Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-03-19

A Case Pending In the supreme Court which
May Affect Consiternble District Property.


May Affect Considerable District Property.
A case argued in the Supreme Court of the
United States this week affecting the title to a
valuable square of ground in this city raises
some interesting questions. Tho decision. al
any rate if it is in favor of the appellants, will
it is thought, have most important bearing
on many titles to real estate in the District
In the case in question holders of tax title.
avowedly invalid. but claiming legal title by
long adverse possession. have gone into court
as compiainants, to have the record title de-
clared q cloud upon what the compliments
claim to be their real title and to obtain an in
junction against the assertion Of this record
title.
The proceedings is n novel one. There were
really two cases, but as they were precisely the
same in every particular excepting as 10 the
parties to the suits, the two cases were heard
as one. In the first case, No. 1924. f. W.
Sharon and F. G. Newlands, trustees. were the
plaintiffs and appellants and J. Randolph
Tucker ct al were the defendants and APP
pellees- In the second case, No. 1925. Thos.
J. Fisher was the plaintiff and appellant
The case was argued by c. j. Hlllycr and ].
H. Ralston. attorneys for plaintiffs and appel
lants, and Eppa Hunton and Henry Wise Gar
nett, for defendants.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
From the statement Of the case by the at
torneys for the plaintiffs and appellants it APP
pears that in 1928 Thomas Tudor Tucker died
seized of the ground in controversy, a portion
Oh square Isl, in this city, situated between
18th and 18th and and streets northwest.
The legal title passed to his heirs. while the
entire beneficial interest therein passed
to his creditors and legatees. In 1887
the property was sold for delinquent taxes as
sessed against the heirs, and was purchased by
Joseph Abbott The amount OF the tax was
xyalf, n rtxrs
and the amount bid by Abbott $3.50. In 1910
Abbott received tax deed purpostng to con-
yey to him complete title to the square, but
| this deed WAS invalid for want of proper obsery-
ance by the officers Of several OF the essential
preiinlinaries in assessing, advertising and SELL
ing. There Is, however, the appellants say, no
reason to suppose that Abbott had knowledge
| OF its invalidity. In 1S4l. according to tue
statement of the case made by the appellants,
Abbott took possession of the square and in
closed 1t by substan tial fence anu hedge. Until
1854 he kept il inclosed and raised crops upon
it each year. In 1854 he leased the prop
erty to one Beckett for period of ten years at
a yearly rental of Sl00. Beckett kept it in
closed and cultivated it until the autumn of
1862, when a number of soldiers, quartered
near by, committed such depredations
upon the fencing, buildings and crops
that Beckett was compelled to discon-
tinue its cultivation. Meantime
Abbott, dying in 1861 devised the square spe-
officially to his widow, who sold and conveyed
it In 1868 to A. j. Perry. Perry did not. how
ever, cultivate or reinclose the square, but con-
tinued a man previously employed by Mrs. Alb
bott in charge of the property until 1865, when
he sold the entire square to Henry A. Willard
for 917.600. That year Willard placed on file a
subdivision OF the square proposed by Perry
into small lots for residence buildings. and
upon the street side erected twelve substan-
tial dwelling houses all of which have been
continuously occupied until the commence
ment of the present suit. In 1872 Willard sold
and conveyed the portion of the square
In controversy to j. NJ. Latta, trustee. for
S23 1874, which was then. it is claimed. the fair
market value Of the ground, with good title.
From Latta the title descended by regular con-
veyances to the complainants. and since his
purchase the premises have not been inclosed
or put TO any beneficial use.
FILING BILL IN EQUITY.
Some time before the commencement of
these actions the desire of the compliments to
make sales led to thorough investigation OF
the title, when the worthlessness Of the tax deed
as a source of title discovered. In conse-
quence OF this they were unable to obtain any
abstract of title which purchaser would ac-
cept. Ii was then that the plaintiffs
(appellants) filed a bill in equity against the
defendants (appellees), the heirs OF Thos. Tudor
Tucker, for the purpose of having their appar-
ent legal title declared to be a cloud upon what
was claimed to be tie real title of the complain
| against ats assertion. The bill avcrred title
in plaintiffs by virtue of adverse pos
session commenced under the invalid tax
deed and continued to the filing of
the bill, and that the apparent record title of
defendants seriously embarrassed any DISPOSE
ton Of the property. The defendants an
swered, denying the title of the compliments
and asserting ownership in themselves as heirs
Of Tucker, and denying that complainants were
entitled to equitable relief. The Equity
Court dismissed the bill on the ground
that without respect to the
lidity of their title the complainants we're
not entitled to relief in equity. An appeal
to the Court in General Term resulted in an
affirmation of the Equity Courts decision, and
the appeal to the United States Supreme Court
was then taken.
A CLAIM BASED ON ADVERSE POSSESSION.
The plaintiffs base their right to the prop
erty not OH the tax decd. but ON the ground
that an adverse possession for the statutory
period vests in the possessor an absolute
title, but the defendants contended that the
evidence in the did not show such
open, notorious and continuous possession
OF the land as Was necessary TO establish such
title. and that even they, if they had estab-
lished title by adverse possession, were not
entitled to the relief prayed for in their
bill The Equity Court seems to have refused
the relief asked for on the ground that as
the defendants were not in actual possession
they could not be enjoined. In other words,
the compliments assumed the very novel posi-
ton of asking the court to declare that there
was q cloud on their title and then asking that
the defendants be enjoiiied from asserting that
very thing.