Deputron v. Young

This was an action of ejectment brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska, June 14, 1884, by Rowena Young, a citizen of Ohio, against John C. Deputron, a citizen of Nebraska, to recover certain premises in the petition named. The defendant answered, denying plaintiff's ownership and right to possession; and setting up title under a taxdeed and purchase in good faith, and without notice, for $10,000 paid, being the full value, and 10 years' adverse possession. To this answer a reply, specifically denying its a verments, was filed by the plaintiff. At the November term, 1885, of said court, a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict for the defendant, and judgment thereon, which was set aside on motion of plaintiff, and a new trial awarded. In March, 1886, the cause was tried a second time, and a special verdict of 41 findings rendered by the jury, as follows: note

The defendant excepted to the tenth, seventeenth, moved to set aside each of the same, and for a judgment for the defendant, and against the plaintiff, upon the verdict as thus amended; and the plaintiff filed his motion for judgment on the verdict according to the prayer of the petition. On the 10th day of May, 1886, these motions coming on to be heard, were submitted to the court on briefs to be filed within 60 days, and on the 24th day of June, 1886, the court entered an order, by agreement of the parties, that the time to settle and sign a bill of exceptions be, and the same was thereby, extended to the second Monday in November following. The record contains no such bill of exceptions. On the 9th day of November, 1887 Deputron filed his petition, alleging that Rowena Young was not the real party in interest, and that the title of the property in controversy was collusively and fraudulently transferred to her for the sole purpose of vesting apparent jurisdiction in the federal court; that the case did not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within its jurisdiction; and that Rowena Young had been improperly and collusively made a plaintiff for the purpose of creating a case cognizable under the laws of the United States; and praying that the cause be dismissed; to which the plaintiff answered, denying any fraud and collusion, and averring that she was the real party interested. On the 16th day of November, 1888, the following order was entered: 'This cause, coming on for hearing on the petition and application of the defendant to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, was tried by the court, Messrs. Hall and Webster appearing for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Lamb, Ricketts and Wilson, and Harwood, Ames and Kelly, for the defendant; whereupon, after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, it is now, on this day ordered and adjudged by the court that said petition and application be, and the same are hereby, denied; to which ruling and order of the court said defendant, by his attorneys, then and there duly excepted.' An opinion on the merits was given by the circuit judge December 17, 1888, (37 Fed. Rep. 46;) and thereupon the motion of the defendant for judgment was overruled, the motion of the plaintiff for judgment sustained, and judgment entered that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the real property described in the petition and the costs of the action. A bill of exceptions, containing the petitions, answers, and proceedings and evidence adduced upon the question of jurisdiction, was signed and filed in due time. The pending writ of error was then sued out from this court.

W. J. Lamb and Ricketts & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

John F. Dillon, S. Shellabarger, and J. S. R. Webster, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.