TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Humbert v. The Rector

Humbert and others v. The Rector, &c. of Trinity Church

Humbert v. The Rector, 7 Paige Ch. 195 (1838)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Chancery · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 28, 1838
Citations
7 Paige Ch. 195
Cited by 21
Headnotes
Where the complainant has a concurrent remedy in a court of equity and in a court of common law, time is as absolute a bar in equity as it is at law. When it appears upon the face of the complainant’s bill that the suit is barred by lapse of time, the defendant may demur to the bill on that ground; and it is not necessary to set up that defence by plea in such a case. On a bill in chancery for the recovery of the rents and profits of real estate, when it appears from the bill itself that the premises have been held adversely by the defendant for more than twenty years, if the complainant’s case comes within any of the exceptions in the statute of limitations, the facts bringing the case within the exception must be stated in his bill, or the defendant may demur.
Summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of the first circuit allowing a demurrer to the complainants’ bill, and dismissing the bill with costs. ' The bill was filed by the complainants, in behalf of themselves and of the other descendants of Annetje Jans Bogardus, and the heirs at law of her children, grand children, and devisees, for the recovery of certain tracts of land in the city of New-York, in the possession of the defendants; and for an account of the rents and profits of the same. Various objections were raised by the demurrer to the complainants’ right to discovery or relief ; and among cithers, that it was not alleged in the bill that the complainants, or those under whom they claimed title to the lands in the possession of the defendants; had been in possession of any part of such lands, since 1785; nor was it alleged that the defendants since that period had ever admitted or acknowledged that the complainants, or those under whom they claim title, had any right, title, estate, or interest therein, or in the rents and profits thereof; but on the contrary, that it appeared from the face of the bill that from 1785, down to the time of the commencement of this suit, the defendants had been in the exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the premises, under claim of title.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Chancellor.

Various objections to the bill in point of form are raised by the demurrer, some of which I think are well taken; but as these might probably be obviated by amendments of the bill, I prefer to put my decision in this case upon an objection which goes to the merits, and which unquestionably cannot be obviated in any form of proceeding which can be adopted, either in this court or elsewhere. That objection is that the rights of the complainants, if those under whom they claim title had such rights as stated in the bill, are barred by lapse of time.

It is evident from the complainants’ own showing that the defendants had been in the exclusive possession of the premises in controversy, claiming the same as their own, for more than forty years previous to the commencement of this suit; and no sufficient excuse is shown to take the case out of the general rule, that a suit in equity is barred by lapse of time if it is not instituted within twenty years after the complainants’ right to commence proceedings in this court accrued. This rule is so well settled that it would be a useless waste of time to review all the decisions in this country and in England on the subject. I will therefore merely refer to a few of the more recent cases in which the existence of the rule is recognized. (Cholmon dely v. Clinton, 4 Bligh’s Rep. O. S, 1, per Lords Eldon and Redesdale. Fenwick v. Macey’s Ex’rs, 1 Dana’s Rep. 278. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. Rep. 152 . Byrne v. Frere, 2 Malloy’s Ch. R. 157. Terril v. Murray, 4 Yerg. Rep. 04 .) Here if the complainants would have had a right to come into this court, upon the case made by the bill, had such bill been filed in time, they still had a concurrent remedy in a court of common law. And in cases of that *198 kind, time is as absolute a bar to discovery or relief in equity as it would be in a suit at law, in analogy to the statute of limitations.

It was formerly doubted whether a defendant in equity could by demurrer make the objection that the remedy was barred by lapse of time, or whether he must not resort to his plea. But it now seems to be settled, that if it appears upon the face of the bill that the suit is barred by lapse of time the defendant may demur; and that if the case is within any of the exceptions of the statute the complainant must state the fact in his bill. (Dunlap v. Gibbs, 4 Yerg. Rep. 94 . Hoare v. Peck, 6 Sim. Rep. 51. Cuthbert v. Creasy, 4 Bligh’s Rep. O. S. 125. Wisner v. Ogden, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep. 631 . Fyson v. Pole, 3 Young Coll. Rep. 266.) Whether the complainants’ case, therefore, is one of concurrent jurisdiction, or of equitable cognizance only, the remedy was barred by lapse of time long before the filing of this bill. And the decision of the vice chancellor, allowing the demurrer and dismissing the bill, must be affirmed with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1838–1839: 11844–1845: 11848–1849: 11850–1851: 21852–1853: 11856–1857: 21860–1861: 11866–1867: 11870–1871: 11876–1877: 11884–1885: 31896–1897: 21906–1907: 11908–1909: 11916–1917: 11930–1931: 118382026peak 1884 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burrus v. Cook114 S.W. 1065 (Mo. 1908)
  2. Burrus v. Cook93 S.W. 888 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906) · Dissent
  3. Lawrence v. Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House2 Denio 577 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1845)
  4. Rundle v. Allison34 N.Y. 180 (1866)
  5. Gridley v. United States44 F.2d 716 (6th Cir. 1930)
  6. Campau v. Chene1 Mich. 400 (1850)

Most recent

  1. Gridley v. United States44 F.2d 716 (6th Cir. 1930)
  2. In re Gridley179 A.D. 621 (1917)
  3. Burrus v. Cook114 S.W. 1065 (Mo. 1908)
  4. Burrus v. Cook93 S.W. 888 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906) · Dissent
  5. Kerfoot v. Billings43 N.E. 804 (Ill. 1896)
  6. In re the Estate of Miller1 Gibb. Surr. 506 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Elmendorf v. Taylor, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 152 (1825) 393
Wisner v. Ogden, 30 F. Cas. 388 (1827) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list