St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-07-06
HIS LAST HOPE GONE.
Pierre Naddo Fails to Secure
a Desirable Slice Of
Property
In the City of Duluth, to
Which He Has Long Laid
Claim.
He Allowed His Title to Lapse
and Excuses Will Not Re-
store It.
Federal Court Of Appeals
Files Several Other kMp
portant Deeision9.

peais handed down opinions in eight
cases yesterday. One of these involves
the title to forty acres of town lots in
the city of Duluth, or what is known as
the "West Park Division of Duluth"
The town lots are owned by about one
hundred persons. who were made parties
to the suit. The cause is that of Pierre
NaddO, appellant, VS.. James Bardon and
others. 1t was an appeal from decis-
ion of Judge R. r. Nelson, of the cir
cult court of Minnesota. Judge Nelson
had sustained the demurrer and dis
missed the bill of complaint, thus de-
Gliding that the present Occupiers of the
lots are entitled to the full ownership
thereof. Justice Brewer, of the SUI
preme court of the United States, de-
livered the opinion of the circuit court
of appeals, which affirms the court
below.
The facts in the case are as follows:
Inc forty acres were patented to Pierre
NaddO by the United States, June l,
1868. A few days later he executed a
paper, in the form of warranty deed,
to his nephew, Pierre Etu, and moved
to Quebec, Canada. The paper gave
Etu power to manage the land. On July
hO lCtutuCQ anu Ltu WcuI W SdIlduu.
deciding back to his uncle. the deed be-
ing in French and executed according
to the Canadian law. but not witnessed
nor acknowledged according to the laws
of Minnesota. In September. 1870,
Naddo went to Marquette county, Mich
igan, where he stayed twelve years, and
again went to Canada to reside. He
never
Revisited the Lands.
On Sept. "a, 1870, he gave power of
attorney to one Richard G. COburn to
sell the lands with the power of SUBJ
stitution. In 1872 j. d. Ensign sued the
plaintiff in the district court of st. Louis
county and a writ of attachment issued.
John G. Hunter, of Duluth, for $500.
BY sherIff's deed the title passed to
James Bardon. On March z, 1874, James
BardOn was substituted by Richard G.
COburn as agent for the plaintiff, and on
May Is, 1874, Bardon quit claimed to
John @. Hubbard, and the next
day Hubbard reconveyed to Bardon.
This latter deed was not recorded until
over a year later, Oh June 4. 1875. On
May IA. 1873, Pierre Etu quit claimed to
BardOn. who represented that lie had a
defect in his title when this deed would
cure. In June, 1875, Bardon bought the
land at tax sale for back taxes Of 1872,
and took the deed to himself. In 1878
the land was again sold for the taxes of
1874, was bid in by Mary Bardon, and
by her conveyed to her brother, James
Bardon. In Feb. 4, 1850, Bardon decided
to Henry W. Sage for $2,25O. Several
other transfers succeeded till ali titles
finally merged in Frederick w. Paine,
Duluth OH June ~. 1886. The present.
suit was begun on May II, 1891. and
some ninety-four persons were made de-
PENDANTS.
Brewers Opinion. ,'95
Justice Brewer, in his opinion, makes
the following observations:
mo doctrine is so wholesome. when
wisely administered. as that OF laches.
1t prevents the resurrection of state
titles and fOrbids the spying out from
the records of ancient and abandoned
rights. 1t requires of every owner that
he take care of his property, and of
every claimant that he make known his
claims. 1t gives to the actual and long
possessOr security, and induces and JUS
titles him in efforts to improve and make
valuable the property he holds. 1t is a
doctrine received with favor, because its
proper application works out justice
and equity, and often bars the holder
of mere technical right, which
he has abandoned for years, 1
from enforcing it when its enforcement
viii work large injury to many. The
general facts we have stated instantly
suggest that this is proper case in
which to apply and enforce that doc
trine. In 1870 the plaintiff left the
property and moved to distant county.
For twenty years he never saw the
property and never did anything to pro-
tect his possessions or give notice of
any rights in it. Seventeen years be-
fore the cOmmencement of this suit the
legal title passed from him, and so
passed by recorded deed made py an
agent under power of attorney if not by
the Ensign judgment sale. Two tax
titles i'll 1875 and 1878 were added to
those made by the sheriff's sale and the
deed under power OF attorney, and
thirteen years elapsed after these
titles were placed on record with
no note of warning from him to any one
that he still claimed or had any right in
the property. Duluth was small place
in 1878 of 3,13l Inhabitants; in 1890 it
had become pOpulous and prosperous
city of SO, lis inhabitants. This increase
in population and the development of
railroad and other industries. of which
the court may fairly take judicial no
tice, make it evident that this addition
to the city must have wonderfully in
creased in value. Nearly one hundred
persons have built houses OH the prop
erty. Equity and good conscience for
bid that they should now be dispossessed
of homes and local improvements unless
there be some strong and clear excuse
for his silence in asserting his rights.
In any view of the case, it seems that If
any rights remained to the plaintiff |
after the sale, his long delay in asserting
them has not been excused, and that |
the decree of the circuit court in dis
missing the bill on the ground of laches