Jump to content

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
expansion using modern source and out of law library--prior cited source not easily available
→Litigation background: Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction
Line 38: Line 38:
==Litigation background==
==Litigation background==


The litigation began in the Virginia District Court at [[Winchester, Virginia|Winchester]], the county seat of vast [[Frederick County, Virginia|Frederick County]]. In 1793, the parties arranged a test case with the object of settling points of Virginia law. Trial judge [[St. George Tucker]] only ruled that Virginia had to initiate legal proceedings in a court in order to invoke the doctrine of [[escheat]].<ref>Smith p. 165</ref> Virginia appealed that decision to Virginia's highest court (then called the Supreme Court of Appeals and now the [[Virginia Supreme Court]]), but because Marshall had resigned as Attorney General, and Patrick Henry refused the case, the state hired [[John Wickham]] and Alexander Campbell, but the latter committed suicide by [[laudanum]] overdose before the appeal could be argued, further delaying matters.<ref>Smith p. 166</ref>
The litigation began in the Virginia District Court at [[Winchester, Virginia|Winchester]], the county seat of vast [[Frederick County, Virginia|Frederick County]]. In 1793, the parties arranged a test case with the object of settling points of Virginia law. Trial judge [[St. George Tucker]] only ruled that Virginia had to initiate legal proceedings in a court in order to invoke the doctrine of [[escheat]].<ref>Smith p. 165</ref> Virginia appealed that decision to Virginia's highest court (then called the Supreme Court of Appeals and now the [[Virginia Supreme Court]]), but because Marshall had resigned as Attorney General, and Patrick Henry refused the case, the state hired [[John Wickham (attorney)|John Wickham]] and Alexander Campbell, but the latter committed suicide by [[laudanum]] overdose before the appeal could be argued, further delaying matters.<ref>Smith p. 166</ref>


Meanwhile, in 1795, Marshall filed a different (but related) lawsuit against David Hunter in the (new) United States Circuit Court. David Hunter had bought a 788 acre parcel from the state of Virginia, then leased it to another man. Justice [[James Wilson]] and Judge [[Cyrus Griffin]] ruled in Fairfax's favor, but that case would not reach the U.S. Supreme Court until 1816.<ref>Smith pp. 166-167, 580 n.134 noting that the pleadings used elaborate fictional titles which were abolished in a statutory revision in 1849.</ref><ref>''Martin v. Hunter's Lessee'', 14 U.S. 304, 356 relates some of this.</ref>
Meanwhile, in 1795, Marshall filed a different (but related) lawsuit against David Hunter in the (new) United States Circuit Court. David Hunter had bought a 788 acre parcel from the state of Virginia, then leased it to another man. Justice [[James Wilson]] and Judge [[Cyrus Griffin]] ruled in Fairfax's favor, but that case would not reach the U.S. Supreme Court until 1816.<ref>Smith pp. 166-167, 580 n.134 noting that the pleadings used elaborate fictional titles which were abolished in a statutory revision in 1849.</ref><ref>''Martin v. Hunter's Lessee'', 14 U.S. 304, 356 relates some of this.</ref>


The Marshalls were interested in getting good (saleable) title to the 215,000 acres that Fairfax owned personally, and the State of Virginia wanted to be able to resell approximately two million acres of still undeveloped land involved in the original royal grant.<ref>Smith p. 167</ref> On December 10, 1796 the [[Virginia House of Delegates]], with John Marshall as a member and Robert Andrews of Williamsburg advocating on behalf of those who held Fairfax land under conveyances from the state, passed compromise legislation. Robert Morris had suggested that legislation would help obtain loans from foreign sources. What was actually agreed to in the compromise was itself open to dispute, probably that upon obtaining the loan (and thus fulfilling the deal with Martin), the Marshall interests would retain interest in the 215,000 acres and convey the rest to the state. John Marshall seems to have believed in those years (the late 1790s) that the family was on legally solid ground based on the Treaty of Paris issue argumed in the federal case.<ref>William Crosskey, ''Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States,'' (University of Chicago Press 1953) pp.785–790</ref>
The Marshalls were interested in getting good (saleable) title to the 215,000 acres that Fairfax owned personally, and the State of Virginia wanted to be able to resell approximately two million acres of still undeveloped land involved in the original royal grant.<ref>Smith p. 167</ref> On December 10, 1796 the [[Virginia House of Delegates]], with John Marshall as a member and Robert Andrews of Williamsburg advocating on behalf of those who held Fairfax land under conveyances from the state, passed compromise legislation. Robert Morris had suggested that legislation would help obtain loans from foreign sources. What was actually agreed to in the compromise was itself open to dispute, probably that upon obtaining the loan (and thus fulfilling the deal with Martin), the Marshall interests would retain interest in the 215,000 acres and convey the rest to the state. John Marshall seems to have believed in those years (the late 1790s) that the family was on legally solid ground based on the Treaty of Paris issue argued in the federal case.<ref>William Crosskey, ''Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States,'' (University of Chicago Press 1953) pp.785–790</ref>


The Marshall group finally consummated the deal with Denny Martin Fairfax on October 16, 1806, and after various exchanges with James Marshall and Rawleigh Colston, Marshall secured 50,000 acres of prime Virginia real estate.<ref>Smith p. 168</ref>
The Marshall group finally consummated the deal with Denny Martin Fairfax on October 16, 1806, and after various exchanges with James Marshall and Rawleigh Colston, Marshall secured 50,000 acres of prime Virginia real estate.<ref>Smith p. 168</ref>

Revision as of 18:04, 27 August 2021

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 27, 1813
Full case nameFairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee
Citations11 U.S. 603 (more)
7 Cranch 603; 3 L. Ed. 453
Holding
The Virginia Court of Appeals was mistaken in denying the validity of the Fairfax land titles, the Virginia Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington · William Johnson
H. Brockholst Livingston · Thomas Todd
Gabriel Duvall · Joseph Story

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 603 (1813),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case arising out of the acquisition of lands originally granted by the British King Charles II (then in exile) in 1649 to Lord Fairfax in the Northern Neck and westward (all in what became the state of Virginia).[2]

Historical background

Basically, settlers who developed the once-forested Northern Neck Proprietary land into farms (and their heirs) for more than a century paid rents to the designated agent for Lord Fairfax's descendants. One complicating factor was that following King Charles II's restoration in 1660, he gave a group of merchants a different land lease in order to encourage settlement of the western frontier, but without disrupting Tidewater area lands already developed or claimed by others. Another problem was conflicting land grants issued by the Maryland colony--which extended only to the Appalachian Divide by its charter, whereas the Virginia grants had no western boundary. Thus, some German emigrants from Pennsylvania continued south past the Shenandoah Valley into North Carolina to avoid disputes after they developed farms. By 1745 the sixth Lord Fairfax, a bachelor, took a trip to the Virginia colony, settled there in 1747 and died at his Greenway Court hunting lodge in 1781. Two years earlier, the new Virginia legislature tried to settle the land controversy by confiscating his lands because of his Loyalist sympathies, then sold them to settlers. Lord Fairfax left his land and claims to his nephew Thomas B. Martin, who had for years been trying to collect land rents from western settlers, and for whom Martinsburg, West Virginia would be named.[3]

Immediately before the American Revolutionary War, Lord Fairfax' lease-collecting agent in central Virginia was Thomas Marshall, now better known as the father of Supreme Court justice John Marshall. Meanwhile, considerable land in western Virginia claimed by Lord Fairfax's descendants had been cleared and developed by others, including the prominent Hite family, who had moved to the area from Pennsylvania and also supported the Patriot cause.[4] Because of the complexity of the conveyances of Fairfax land prior to the acquisition, litigation was bound to arise, even in the absence of questions arising under the Peace Treaty.

While a young attorney, John Marshall represented Denny Martin Fairfax, who has no interest in moving to North America, and won a favorable decision from a Virginia court in Hite v. Fairfax (1786), which recognized Martin as Lord Fairfax's heir.[5] While in England in 1792-1793, James Markham Marshall (the future chief justice's younger brother) agreed to buy the Fairfax family's claim to the Leeds Manor and South Branch tracts (which totaled 215,000 acres) from Martin for 20,000 pounds sterling, with closing scheduled for February 1, 1794. The Marshalls had organized four former Revolutionary War friends and relatives -- James and John Marshall, Lighthorse Harry Lee (later bought out by James Marshall) and Rawleigh Colston (husband of Elizabeth Marshall) -- who then needed to arrange financing. In fact, John Marshall had turned down both George Washington's offer to make him the Attorney General of the United States, and his temporary position as Attorney General of Virginia (since James Innes left the state) in order to pursue this land claim.[6] The arrangement was initially financed by Robert Morris (whose daughter was James Marshall's wife). However, once news reached Virginia about the deal, various county attorneys in the northern neck pursued escheat actions against Fairfax in their county courts, and Virginia's legislature also reflected anti-British sentiments encouraging more actions. By 1794, many Virginia county courts (except for the western one discussed below) had ruled in favor of Virginia's claim.[7]

Litigation background

The litigation began in the Virginia District Court at Winchester, the county seat of vast Frederick County. In 1793, the parties arranged a test case with the object of settling points of Virginia law. Trial judge St. George Tucker only ruled that Virginia had to initiate legal proceedings in a court in order to invoke the doctrine of escheat.[8] Virginia appealed that decision to Virginia's highest court (then called the Supreme Court of Appeals and now the Virginia Supreme Court), but because Marshall had resigned as Attorney General, and Patrick Henry refused the case, the state hired John Wickham and Alexander Campbell, but the latter committed suicide by laudanum overdose before the appeal could be argued, further delaying matters.[9]

Meanwhile, in 1795, Marshall filed a different (but related) lawsuit against David Hunter in the (new) United States Circuit Court. David Hunter had bought a 788 acre parcel from the state of Virginia, then leased it to another man. Justice James Wilson and Judge Cyrus Griffin ruled in Fairfax's favor, but that case would not reach the U.S. Supreme Court until 1816.[10][11]

The Marshalls were interested in getting good (saleable) title to the 215,000 acres that Fairfax owned personally, and the State of Virginia wanted to be able to resell approximately two million acres of still undeveloped land involved in the original royal grant.[12] On December 10, 1796 the Virginia House of Delegates, with John Marshall as a member and Robert Andrews of Williamsburg advocating on behalf of those who held Fairfax land under conveyances from the state, passed compromise legislation. Robert Morris had suggested that legislation would help obtain loans from foreign sources. What was actually agreed to in the compromise was itself open to dispute, probably that upon obtaining the loan (and thus fulfilling the deal with Martin), the Marshall interests would retain interest in the 215,000 acres and convey the rest to the state. John Marshall seems to have believed in those years (the late 1790s) that the family was on legally solid ground based on the Treaty of Paris issue argued in the federal case.[13]

The Marshall group finally consummated the deal with Denny Martin Fairfax on October 16, 1806, and after various exchanges with James Marshall and Rawleigh Colston, Marshall secured 50,000 acres of prime Virginia real estate.[14]

Case

The case reached the Supreme Court on "a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (the original name of the Supreme Court of Virginia) in an action of ejectment involving the construction of the treaties between Great Britain and the United States, the judgment of the Court of Appeals being against the right claimed under those treaties."[15] Because John Marshall had an interest in the proceeding, he recused himself.

Justice Joseph Story refused to accept, as final, the Virginia Court of Appeals' interpretation of Virginia law. He found that precedents in Virginia law itself upheld the Fairfax titles.[16] Story's decision to "look into" Virginia law was a vital step in securing federal supremacy. Otherwise, the federal courts could be effectively blocked, by a state court's decision, from addressing a federal question— in this case a British national's rights under the treaties with Britain.[17] The history of litigation prior to reaching the Supreme Court suggests that there was much for the Court to look into.

Justice Johnson dissented, arguing that the Virginia legislature acted within its rightful authority, when the Fairfax lands were sequestered without certain established procedures being followed.[18]

Aftermath

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Virginia Court of Appeals was mistaken in denying the validity of the Fairfax land titles, the Virginia Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee then came forward under a writ of error. Fairfax's Devisee is, however, significant in its own right.

See also

References

  1. ^ Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 603 (1813).
  2. ^ Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816).
  3. ^ William Thomas Doherty, Berkeley County, U.S.A.: A Bicentennial History of a Virginia and West Virginia County, 1772-1972 (McClain Printing Company, Parsons W.Va. 1972) pp. 15-21
  4. ^ Doherty
  5. ^ Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation (isbn=0-805-1388-x) p. 164
  6. ^ Smith pp. 163-166
  7. ^ Smith p. 165
  8. ^ Smith p. 165
  9. ^ Smith p. 166
  10. ^ Smith pp. 166-167, 580 n.134 noting that the pleadings used elaborate fictional titles which were abolished in a statutory revision in 1849.
  11. ^ Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 356 relates some of this.
  12. ^ Smith p. 167
  13. ^ William Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, (University of Chicago Press 1953) pp.785–790
  14. ^ Smith p. 168
  15. ^ Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. at 604.
  16. ^ Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. at 625–628.
  17. ^ Haskins and Johnson, Foundations of Power, vol. 2, Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise, 597–599
  18. ^ Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. at 628–632.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fairfax%27s_Devisee_v._Hunter%27s_Lessee&oldid=1040958907"