Barribeau v. Brant, 58 U.S. 43 (1854)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsBarribeau v. Brant, 58 U.S. 43 (1854)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs58 U.S.
43
17 How. 43
15 L.Ed. 34
PIERRE BARRIBEAU AND EUPHRASIE T. PERRY,
APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSHUA B. BRANT.
December Term, 1854
This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the
district of Missouri.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr Bradley, for the appellants, and by Mr Lawrence, for
the appellees.
The argument consisted, upon both sides, in the application of wellestablished principles of law to the facts in the case, as disclosed by the
evidence. There being no principle of law disputed, it is not necessary to
state the contradictory testimony which furnished the basis of the
respective arguments.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of the United States for
the district of Missouri, sitting as a court of Equity.
The case is this: Pierre Barribeau was seised in fee-simple of a lot of ground in
the town of St. Louis; and, by deed dated May 8, 1829, conveyed it to Joseph
White, in trust for the grantor, during his life, and after his death for his two
sons. Adrian and Pierre, and his adopted daughter, Euphrasie, who had grown
up in his family.
After the death of the grantor, his sons, Adrian and Pierre, and White, the
trustee, joined in a deed to Brant, the appellee, for all the interest of the two
sons in the lot. But at the time this deed was made, Pierre had not attained the
age of twenty-one years. Subsequently, however, he executed a deed of
confirmation, and in that deed professed to convey two undivided third parts of
the premises.
4
Euphrasie, the adopted daughter, executed a deed to Amaranth Loiselle,
purporting to convey the whole of this lot. And, afterwards, she and Amaranth
made separate deeds, on the same day, to Samuel Merry, for her third part of
the premises; and Merry afterwards conveyed to Brant. If, therefore, the several
deeds above mentioned are valid, Brant is entitled to the whole lot.
Adrian died intestate, and without issue. And, after his death, Pierre and
Euphrasie filed this bill, charging that all of the deeds made by them
respectively, and by Adrian in his lifetime, were obtained by misrepresentation
and fraud; that they were illiterate, and did not understand the object and effect
of these instruments when they were executed; and that the consideration paid
was far below the real value of the property. The bill further charged that Pierre
was still under the age of twenty-one when he made the deed of confirmation.
The answer of Brant denies all fraud and misrepresentation, and avers that the
parties were perfectly aware of the contents of the several instruments when
they were executed, and that the price was a fair one, according to the value of
the property at that time; and that Pierre was of full age when he made the deed
of confirmation.
Many witnesses were examined by the parties in support of their respective
allegations, and, at the final hearing, the bill of the complainants was dismissed
by the circuit court. And from this decree the complainants have brought this
appeal.
It would be tedious and useless, in this opinion, to go into an examination of the
testimony given by the different witnesses. Much of it has very little if any
bearing upon the question in dispute. It is very evident, indeed, that the
complainants were illiterate and weak-minded. But there is abundant proof that
they were perfectly aware of the contents of the several instruments, and of the
object and purpose for which they were executed. And, although the prices
paid for the different interests were undoubtedly very moderate; yet they were
not so inadequate as to authorize the court to declare the deeds void on that
ground. The inadequacy must be tested by the value of the property at the time
of the sales, and not by its present value. The first deed from the two Barribeaus
and White to the respondents, was made September 3, 1833. The deed of
confirmation from Pierre, August 7, 1836; and the deeds from Euphrasie, and
Amaranth Loiselle to Merry, February 1, 1836. The complainants did not seek
to disturb these conveyances, or take any measures to impeach them, until
March 20, 1849, when this bill was filed, and when property in St. Louis was
greatly enhanced in value, as compared with its value in 1833 and 1836. It is,
perhaps, the great increase in the value of this property between the time of the
several sales and the time of filing this bill, that has led to this controversy. But
upon the evidence in the record, we think the charge of fraud and
misrepresentation is not sustained; and that there is sufficient proof, that Pierre
was of full age at the time the deed of confirmation was executed.
9
It has been contended, on the part of the complainants, that under the deed from
Pierre Barribeau, the elder, to White, the three cestui que trusts took a joint
interest, and that, upon the death of one or more of them without lawful issue,
the share of the deceased was limited over to the survivors or survivor. And as
Adrian died before the filing of the bill, and Pierre has died pending this
appeal, and both of them without lawful issue, Euphrasie, the surviving
complainant, claims the entire lot, by virtue of the limitations over in the deed
of trust. And if this be the construction of the deed, she is entitled to a decree
for the shares of the two sons, although she has sold and conveyed her own one
third, as above stated.
10
But this construction cannot be maintained. The trust deed, it is true, is
unskilfully drawn. But is very clear, upon the whole instrument, that an
equitable interest, as tenants in common in fee-simple, was secured to them by
the deed; and that their conveyances, together with that of the trustee, passed
the whole interest, legal and equitable, to the respective purchasers.
11
It appears that shortly after this bill was filed, Pierre, the complainant, conveyed
all his interest in the property to Benjamin A. Massey, in trust for a natural
daughter, born of an Indian mother, and living in the Indian country; and a
motion has been made to make him a party in this court, as the representative of
Pierre.
12
The decision of this motion, either way, could have no influence upon the rights
of the parties. For as the court is of opinion that the deed of confirmation made
by Pierre was valid, and conveyed his one third to the appellee, the decree in
the court below dismissing the bill, must be affirmed, even if Massey was
permitted to appear.
13
But in this stage of the proceedings he cannot be permitted to become a party,
as the representative of Pierre. The bill was filed by Pierre, and this appeal
taken by him. He has died pending this appeal; and the only persons who, upon
principles of law and the rules of this court, can be permitted to appear in his
stead, are those who, upon his death, succeed to the interest he then had, and
upon whom the estate then devolves.
14
But the interest of Massey was acquired in the lifetime of Pierre, and no new
interest accrued to him upon Pierre's death; and if he desired to become a party,
in order to maintain his rights as trustee, he should have applied for leave to
become a complainant while the case was pending in the circuit court. The
estate has not devolved upon him by the death of Pierre, and he has the same
interest now which he had upon the execution of the deed; and has no greater
right to become a party here, after Pierre's death, than he had before.
15
In the opinion of the court, therefore, as Pierre's death was suggested at
December term, 1851, and his legal representatives have not appeared by the
tenth day of this term, the bill must, as to him, be entered, abated under the 61st
rule of this court. And, as regards Euphrasie, the other complainant, it must be
dismissed, with costs.
Order.
16
This cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record, from the circuit
court of the United States for the district of Missouri, and was argued by
counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and decreed, by this
court, that this appeal, as to Pierre Barribeau, be, and the same is hereby,
abated, pursuant to the 61st rule of this court; and it is further ordered and
decreed that this appeal, as to Euphrasie T. Perry, be, and the same is hereby
dismissed, with costs.
