Washington v. Opie

delivered the opinion of the court.

Heirome L. Opie, by deed dated January 1, 1856, conveyed to Henry W. Castleman two tracts of land in Jefferson County, then in Yirginia, now in West Yirginia-—-one tract containing 596 acres and the other '419 acres —for the price of $41,733.66-|, of which $10,000 was paid at the time in cash, and for the remainder the grantee gave his bonds, or single bills, bearing interest from date and payable annually; two for $5000 each, payable, respectively, on the first days of January, 1857 and 185S, and six for $3622.27f each, payable respectively on the first days of January, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864. These bonds were secured by a deed of trust to Robert Y. Conrad, which was duly acknowledged by Castleman and recorded January 2, 1856.

When this transaction occurred both Opie and Castleman

.The bonds maturing in January, 1857, 1858, 1859 and 1860, principal and interest, as. Avell as the interest due on all the others up to January 1, 1861, were paid to Heirome L. Opie in his lifetime; presumably, in lawful money. In the fall of 1862 Castleman paid to his personal representatives the entire amount of the bonds maturing in 1861 and 1862. This payment was made at Staunton in what was knoAvn as Confederate- treasury notes, which, at the time, constituted the principal, if not the only, circulating medium in that locality, and passed current in the county where Castleman resided. The bonds so paid were surrendered to Castleman.

On the 1st of February, 1863, and 4th of January, 1864, respectively, Castleman paid, through others, to the personal representatives of Opie the full amount of the bonds falling due in those years. The payments were made in • what Avas commonly called Virginia money, that is, Virginia bank nates issued prior to the civil Avar. Each bond so paid was delivered to Castleman, or to his agent, at the time of payment.

When the last bond, the one maturing in 1864, was paid, the personal representatives of Opie executed and delivered to Castleman’s agent, through whom it Avas paid, a written order addressed to the trustee in the deed of 1856, directing the release of the lien created by that instrument. This order having been presented to the trustee, he made his deed of September 7, 1865, (which Avas duly acknowledged the same day,) referring to. the deed of 1856, and the bonds secured by it, and declaring: - “ And whereas said Castleman hath pro

The plaintiff, in his deposition, given in.his own behalf, referring to the payment of the bonds, said: “ I first learned of their payment shortly after they were made. I received my first information from the personal representatives of my father’s estate. ... I know that three of the bonds were paid in Confederate money because Castleman told me so, as did also the personal representatives of my father’s estate. The payment made-in 1861 was made by Mr. Sinclair [for Castleman] in Yirginia bank notes. I know this because I got a portion of them after the war. . . . The Confederate money paid by Castleifian was put into Confederate bonds, which I saw afterwards. The Yirginia money was held until after the war and divided between the heirs, but it was worthless, the Yirginia banks having all their money in Confederate bonds, and were so compelled ' by law. Quite a number of bank notes were returned to Castleman by my mother after the war. I saw them mailed to Castleman. The whole was an entire loss to the distributees of my father’s estate.”

The present suit was brought by the appellee, H. L. Opie, December é, 1880, the original defendants being Castleman, Nannie S. Opie, Thomas Opie, John N. Opie and Mary Meade, formerly Mary Opie. Castleman answered, but the bill was taken for confessed as to the other defendants. The executors of Conrad were made parties defendant, and an order recites that they appeared and answered, but the record does not contain their answers.

Subsequently, September 1, 1885, the plaintiff filed a second bill of complaint, stating' more fully his cause of action. The

The principal relief asked was that Castleman be required to pay “in good, lawful money so much of said purchase-money, single bills and interest thereon, as has not been paid in good, lawful money,” and that in default thereof a trustee be appointed by the court, to sell the real estate to pay off the price “ in good and lawful money ” to the legal representátives or distributees of Heirome L. Opie, according to their respective rights, including the widow.

Castleman demurred to the bill as insufficient in law, and, also, filed an answer denying all the material allegations of the bill. Answers were also filed by Mrs. Meade and John N. Opie, in which they pray that the release of the deed of trust be set aside. But they do not file cross-bills, or make any direct issue, in that mode, with Castleman.

It should be stated in this, connection that by deed executed by Castleman March the 22d, 1878, and which was duly recorded, a part of the lands purchased by him from Heirome L. Opie in 1856 was conveyed in trust- to secure a debt due by bond to the executor of E. I. Smith, which, on the 1st of August, 1887, amounted, principal and interest, to $5706.67. This debt originated in 1863, the Yirginia bank notes paid in that year to Opie’s personal representatives having been borrowed by Castleman. from Smith.

By an interlocutory decree, passed September 30, 1887, 32 Fed. Rep. 511 , it was adjudged that the payments made by Castleman of the above bonds, due in 1861, 1862, 1863 and 186!, -were illegal and void, and that the release, of the deed of. trust by Conrad was of no effect; but, that, inasmuch as the widow and Thomás Opie acquiesced in and consented to

The allegation, in the bill, that the personal representatives of Opie were’induced by fear or persuasion to accept Confederate money in payment of Castleman’s bonds falling due in 1861 and 1862, and Virginia bank notes in payment of those falling due in 1863 and 1864, is unsupported by the evidence. Nor is there any proof of fraud committed by Castleman, unless it was a fraud upon his part to pay his bonds in the only kind of money that was current or in general use in. the locality where he and they, at the time of payment resided. Castle-man testified that the personal representatives of Opie accepted Confederate notes in payment of the bonds of 1861 and 1862-without the slightest hesitation or objection, and on the occasion of that payment expressed théir willingness to accept payment, in like money, of the bonds of 1863 and 1864; but that shortly before the maturity of the bond of 1863 he was notified by them to make payment in Virginia bank notes. And this demand was complied with by him. The bond of ■1863 was paid in money of that kind, and was surrendered by the personal representatives. Sinclair, through whom the bond of 1864 was paid, testifies that no objection was made by either,of the-personal representatives to payment in Virginia bank notes, and that the written order for the release of

But this is not all. Castleman testified that the plaintiff was present when the bonds of 1861 and 1862 were paid in Confederate notes, and counted out thé money for his mother. The plaintiff -testifies that he was not present at any of the payments. But the plaintiff admits that he learned, from the representatives of his father, of the payments of 1862 and 1863, shortly after they were made, and that after the war the Yirginia bank notes were divided among the heirs, he receiving his portion of them. It is absolutely certain, from the evidence, that the plaintiff knew at least fifteen years prior to the commencement of this action, that Castleman’s bonds, falling due in .1861,1862,1863, and 1864, were paid off, during the war, partly in Confederate money and partly in Yirginia bank notes. ■ And it cannot be doubted that these facts were known, during the whole of the same period, to Mary Opie, who reached her majority in January, 1863, and to John N. Opie, who reached his majority in March, 1865. If this were not so, they would have testified as witnesses, and stated the contrary.

Under such circumstances, is the plaintiff entitled to the aid of a court of equity as against the estate of Castleman ? Avowing his purpose not to hold the personal representatives of his father’s estate responsible for having accepted Confederate

The present case in some of its features is not unlike that of Glasgow v. Lipse, 117 U. S. 327 , 334. The facts in that case were these: Lipse’s executors having authority to dispose of the real property of the testator, who died in Virginia, sold certain lands in that State to Spears in 1860. One of the payments fell due in October, 1861, another in October, 1862. The bonds were paid in a check on a Virginia bank, which was deposited in that bank by .the resident executor who received it. Against that deposit the executor drew his checks, which were paid in Confederate notes. The principal question in the case was whether -the debtor was discharged from liability to pay his bonds in lawful money of the United States. This court, after referring to the doctrine declared by the Court of Appeals of Virginia, (Patteson v. Bondurant, 30 Gratt. 94 ,) that a debtor who pays to an executor in depreciated currency a debt payable in gold or its equivalent, knowing at the time that the currency is not needed for the payment of debts or legacies, or other uses of the estate, and that the safety* of the debt does not require its collection, may also be charged as a participant in the devastavit, said : “ The present case does not come under the doctrine. It falls within the class where, for debts payable in lawful money, the depreciated currency of the country where they were contracted and the executor resides can be used at its. face value in payment of legacies, and, therefore, may be accepted by him without -a breach of trust. The notes, received had in October, 1862, to a great extent, superseded the use of coin, and became the principal currency of the Confederate States. All business transactions there were had with reference to them. They were a standard of

The plaintiff alleges, in his bill, that his father’s estate was perfectly solvent; in nowise involved in debt. The only persons, therefore, interested in the collection of Castleman’s bonds were the widow and the children of Heirome L. Opie. The. court below correctly held that the widow and Thomas Opie were concluded, as to their interests, by the voluntary acceptance of Confederate money and Yirginia bank paper in dis: charge of Castleman’s obligations. Upon every principle, of justice, the plaintiff is equally concluded by his knowledge shortly after, if not at the time of, the surrender to Castleman of the bonds of 1861 and 1862, that they were paid in Confederate notes; by his voluntary acceptance of his part of the Yirginia bank notes paid by Castleman in discharge of the bonds of 1863 and 1864; and by his failure, for more than fifteen years, to assail, in' some direct legal mode, the validity and good faith of the settlements with Castleman. The reason given by the plaintiff why he was so long silent is, that he removed from Yirginia to Kentucky in 1873, and from the close of the civil war up to the fall of 1880 was not, although himself a lawyer, financially able to bring this suit or to carry it on. We cannot rfegard this as a sufficient excuse for his inaction, even if it had been .competent for him, after his accept

With respect to the interests of the two distributees, who were not of full age when Castleman paid the bonds of 1861 and 1862, it is only necessary to say that Mrs. Meade had reached her majority when Castleman made his last payment, and both were of full age when, after the war, the Virginia bank notes received from Castleman were divided among the distributees. We cannot suppose, from the evidence, that they .were ignorant of the settlements made by the personal representatives with Castleman. So far as the record discloses, no fraud was practised upon them'; nothing was concealed from them. When the Confederacy fell, Confederate notes and Virgihia bank notes, based upon Confederate bonds, became, of course; of no value. Then It was that Mrs. Opie sent back, by mail, to Castleman, some of the bank notes paid by him; those, perhaps, which she had retained for herself. At that time, if not before, all the facts were necessarily known to Mrs. Meade and John N. Opie, as they were known to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff, Mrs. Meade-and John N. Opie, have determined not to hold their mother and brother liable for having voluntarily received payment from Castleman in the only currency used in the locality where all the parties resided; Castleman’s estate, he not' being chargeable with fraud-, ought to be equally exempt from liability.

According to the decided preponderance of evidence, the plaintiff, Mrs. Meade and John N. Opie, during the entire period from the close of the war until the institution of this suit, acted as if they did not intend,-by legal proceedings, to question the validity of the settlements made with Castleman. And they so acted .with full knowledge, or with ample opportunity to acquire knowledge, of all the material facts affecting their rights. J3y their long silence, and their unreasonable delay in commencing proceedings for relief, they have forfeited whatever right they had to invoke the aid of a court of equity. What they did and what they failed to do is' sufficient — independently of any statute of limitations, and apart from any question as to the legal right of the personal representa

The decree is reversed, and the cause is remomded with directions to dismiss the bill.