governor for his signature on grants such as the one that was to be made to Hatcher. During this delay, in 1744, Wood Jones, the appellant's father of the same name, paid a similar disputed fee and was granted a tract of land that subsumed the land that was to be granted to Hatcher. When White discovered Jones's interest in the land, he filed a petition for grant of the land to himself, which was granted in 1764. White also sued Jones for possession of the property, but Jones died before answering White's bill. White then brought a bill of revivor against Jones’s son and heir. Jones denied having any notice of Hatcher's survey, and argued that this dispute did not belong in a chancery court. The county court granted title to White and ordered Jones to pay costs. Jones appealed this decision.
The Court's Decision
The High Court of Chancery reversed the decision of the county court. Whether White asserted that the grant to Hatcher was to operate retroactively from the day of commencement, or that Jones Sr. had acquired title to the land through surreptitious means, the High Court of Chancery said that White could have gotten a proper remedy from a court of common law. Therefore, White had no grounds for bringing the case to an equitable court such as the High Court of Chancery, especially considering how much time passed between Hatcher gaining title and White’s attempts to assert title for himself. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the holding of the High Court of Chancery but affirmed the result. The court declared that, "[W]here fraud is suggested and proved, courts of equity have competent jurisdiction, are most usually and properly resorted to, and can afford ample and adequate relief."[2] The court did not reverse the result because White failed to prove either the allegations in his bill or any fraud on the part of Jones Sr.
Wythe's Discussion
Wythe agreed with the Court of Appeals' decision and stated that the H.C.C.'s decision rested upon the faulty foundation that so long as White had a remedy available at common law, he should have sought it. Wythe also made the point that the Court of Appeals' decision did not disturb the doctrine that the date of effect for a claim of title may relate back to the date of commencement when a subsequent grantee knew of the other grant or perhaps even the survey done for such a grant; but where such knowledge was not charged or proven, the relation would be inadmissible in court if it would harm an innocent person’s interests.
References
- ↑ George Wythe, Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery with Remarks upon Decrees by the Court of Appeals, Reversing Some of Those Decisions, 2nd ed., ed. B.B. Minor (Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1852), 111.
- ↑ Id. at 114.
