The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-07
JUSTICE FIELDS DECISION.
The Compliments Had Not Clearly Es-
tGbLished Proof of Fraud.

The CofnpIGindnts Had Not Clearly Es-
tGbished Proof of Fraud.
WASHINGTON, D. c., May 6.-The
United States Supreme Court, in affirming
the decision of the United States Circuit
Court for the Northern District of Califor-
MIA in the case James M. Teall, Timothy
II. Teall and Harvey Benedict (appellants)
VS.. A. Schroeder, Thomas Boden, Peter
MCGUIRE and over 300 other residents of
San Jose, delivered an opinion, which was
read by Justice Field.
In reviewing the case Justice Field said:
"This suit brought in California court
by residents of New York against 3S7 resi-
dents of California, to enforce transfer by
the latter to omplainants of certain lands
in San Jose, and represented as covering a
large part OF that city. There are various
charges made as TO the manner in which
defendants came into possession Of the
property, imputing fraudulent conduct on
their part and involving the interposition
of equity powers of the court for its cor
rection.
1.-THE bill was filed in June, 1889, in which
it is alleged that Oliver Teall was owner
and possessor of the San Jose property in
1857; that he executed power of attorney
to Davis Devine to dispose of the lands,
reposing in him confidence and empower
ing him to use discretion in leasing or sell
ing; the instrument was dated March 16,
1852 and was in force until Teall died, in
August, 1857; Devine took possession Au-
gust 1, 1857, and continued in possession
until his DEATH that in violation of the
trust imposed in him Devine did, on that
day and date, unknown to the defendants,
convey to A. L. Rhodes a quitclaim bear
ing date of August 1, 1857, the considera-
ton mentioned being $4,000: and on the
same day Rhodes, by similar deed, recon-
veyed all of the said property to Devine,
Clara County.
1.-THE bill alleges fraudulent convey
ances, in that there was no real considera-
tion, and the transfer was not authorized
by Teall, and was not ratified by him; that
the whole transaction was with the inten-
tion of defrauding Teall. 1t is further
alleged that the conveyance of Devine to
Rhodes and of Rhodes back to Devine was
not executed until after the death of Teall.
at is apparent that the allegations of
fraud on the part of Devine and Rhodes
are not, within the knowledge of the facts,
frauds, but upon surmises and inferences.
Although Teall lived in Syracuse until
1857, when he died, nothing appears to
show, that he ever revoked the power of at
torney, or that Devine ever communicated
with complainants respecting the property
or that Devine ever consulted Teall or re-
mitted him any money on account of said
lands. Teall never exercised any control
or claimed the right to do SO. After Tealls
removal from California, Devine claimed
to be the owner, and no one questioned it
as far as shown.
"In the meantime San Jose greatly in
creased in population and wealth from
small town to city of 10000 inhabitants,
em attracting many large houses and public /!
buildings, and became noted for the beauty
of it's scenery and healthfulness of its
climate. From these advantages it natur-
ally became an attractive place of residence
in the State, and was the seat of many in |
stitutions of learning. 1t was made the |
terminus of the overland railroad. and
rich and valuable quicksilver mines were
worked in its vicinity. Meantime the |
Mexican Government confirmed a grant |
embracing this land, and the United |
States issued a patent therefor to the |
authorities as the successors of |
the Pueblo, and those holding by deed |
from Devine were vested with ownership. |
Such titles have always been maintained |
and respected.
"Thirty-two years after Tealls death |
and fourteen after Devine's, when the evi- |
dence of such transactions had passed !
from recollection, complaints from New
York came forward in suit for recovery.
The defendants in this case demurred that
a long time had passed: that the COM
plainants were barred by Californias stat
ute of limitation, and that their cause
was stale under the general rules of
equity jurisprudence; that the power of
attorney of Teall to Devine was open to
the inspection of the com mplainants; that
they could have ascertained from Teall be-
fore his death the character of the title
The court below ruled that the demurrers
were well taken and dismissed the bill.
la