UNITED STATES
v.
INNERARITY
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.
Innerarity's heirs sought to claim land through a petition but had no legal title to it, and then attempted to assert a claim on behalf of the heirs of John Watkins instead. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot substitute a new claimant with a valid title in place of the original petitioner who filed timely but has no legal claim, as this would circumvent statutes of limitations and allow suits to continue indefinitely by adding new parties. The Court reversed the decree and directed dismissal of the petition, requiring Watkins's heirs to file their own original application if they wished to pursue their claim.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.
It appears that the allegations of the petition were made in ignorance of the facts, and that Innerarity really had no claim in law or in equity to the land described. This necessarily disposes of the case as to his heirs.
The attempt to set up a claim under this petition or a supplemental petition by Innerarity’s heirs in favor of the heirs of John Watkins, cannot be sustained. It does not appear that Watkins derived title from Innerarity, or that Innerarity ever had any title. The case is simply this: Innerarity’s heirs have tiled their petition in time, but have no title. Watkins’s heirs have a title, but have not tiled a petition for its allowance. Watkins’s title cannot be interposed by the present petitioners. Such practice is unknown. If a suit be commenced by A. to recover land or money, he failing on the merits, cannot bring into his suit a new plaintiff', especially one whose action, if then commenced, would be barred by the statute of limitations. If otherwise, the same suit can be continued indefinitely, constantly making new plaintiffs, until some one shall be found who has a meritorious claim. It would be a practical abrogation of the limitation of the statute. The act of 1867 has been further extended, and the heirs of Watkins must make an original application in their own names. We understand the case of United States v. Patterson
*
to be a decisive authority against the present claim.
Decree reversed, and the case remitted to the District Court of Louisiana, with directions to
Dismiss the petition.
*
15 Howard, 12.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Dalcour, 203 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1906)
-
United States v. Watkins, 97 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1877)…ion of Melanie Bringier, she has parted with all title to the lands. It is evident that no decree can be made in her favor. The heirs of Innerarity have already been before the court, and their claims have been rejected. United States v. Innerarity, 19 Wall. 595. On the whole, we think that the decree of the District Court ought to stand. As to the point made by the government, that the lands in question were not sold by tbe United States to third parties, but were donated to settlers thereon ; and that, t…