Case ID: johns_7/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "[Kent, Ch. J. \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Fonda and Ogden, against Teele.
    NEW-YORK,
    Nov. 1810.
    An award, by SmmfswT grantor* deed, will enure to the benefit of the vrantee; it being in favour of the title; and the grantee, being no dispute .grantor, need not dissent None but persons aggrieved need file a dissent The act applies only to interfering and adverse claims.
    THIS was an ejectment for part of lot No. 78. in Manlius in the county of Onondaga. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the Onondaga circuit, the 12 th 0f September, 1808.
    
      The plaintiff gave in evidence an award, of the Onondaga commissioners, dated the 11th of December, 1798, in favour of Ogden, one of the lessors. A dissent to this award, in behalf of John Taylor, was entered on the 11th of November, 1800. The plaintiff also gave in evidence, a deed from Ogden to Fonda, the other lessor, dated the 19th of December, 1806.
    The defendant proved, that he was in possession of the premises, in 1793 ; and, notice having been given to the plaintiff to produce the deed, the defendant proved that ini 796, or 1797, Ogden gave a deed of the lot to Worthington Ely, in fee, and that Ely gave his note for the purchase-money ; that it was agreed between Ogden and Ely, that the former should go forward and substantiate his title to the lot, before the commissioners, as Ely dare not appear in Albany, on account of debts, and that an award to Ogden would secure Ely’s title. There was some dispute, afterwards, between Ogden and Ely, about the lot, and Ogden said, he had got Ely’s deed, and that he kept it to coerce payment. He admitted that Ely had paid him 70 dollars. After the award, Ogden said that Ely should not have the land until he paid him; and that he thought it a good opportunity to save himself, as he had got Ely’s deed. Ely left his deed with Mr. Graham, whom he employed as counsel. Ogden took the deed from the table before the commissioners, without the leave of Mr. Graham. After the award, Ogden told Ely the award was in his (Ely’s) favour. Ely died in 1807. The defendant gave in evidence a deed, dated the 13th of January, 1800, from Ely to him, for 50 acres, part of the lot No. 78. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case, containing the above facts.
    Cady, for the plaintiff.
    The award of the commissioners is final and conclusive, as to the title of Ogden It is to be considered, in the nature of a judgment, by which all parties are bound; and is not to. be impeached in any way, or by any person, except in the manner prescribed by the statute, that is, by filing a dissent. In December, 1800, after the lapse of two years, the award was binding on all persons, who had not entered a dissent. The deed from Ely to Teele, given in January, 1800, ought not to háve been received in evidence. The award is as conclusive as a judgment in a real action.
    Again, the possession of Teele was not adverse. He entered, in 1793, without title; and in 1796 he claimed to hold under Ogden.
    
    
      Gold, contra.
    The legislature, by the 6th section of the act, (2 Rev. Laws, 256. sess. 20. c. 51.) contemplated only adverse claims. The commissioners had no jurisdiction in a case between a grantor and grantee, there being no dispute as to the deed. There can be no “ interfering claims,” between grantor and grantee ; their rights are under one and the same claim. No grantee, however wary and vigilant, would ever think.it necessary to enter a dissent to an award in favour of his grantor. The intendment is, as between grantor and grantee, that their rights, under the same claim, are not disputed. Ogden went forward as the. agent of Ely. Fonda never pretended to make any claim, after the. award.
   [Kent, Ch. J.

An award in favour of the grantor must enure to the benefit of the grantee.]

Again, Teele entered, in 1793, without claim or right. To whom then did his possession enure ? To the right owner ; that is, to Ogden, from whom Teele derives his title. So there is a conjunction of possession and right. A possession, not originally adverse, may become so, by a subsequent purchase.

If a man makes a lease of land which is not his, and he afterwards purchase it; the lease will bind him, and he is estopped to say the land was not his. Ogden cannot set up any claim, under the award, against his deed ' j-w to Ely.

Cady, in reply, insisted, that by the third section of the act, the award is “ binding and conclusive against all persons,” except those who enter their dissent within two years. If this is not to be the construction, then the awards of the commissioners are never conclusive j but may be inquired into in all cases. Even if an award was obtained by fraud; yet the party aggrieved by such award must enter his dissent.

Gold said, fraud was an exception in all cases; and cited 1 Fonbl. 322. Doug. 630. Talbot, 61. 3 P. Wms. 844.

Cady observed, that if a person, knowing a judgment or decree, purchases, though for a full value, such purchase is void. (Devon v. Watts, Doug. 88.)

Per Curiam.

The award in favour of Ogden, the grantor, enured to the benefit of Ely, his grantee. It was an award in favour of that title. None but.the party aggrieved was to dissent. The act, appointing the Onondaga commissioners, applied only to interfering and adverse claims. It did not apply to grantor and grantee, when there was no dispute between them. The act would work monstrous injustice, on the construction contended for on the part of the plaintiffs, that the award concluded even an innocent, unsuspecting grantee under the party who procured the award, as a shield to his original title. Ihe award, even if considered as a newly acquired title in favour of Ogden, enured in favour of Ely 3-for Ogden cannot claim against his prior deed to Ely „• and Fonda, to whom he sold, is equally precluded. (Jackson v. Bull, 1 Johns„ Cas 31.) And, at any rate, the sale to him,was void; for there was, at the time of the sale, a possession in the defendant, adverse to any existing title in Ogden. Judgment ought, therefore, to be rendered for the defendant.

Judgment for the defendant. 
      
      
         2 Caines' Rep. 183.
     
      
      
         1 Ld. Raym. 729. 6 Mod. 258. Wm. Jones, 459.
     
      
       See Jackson, ex dem. Dunbar and others, v. Todd, (6 Johns. Rep. 257.)