Erwin v. Blake

APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for West Tennessee.

In the circuit court of West Tennessee Hugh M. Blake, the appellee, filed a bill on the equity side of the court against James Erwin, now the appellee, to enjoin further proceedings in an ejectment brought in that court by Erwin, and to compel him to convey the legal title of the property described in the ejectment, according to the provisions of an act of the assembly of Tennessee passed in 1820, which provides that 'it shall and may be lawful for any debtor, whose interest in any real estate may be sold, under execution, at any time within two years after such sale, on payment or tender thereof to the purchaser or purchasers, or on payment or tender thereof to any one claiming under such purchase, the principal money bid at such sale, with ten per cent interest per annum thereon, together with all such other lawful charges, if any there be, to redeem the interest that may have been sold; and upon payment or tender thereof as aforesaid, in such bank notes as are receivable on executions, it shall be the duty of the then claimant, to reconvey said interest to said debtor, but at the cost and charge of such debtor.

The substance of the bill, answer and proofs, is stated in the decree of the circuit court, as follows:

'The complainant set forth in the bill, that he was a citizen of the state of Tennessee, and that on the 3d day of September 1824, he was seised and possessed, in his own right, of a tract of land situate in Lincoln county, in said state, containing about three hundred and fifty acres, bounded on the south by the land of Robert Case, on the north by that of Robert Wilson, on the east by the land of Joel Cummins, and the west by the land of John Marr and John W. Blake; that on the said 3d day of September 1824, the same was sold by the proper officer, under an execution founded on a decree of the chancery court, held at Columbia, rendered in favour of James Brittain, executor of the last will, &c. of Joseph Brittain deceased against complainant and others; that said James Brittain became the purchaser of said tract of land at said sale, for the price of one hundred and sixty-two dollars, and received the sheriff's deed therefor; that James Erwin, a citizen of the state of Louisiana, in the month of September 1823, obtained a judgment against complainant and others, securities of one Brice M. Garner, for the sum of upwards of twelve hundred dollars: that, on the 21st of August 1826, one John P. M'Connell, having acquired an interest in said last mentioned judgment, in pursuance of an arrangement with said James Erwin, and for the benefit of himself and said Erwin, redeemed said tract of land from said James Brittain, by advancing the purchase money paid for the same by said Brittain, together with ten per cent interest thereon, and offered to credit said judgment of said Erwin, against complainant, the sum of one thousand dollars, under the provisions of an act of assembly of the state of Tennessee, passed in the year 1820; and, therefore, said James Brittain conveyed said tract of land to said Erwin. Said bill further set forth, that the complainant, with a view to avail himself of the privilege of redeeming said tract of land from said Erwin, did, before the expiration of the term of two years from the date of said sheriff sale, pay to James Fulton, the attorney and agent of said Erwin, twelve hundred and seventy-six dollars and seventy cents, including the amount advanced by said Erwin and M'Connell to said Brittain; and also one thousand and ninety-four dollars and seventy cents of the said judgment of said Erwin against complainant, leaving a balance due on said judgment of two hundred and twenty-three dollars and fifty-five cents, which one Robert Dickson assumed to pay to said M'Connell, who was interested in said judgment of said Erwin to the amount, as complainant was informed and believed, and said M'Connell accepted said assumpsit in satisfaction of so much of said judgment. Said bill further charges, that said James Fulton was fully authorized to receive said money by said Erwin, on the application of complainant toredeem said land, and that M'Connell was authorized, and had a right to relieve complainant from the payment of so much of said judgment as said Dickson assumed to pay; that, nevertheless he, said Erwin, had refused to reconvey said tract of land to complainant, although he had received said sum of money, paid to the said James Fulton, his agent, as said agent had informed complainant; but had commenced an action of ejectment in this honourable court to recover possession of the same. The bill prayed that complainant might be permitted to redeem said land, and that the legal title to the same might, by decree of the court, be divested out of the said James Erwin, and be vested in the complainant, and his heirs; and for personal relief.

The defendant admitted, in his answer, the purchase of the tract of land by Brittain under execution, the day and year set forth in the bill, and for the price therein specified; that he had recovered a judgment against complainant, as set forth in the bill, and that M'Connell had redeemed the land from James Brittain, as alleged by complainant, for his, the defendant's benefit, and that Brittain had conveyed the land to him. The defendant denied that M'Connell had any interest in the judgment obtained in the name of the defendant against complainant; but admitted that he had sold the note, upon which said payment was founded, to M'Connell; that he had received about two hundred dollars in part payment for the same, and that he had taken M'Connell's note for the balance, upon which he had brought suit and obtained a judgment, before September 1826, but alleged that it was understood between him and M'Connell, and before that time, that he, defendant, should have the benefit of the judgment against Garner and complainants, and when paid was to be in discharge of the judgment which defendant had obtained against M'Connell. The defendant denied that James Fulton, or any other person for him, was authorized to receive any thing else than specie, or to make any arrangements in regard to the payment of the amount, necessary to be paid by complainant within two years from the date of the sale of said land, than were implied in his instructions to the said Fulton, which he alleges were, that the whole sum should be paid in specie. Defendant denied that he had received any money from said Blake, or any one else, in payment of his claim against said complainant, and insisted that the provisions of the act of assembly had not been complied with in such manner as to entitle complainant to redeem.

It appeared from the proofs in the cause, that, some short time before the 3d of September 1826, when it appeared the term had expired within which the complainant had a right to redeem the said tract of land, the defendant Erwin was in the county of Lincoln, where all the persons concerned, except himself, resided; and in the presence of Garner, the principal in the judgment recovered by Erwin against complainant, and who was also clerk of the county court of said county, directed James Fulton, Esq. who had been the attorney employed in prosecuting the suit, in which judgment had been obtained against complainant, to receive the money which might be tendered by complainant for the purpose of redeeming said tract of land, and if he thought it a case which was entitled to specie, to require the payment to be made in specie. It further appeared, that Fulton, having business in another county, appointed one Francis Porterfield to attend to the business for him in his absence, and instructed him to receive from complainant nothing but specie, or bank notes at such a discount as would make them equivalent to specie. It also appeared that Brice M. Garner was insolvent and unprincipled; that a principal object of said Erwin in requesting Fulton to receive the money from complainant, was to prevent a fraudulent acknowledgement of payment of the redemption money by Garner, who, as clerk of the county court, had a right to receive it in the absence of the creditor. For this reason, Fulton appeared to have been particular in his instructions to Porterfield, to prevent the payment of the money into the hands of Garner, and to see that he did not practise any fraud upon Erwin, in the county court. It further appeared that, on the 2d day of September 1826, the complainant paid into the hands of Porterfield, under the instructions of Fulton, the sum of nine hundred dollars, the principal part thereof in specie, and the balance in such bank notes, as made them equivalent to specie; that said Porterfield agreed to accept the promise, or assumpsit, of William Husbands, the sheriff of the county, for the payment of three hundred dollars, in satisfaction of so much, and that J. P. M'Connell agreed that he would look to one R. Dickson for the two hundred dollars, the amount to which he alleged he was entitled out of the judgment against complainant. Porterfield, at the same time, pledged himself that Fulton, the lawyer and agent of Erwin, would sanction the arrangement, and that the complainant should sustain no injury in consequence of it. It appeared that Fulton, the agent, did sanction what had been done by Porterfield in his absence, and, on the 7th day of September 1826, gave complainant a receipt, in the name of said Erwin, for the sum of one thousand two hundred and seventy-six dollars and seventy-six cents, and at the same time recognized the right of said M'Connell to control so much of said judgment as he claimed an interest in. It further appeared to the court, by the testimony of the witness present, that when Erwin requested Fulton to attend to the receipt of the redemption money, he had given him full authority to act for him, and that whatever he might do would be acquiesced in. It also appeared that Erwin, by his letter of the 8th of September 1826, to Fulton, written after he had been informed, by a letter from M'Connell, of many of the most material particulars of the arrangement of the 2d of September, admitted the authority of Fulton to bind him by any thing done under his, Fulton's instructions or authority, or by any one appointed by him and acting under his instructions. It further appeared, that M'Connell continued to have an interest in the judgment obtained against complainant, up to the 2d of September 1826; and that he had employed counsel, and had the management of the whole business until the instructions were given to said Fulton by Erwin, a short time before the day on which the money was paid. It also appeared, that said Erwin had notice of the appointment of said Porterfield by Fulton, to act in the matter for him, before the 2d of September 1826, and that he did not object to his appointment. It did not appear that the complainant had any notice of the instruction of Erwin to his agent, that nothing but specie would be received. The money received by Fulton appeared to have been paid over to the agent of Erwin, but it did not appear that Erwin had ever received it. The alance of the amount he had a right to demand, and for which Husbands became accountable, Erwin refused to receive.

The case was argued by Mr Hardin, for the appellant; and by Mr Bell, for the appellee.

Mr Hardin contended, that the appellee had not complied with the requisites of the act of assembly-that he had instructed his attorney and agent to insist on the redemption money being paid in specie, and had never waived his right to be thus paid. If a waiver had taken place, it was without his authority, or that of any one who had a right to do so. He cited Sugden on Vendors 175, 470, 472. The right to redeem, under the act of assembly, depends on conditions precedent, and must be strictly complied with. Cited, 2 Bl. Com. 111, 119.

As to the contract under which the debt arose, he said it was made before the act of assembly authorizing the payment of debts on judgments in bank notes was passed; and so far as the law affected such contracts, it had been decided to be unconstitutional in Tennessee. But a part of a law may be unconstitutional, and a part not; and a party may avail himself of the part which is valid, and reject that which is void.

The appellant had a right to insist on a full compliance with the act, as to redemption of the property sold under the execution, notwithstanding the unconstitutional provision as to bank notes.

The case is not like a forfeiture, but is one of an absolute sale, liable to be defeated by payment of the purchase money, and this in money, not in bank notes. The provision for redemption is by statute; and time was essential, and could not be dispensed with.

The whole question in the case turns on the power of Fulton, and the ratification of his acts by the appellant. He denied both as claimed by the appellee.

Mr Bell, for the appellee, argued, that Blake could not be called upon to pay specie. The money to redeem the land was, by the law of Tennessee, to be any money in which the debt could be collected in bank notes. If this part of the law was unconstitutional the whole act was void; and there could be no right to redeem at all. The appellant must abide by the law in all its parts.

The contract was not that payment should be made in specie-it was not such a contract; and the validity of the law of Tennessee, relative to payment in bank notes, is not involved in this case; because, as Erwin claimed the benefit of the same, he was bound by all its provisions, and to accept his debt in bank notes.

He also contended that the evidence showed that Fulton, the attorney of Erwin, had full authority from his principal to waive the demand of specie, and to delegate that authority to another, which he had done. Under this delegation, confirmed by Erwin, the arrangement by which the redemption took place was made and was ratified.

The deed from the sheriff is to be considered as a guarantee for the debt due on the judgment, and in the nature of a mortgage; and the right to redeem resting entirely on equitable principles, and time not being material if compensation can be made for it, the case is with the appellee. It is not within the rule that the condition must be performed, unless prevented by absolute necessity.

As to the powers of an attorney, he cited, 12 Vesey 282; as to equity jurisdiction, Martin's Rep. 83.

Mr Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.