FRENCH
v.
WADE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this property dispute arising from Civil War-era confiscation proceedings, the Supreme Court affirmed that a person whose lands were seized and sold under the Confiscation Act of 1862 retained no interest in the property that could pass to heirs, but the heirs' ownership rights after the original owner's death were not affected by the forfeiture. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser of the confiscated property acquired only the rights available to any other purchaser and could not convey the heirs' future interest in the property.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We think the court below was right in holding that this case was governed by that of Wallach et al. v. Van Riswick (92 U. S. 202), in which we decided that after a seizure and an adjudicated condemnation and sale under the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat. 589), of the lands of one engaged in rebellion against 'the United States, .there was “left in him no estate or intérest of any description which he could convey by deed, and no power which he could exercise in favor of another” (p. 208), and that the joint resolution passed contemporaneously with the approval of the act was “intended for the benefit of his heirs exclusively, to enable them to take the inheritance after his death.” p. 213. As to him, the forfeiture was complete and absolute; but the ownership after his death was in no wise affected (p. .209), except by placing it beyond his control while living.- This case has been followed many times since. Pike v. Wassell, 94 U. S. 711. It must now be considered as the settled rule of decision in this court.
"Wade, by the purchase of his own interest in the property, took the property to hold during his life, the same as any other -purchaser. Whatever rights another could have acquired by the purchase, he got, but no more. Another could not, after purchase, have sold and conveyed the interest of the heirs in the property; neither can he. By the condemnation and sale, Wade’s estate was separated entirely from that of his heirs after his death, and the heirs are not estopped by his warranty from asserting their title.
As the cause was tri d below on the question of title only, and there are no findings in respect to the improvements put on the property by French, we cannot consider whether any allowances should be made to him on that account or not.'
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Dunnington, 146 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1892)…pinion in this case that the necessity of having some one to represent the fee and to protect the expectant estate of the heirs, was present to the mind of the court. The question decided in Wallach v. Van Riswick was raised again in French v. Wade, 102 U. S. 132, and the former case was unequivocally affirmed. The question what became of the fee was also discussed in Illinois Central Railroad v. Bosworth 133 U. S. 92, 102, 103, and it was intimated,-as a logical consequence from the decision in Shields v.…
-
Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Co., 112 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1884)
-
Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1890)…by this.court. That the guilty party had no control over it in the absence of such pardon or amnesty, has been frequently decided. Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202; Chaffraix v. Shiff, 92 U. S. 214; Pike v. Wassell, 94 U. S. 711; French v. Wade, 102 U. S. 132; and see Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U. S. 293; Shields v. Schiff, 124 U. S. 351.- But it has been'regarded as a doubtful question, what 'became of the fee, or ultimate estate, after the confiscation for life. “We are not called upon,” said Justice Stron…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1875)
- Pike v. Wassell, 94 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1876)