Opinion of the Court. should insist upon the letter of the bargain, and throw something more than a mere doubt upon the fairness of the transaction. Before the time had expired for redemption Stephens and Schroeder requested the collector of taxes of that county to allow them to bring suit against the plaintiff to recover the taxes owing by him for the year 1890, on the part of lot 2 described in the complaint, and agreed that, if the collector so consented, they would bring the suit, and make the collection free of cost to the collector, an arrangement which was carried out according to its terms. On April 10, 1892, plaintiff offered to pay defendants the full amount of the judgment obtained by them, together with interest at the rate of one per cent per month, and also to liberally compensate them for all their services and trouble, give them $1000 besides as a bonus, and pay all their advances with interest if they would reconvey to him, which the defendants refused to do. Of a similar offer and refusal this court in 19 How. 310, 311, speaking through Mr. Justice Daniel, said: "Another pregnant proof of the design of the appellant to grasp and retain what no principle of liberality or equity could warrant, is the fact, clearly established, of his refusal after the sale to accept from the appellee, for the redemption of his lands so glaringly sacrificed, a sum of money considerably exceeding in amount the judgment for costs, with all the expenses incidental to the carrying that judgment into effect. The appellant, by his irregular and unconscientious contrivances, achieved what he conceived to be an immense speculation, and he determined to avail himself of it, regardless of its injustice and ruinous consequences to the appellee." About the same time, the plaintiff, being ignorant of the fact that lot 12 had been sold and that the defendants had a deed therefor, informed the defendant Schroeder that he intended to redeem the lot from a sale that had been made for the taxes of 1891, and afterwards did so redeem said lot, and informed Schroeder that it had been done, the plaintiff being still ignorant that the defendants held a marshal's deed for it. Again, on April 24, plaintiff being still ignorant that defendants held a marshal's deed for lot 12, informed Schroe Opinion of the Court. der that he intended to redeem said lot from a tax sale that had been made thereof for the taxes of 1890, and did subsequently redeem the same, and informed Schroeder of the fact, and that Schroeder never at any time informed him that he had obtained a deed for the lot. The court further found that defendants purposely and intentionally failed to inform the plaintiff that they had a title to the said lot at the time the plaintiff was redeeming the same from the tax sales. The court further found that the said attorneys, in violation of their duty to obtain the highest possible price for the property while acting in behalf of their clients, became the bidders upon said property, and so acted as to obtain the same for the least possible sum, so as to satisfy the judgment, and at the same time to sell all the property belonging to said Young. If these facts be not sufficient to justify a rescission of these sales, it is difficult to imagine what would be so considered. 4. Defendant relies mainly upon the fact that the statutory period of redemption was allowed to expire before this bill was filed, but the court below found in this connection that before the time had expired to redeem the property, the plaintiff was told by the defendant Stephens that he would not be pushed, that the statutory time to redeem would not be insisted upon, and that the plaintiff believed and relied upon such assurance. Under such circumstances the courts have held with great unanimity that the purchaser is estopped to insist upon the statutory period, notwithstanding the assurances were not in writing and were made without consideration, upon the ground that the debtor was lulled into a false security. Guinn v. Locke, 1 Head, 110; Combs v. Little, 4 N. J. Eq. 310; Griffin v. Coffey, 9 B. Mon. 452; Martin v. Martin, 16 B. Mon. 8; Butt v. Butt, 91 Indiana, 305; Turner v. King, 2 Ired. Eq. 132; Lucas v. Nichols, 66 Illinois, 41; McMakin v. Schenck, 98 Indiana, 264. In Southard v. Pope's Ex'rs, 9 B. Mon. 261, 264, it is said that "a refusal by the purchaser to accept the money and permit the redemption to be made within the time agreed would be a fraud upon the defendant in execution, and authorize an application by him to a court of equity for relief." Opinion of the Court. Probably, if a motion had been made in the original case to set aside the sale upon the ground of mere irregularities, such motion would have to be made before the statutory period for redemption had passed; but in this class of cases, where fraudulent conduct is imputed to the parties conducting the sale, there is a concurrent jurisdiction of a court of equity, founded upon its general right to relieve from the consequences of fraud, accident or mistake, which may be exercised, notwithstanding the statutory period for redemption has expired. It is evident that, where a sale has culminated in the execution and delivery of a deed to the purchaser, which is not void upon its face, or a mortgage has been put upon the property, as in this case, no remedy is complete, which does not go to the cancellation of such deed, and the complete reinvestment of the title in the plaintiff. It also appears from the findings that appellant has received rents from the property, that various sums had been expended for taxes and other purposes, that an accounting was necessary in adjusting the rights of the parties, which could not be effectually carried on in a court of law. There can be no doubt of the jurisdiction of a court of equity in such case notwithstanding the expiration of the statutory time of redemption. Graffam v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 180; Blight's Heirs v. Tobin, 7 T. B. Mon. 612; Day v. Graham, 1 Gilman, (6 Ill.) 435; Morris v. Robey, 73 Illinois, 462; Fergus v. Woodworth, 44 Illinois, 374; Bullen v. Dawson, 139 Illinois, 633; Jenkins v. Merriweather, 109 Illinois, 647; State Bank v. Noland, 13 Arkansas, 299. The appellant's brief deals largely with criticisms upon the findings and upon the admission of testimony, which we do not feel it necessary to discuss, as they do not involve the merits of the case, which rest upon the undisputed facts. It would be a reproach to a court of equity, if it could not lay hold of such a transaction as this is shown to be, and set aside a sale of property acquired under the forms of law and in defiance of natural justice. The decree of the court below is, therefore, Affirmed. Statement of the Case. DOUGLAS v. WALLACE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 611. Submitted January 27, 1896. - Decided March 2, 1896. When there is color for a motion to dismiss on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and the claim is not so clearly frivolous as to authorize the dismissal, the court may consider and pass upon the question raised. Claims of deputy marshals against a marshal for services stand upon the same footing as those of an ordinary employé against his employer. THIS was a motion to dismiss a writ of error for want of jurisdiction, or to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina upon the ground that the writ of error was sued out for delay merely, and the question upon which jurisdiction depended was so frivolous as not to need further argument. The action was brought in the Superior Court of Iredell County, North Carolina, by the defendants in error, the firm of Wallace Bros., to recover of Douglas, the plaintiff in error, the amount of certain drafts drawn upon him by certain persons, and accepted by writing across said drafts "Accepted; payable when I receive funds to the use of" the drawer of the drafts. (Signed) "R. M. Douglas, U. S. Marshal." The matters involved in the action were referred to a referee, who found that the defendant Douglas was Marshal of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina for the years 1878 to 1881, and that during this time he had in his employment as deputy marshals J. T. Patterson, Jr., in whose favor he accepted a draft for $200; W. J. Patterson, in whose favor he accepted a draft for $325, and S. P. Graham, who had a claim against the Marshal for $98.82 for official services rendered to the Marshal, all of which were assigned to the plaintiffs. The referee further reported that there had been placed to the credit of Douglas in the Treasury Department of the United States the sum of $460.76 upon claims due him for the services of J. T. Patterson, Jr., performed prior to the Opinion of the Court. acceptance of his draft for $200, not subject to any previous order, and that the same was placed to his credit since the acceptance of the draft; that there had also been placed to his credit the sum of $2274.55, due him for the services of W. J. Patterson, rendered prior to the acceptance of his draft for $325, and that the same was subject only to two drafts for the aggregate sum of $600; that of the claim of $98.82, due to S. P. Graham for services rendered as deputy, $95.62 had been placed to the credit of the defendant in the Treasury Department since the acceptance of the claim by the defendant, the remainder of said claim having been allowed by the Government; that the vouchers so traded to the plaintiffs were for services rendered prior to the said acceptance, and before the same was transferred to the plaintiffs, and that the further sum of $2858.76 was placed to the defendant's credit and control in the Treasury Department for services rendered by Graham, out of which sum defendant received $900, leaving $1958.76 to the credit of the defendant since the acceptance. The referee accordingly reported that the plaintiffs were entitled to payment for the full amount of their claim. Before the judgment of the court was rendered, the defendant moved that the action be dismissed, upon the ground that the evidence disclosed that the drafts and accounts declared upon were drawn upon claims, or an interest in claims, against the United States before their allowance, and were, therefore, null and void under Rev. Stat. § 3477, inhibiting the assignment of claims against the United States. This motion was overruled, the court proceeded to consider the case upon the report of the referee and exceptions thereto, and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which af firmed the judgment of the court below. Whereupon defendant sued out this writ of error. Mr. Robert M. Douglas, plaintiff in error, in person. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court. |
