On a consideration of all the proof in this case, the Court
holds (1) that Boyd was a party to the proceedings which
resulted in his removal from his office as executor, and (2) that
there is no reason to reverse the decree of the court below on the
merits.
This was a bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Western District of Louisiana on September
10, 1881, on behalf of Mary E. R. Boyd, wife of Frederick W. Boyd,
by her son and next friend, James R. Boyd, citizens of Wisconsin,
against William G. Wyly and Charles Egelly, of the Parish of East
Carroll, citizens of Louisiana, and to which by an amendment
Frederick W. Boyd, of Wisconsin, was made an additional defendant
as dative testamentary executor of the last will of James Railey,
late of Adams County, Mississippi. The bill averred that on
February 1, 1860, James Railey, the father of the complainant, made
his last will, and died in the summer of that year, leaving large
estates in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana which were disposed
of by the will, bequeathing to the complainant a certain plantation
in the Parish of Carroll, Louisiana, known as the Raleigh
Plantation; that James G. Carson was named in the will as executor;
that the will was duly probated in the proper court of the Parish
of Carroll, and that Carson qualified according to law as executor,
and took upon himself the burden of the execution of the will; that
an inventory and appraisement of the property of the succession in
the Parish of Carroll were made on December 12, 1860, and that the
lands of said Raleigh Plantation were valued at $119,393, which was
the fair and reasonable value of the same; that thereafter, Carson
having died, Frederick W. Boyd, the husband of the complainant, was
duly appointed dative testamentary executor of said will, and
Page 124 U. S. 99
qualified as such, and that on July 16, 1866, in due course of
administration, he caused the said Raleigh Plantation to be again
inventoried and appraised as containing 1935 acres at $55 per acre,
making in the aggregate $95,645, which was alleged to be the fair
and reasonable value of the same at that time.
The bill further alleged that in July, 1868, the defendants Wyly
and Egelly combined and confederated with Edward Sparrow and J.
West Montgomery, attorneys at law, and with divers other persons to
defraud the complainant by procuring, under the forms of law, a
sale to Wyly of the Raleigh Plantation at a price far below its
real value; that to accomplish the said fraud, they took advantage
of the temporary absence of Frederick W. Boyd, the dative
testamentary executor, and instituted on July 16, 1868, proceedings
in the Parish Court of Carroll Parish to destitute him from his
said office and to procure the appointment of Egelly as
administrator of the succession; that Boyd was not made a party to
the proceedings, either personally or by the appointment of a
curator
ad hoc to represent him, and had no notice of the
proceedings, nor of any subsequent proceedings resulting in the
sale of the Raleigh Plantation to Wyly until after the same had
been consummated; that on the same day on which said proceedings to
destitute Boyd of the executorship were instituted (merely upon the
ex parte affidavit of Montgomery, one of the lawyers who
had instituted the proceedings), judgment was rendered removing the
executor from his office, and thereafter, on September 16, 1868,
the defendant Egelly was appointed administrator of the succession,
and gave bond as such, with his attorney, Montgomery, as
surety.
The bill further alleged that on the same day, the proceedings
for the destitution of the executor were instituted and ended, July
16, 1868, an order was obtained for a new inventory and
appraisement of the property of the succession, and that the
defendants, Wyly and Egelly, in combination with Montgomery, caused
such an inventory and appraisement to be made on September 4, 1868,
by ignorant and incompetent appraisers, who corruptly and
fraudulently appraised the value
Page 124 U. S. 100
of the lands of the Raleigh Plantation at the insignificant sum
of $2,533.05. The bill further alleged that under the pretext that
it was necessary to sell the said plantation in order to pay debts
of said succession to the amount of $46,000, of which $6,000 were
alleged to be due to Sparrow & Montgomery, as attorneys of the
estate, an order was obtained from the parish court for the sale of
the same for cash, and that after a single advertisement in an
obscure paper, the plantation was, without the knowledge of the
complainant or the said Frederick W. Boyd, on October 20, 1868,
fraudulently adjudicated to Wyly for the said sum of $2,533.05,
being at the rate of $1.50 per acre for the said lands. The bill
further alleged that the fraudulent character of the transaction
was well known to Wyly, who participated therein and who thereby
became a purchaser of the said plantation in bad faith, and should
be held in equity to have acquired the legal title to the said
Raleigh Plantation in trust for the complainant, responsible to her
from the date of his purchase for the rents and revenues thereof.
The bill further alleged that shortly after the adjudication of the
plantation to Wyly, he sued out in the proper court a process known
to the law of Louisiana as a monition, alleging that he was an
innocent third party who had purchased the plantation in good
faith, and praying for an adjudication of homologation of title,
which was accordingly entered.
The bill charged that under the laws of Louisiana, said judgment
of homologation of title extended only to the cure of defects of
form, and not to the validation and ratification of acts of fraud
and spoliation, such as are alleged to have infected the pretended
purchase of said property by Wyly. The bill called for answers, but
not under oath, and prayed for a decree declaring the pretended
sale of the Raleigh Plantation by the said Egelly to Wyly on
October 20, 1868, to be collusive, fraudulent, null and void, and
that Wyly was a purchaser thereof in bad faith, and that he be
required to deliver possession thereof to the complainant, to
account to her for the fruits and revenues thereof, and for general
relief.
The defendants, Wyly and Egelly, answered the bill setting up
various technical objections to its frame in bar of the relief
Page 124 U. S. 101
prayed, and also denying positively and circumstantially all
allegations therein imputing or charging fraud in the sale and
purchase of the said plantation.
The cause was heard upon the pleadings and full proofs, when the
court found that Wyly had acquired by the proceedings referred to a
valid title to the property without fraud in fact or in law on his
part, and was entitled as a purchaser in good faith to the
protection of the defense based upon the statutory prescription of
ten years. The bill was accordingly dismissed, from which decree
this appeal was prosecuted.
Page 124 U. S. 102
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS, after stating the facts as above,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The first point raised in argument on the part of the
complainant is as to the validity of the proceeding in the court of
East Carroll Parish, by which Frederick W. Boyd was, in the
language of the Louisiana law, destituted of his office as dative
testamentary executor and the defendant Egelly substituted in his
place. It is alleged in the bill and insisted upon in argument that
this proceeding was had without any actual, and without any legal
constructive, notice to Boyd, and that it is therefore null and
void. It is charged as a consequence that Egelly became not the
rightful executor, but executor
de son tort, and that of
this Wyly had notice imputed to him by law, because shown by the
record. It is thence argued as an inference reasonably to be
deduced that the proceeding must have been in pursuance of the
fraud charged in the bill, and, taken in connection with the
subsequent proceedings and their result, constitutes proof of the
fraud charged.
It appears from a transcript of the record of the
proceedings
Page 124 U. S. 103
in question that on July 16, 1868, there was filed in the office
of the Parish Court for the Parish of Carroll a petition on behalf
of certain creditors of the succession of James Railey, among whom
are named Edward Sparrow and J. W. Montgomery, in which it is
alleged that Frederick W. Boyd, after qualifying as dative
testamentary executor in 1866, had leased out the plantation for
one year and cultivated it himself during the year 1867; that he
had never filed any account of his administration, but had
appropriated and used the rents and revenues of the estate for his
individual benefit, without paying any of the creditors any portion
of their just dues; that he had abandoned his administration, and
had no domicile or residence in the state, and was permanently
absent therefrom; that he had never given any sufficient bond for
the faithfulness of his administration, the sureties thereon being
insolvent, and had no property in the parish nor in the state, and
that he had left no power of attorney authorizing anyone to
represent him in the management of the estate. The petitioners
therefore prayed that the office of the said Boyd and the
administration of the estate might be declared to be vacated and
unrepresented; that Boyd be decreed to have abandoned his trust,
and that, in order to protect the interest of the creditors, an
administrator be appointed to finish the administration of the
estate, and that Egelly be appointed thereto. This petition was
signed on behalf of the petitioners by Sparrow and Montgomery as
their attorneys, and was verified by the affidavit of
Montgomery.
Among the papers on file in the matter of this proceeding in the
parish court appears one styled "Opposition of F. W. Boyd," which
is as follows:
"To the Hon. Geo. C. Benham, Parish Judge in and for the Parish
of Carroll, Louisiana:"
"The petition of Frederick W. Boyd, a resident of the State of
Mississippi, with respect shows that he is the duly appointed
executor of the last will and testament of Jas. Railey, late
resident of your said parish and state; that he had duly
administered the property of the succession of the said Railey
Page 124 U. S. 104
since his appointment and confirmation as executor under the
will. Petitioner further shows that an application has been made to
your honorable court praying that E. R. Egelly, Esq., be appointed
dative testamentary executor of the said succession,
notwithstanding your petitioner is acting as executor of the
same."
"Wherefore your petitioner prays that the said application be
rejected, and that the said applicant pay all costs of this
proceeding, and for all general relief."
This is signed by Goodrich, Pilcher & Montgomery, as
attorneys. There are no official marks upon it showing the fact or
date of its being filed. The testimony of Charles M. Pilcher, one
of the firm who signed it, is that the document was written by him
from a memorandum given to him by his partner, Goodrich, who was
the member of the firm who had charge, during the administration of
Boyd, of the business of the succession of the Railey estate. The
witness states that the paper was prepared and filed, as he
believes, on behalf of Boyd by virtue of authority of the firm to
act for him, and he states as his belief that when prepared and
filed, it was upon a full sheet of paper, upon the back of which
the style of the case was noted, and on which would also be
endorsed the fact and date of its being filed in court, and that
the paper bears evidence of having been since mutilated by this
half sheet being torn off. F. F. Montgomery, the only other
surviving member of the firm whose name appears signed to the paper
in question, was examined as a witness, and has no recollection of
the paper nor of the transaction, but testifies that the document
is in the handwriting of his partner Pilcher. Another witness, R.
J. London, testified that he was deputy clerk of the court at the
time when these proceedings took place, and, having examined the
document, stated that he believed it to be the original opposition
of Boyd to the appointment of C. R. Egelly; that his impression is
that it was marked "Filed," and put among the mortuary papers of
the succession of James Railey by himself as deputy clerk,
though
Page 124 U. S. 105
the part of the sheet upon which the title was written and the
filing endorsed thereon seemed to have been torn off. The
handwriting is that of Charles M. Pilcher. He says:
"I know that an opposition was filed, and my impression is that
the document marked 'B' is the one. The opposition I refer to was
regularly filed and put away among the mortuary papers, as was
customary in like cases."
Frederick W. Boyd was not called by the complainant as a
witness, though he was a party defendant in the cause, having
entered his appearance in person, but filed no answer, permitting a
decree to be taken against him by default. If the facts were as
alleged on behalf of the complainant -- that this proceeding, by
which he was removed from his office, was without notice to him --
the fact could easily have been established by his oath. The
allegations contained in the petition for his removal -- that he
had abandoned his duties and deserted his trust as dative
testamentary executor of the estate of Railey, and that he had no
domicile or place of residence in the locality or in the state --
are not denied by him, nor does he deny that the firm of Goodrich,
Pilcher & Montgomery were authorized to oppose the application
for his removal, and that they in fact appeared for him for that
purpose. The conclusion therefore cannot be resisted that he was an
actual party to the proceeding which resulted in his removal from
his office as executor, and that the appointment of Egelly in his
place to continue the unfinished administration of the succession
was valid.
The next point urged in support of the equity of the bill is
that the sum at which the plantation was valued by the appraisers
and sold to the defendant Wyly is so grossly inadequate compared
with the true value of the property as to shock the conscience of
the court and to furnish full proof of the fraudulent means by
which it was effected and of the fraudulent motives and intent of
the parties in effecting it. A large mass of testimony in the case
bears upon this point. It is undoubtedly true that, compared with
the previous appraisements of the property and with its real value
prior to the breaking out of the civil war in 1861, the price at
which
Page 124 U. S. 106
the plantation was sold to Wyly appears grossly out of
proportion, and several witnesses are called who do testify that
the appraisement was below what it ought to have been when made in
1868. On cross-examination, however, some of these very witnesses
also show by their testimony that the standard in their own minds
by which they test the fairness of the appraisement is their
opinion of the intrinsic value of the property to hold and to use
in reference to the future, and not the actual market value of the
property at the time to be sold for cash.
It also abundantly appears from the evidence in the cause that
immediately at the close of the war in 1865 and during that year
and the following year, 1866, there were a great many speculative
enterprises entered into by persons from the northern states
investing large sums of cash capital in the cultivation of cotton
plantations in the expectation of large profits. These expectations
were not realized; on the contrary, almost universally they
resulted in disaster; the pecuniary losses usually absorbing the
entire amount invested. A reaction immediately set in, producing a
corresponding depression in values. There was scarcely any cash
capital in the country for investment. In addition to this, the
labor of the country was disorganized as a result of the war and of
the political and social disorders which followed it. According to
the proof in the case, this disorganization seemed so complete and
so hopeless as to paralyze the business and industry of the
community and to lead quite a number to such a despair of the
situation as to induce them to abandon the country in order to
better their fortunes by emigration to Mexico and South America.
The result of the testimony on this point is stated very moderately
by the district judge, Boarman, in his opinion in this case, in the
following extract, 18 F. 355:
"In the early years after the war, the testimony in this case
affirms what is historically known to be true -- that the section
of the state in which the Raleigh Plantation is situate was, by
overflows and other physical and moral causes, almost entirely
bereft of its old-time prosperity and value. The plantation
Page 124 U. S. 107
was greatly damaged by previous overflows, and had but little
fencing, and it is shown by defendant Wyly that he, shortly after
purchasing it, expended $25,000 in improvements. Defendant has
shown, whatever may have been the general causes that depreciated
property on the Mississippi River in 1868, that many thousand acres
of land, as valuable as the plantation in question, were sold for
prices not unlike the paltry price at which Wyly bought his place.
The testimony as to the scarcity of ready money, as to the price
for which much valuable land sold when disposed of at forced sale,
and as to the political, moral, and physical bankruptcy of the
country leads me to believe that the complainant and the unpaid
creditors of her father's succession were victims to the
indifferent management and neglect of the executor, and to the
physical and moral prostration of the country, which was apparent
everywhere in Louisiana in the early years following the end of the
war, rather than to the acts of any of these several
defendants."
The defendant Wyly took a more hopeful view, and, upon the basis
of a well grounded faith in the future of his country, he was
willing to invest his money in real estate abandoned by its owners
upon valuations made under the authority and with the sanction of
the proper judicial tribunals of the locality.
We have examined with scrutiny and weighed with care all the
evidence in this cause, and every consideration urged upon us by
the zeal and ability of the counsel for the complainant, with a
view to ascertain and secure to her just rights. We are unable to
discover any sufficient proof of the particulars of the fraud by
which, as she complains, she has been wronged. The sale to the
defendant Wyly, however advantageous it has proved to be to him, in
our opinion has not been impeached. The decree of the circuit court
was therefore right, and is hereby
Affirmed.
