Tapscott v. Cobbs

1
Tapscott v. Cobbs

• Anderson dies owning Blackacre
• Executors contract to sell Blackacre
• To Sarah Lewis, then to Robert Rives
• Sarah Lewis takes possession (1820-25)
• Sarah Lewis dies in 1835 (Lewis is her heir)
• Tapscott takes possession in 1842
• Action by Cobbs (Lewis lessee) against Tapscott
  1854 for possession

2
Tapscott v. Cobbs

• What does the court state to be the general rule
  for a plaintiff to cover in an action of
  ejectment?
• General rule Right of plaintiff to recover in
  ejectment rests on the strength of his own
  title, and is not established by the exhibition
  of defects in defendants title

3
Tapscott v. Cobbs

• Are there an exceptions to the general rule?
• Defendant enters under the title of the plaintiff
• Defendant estopped to question plaintiffs title
• Entry by stranger on a prior peaceful possessor

4
Tapscott v. Cobbs

• Statement of the holding

In an action for ejectment, the prior possessor
(Cobbs) prevails against the subsequent possessor
(Tapscott) even though the subsequent possessor
(Tapscott) can show title in a third person
(Anderson) if the subsequent possessor (Tapscott)
has no interest derived from the titleholder
(Anderson)
5
Tapscott v. Cobbs

• Is this rule consistent with rules we study in
  Chapter 1?
• What policies justify the rule?
• Should the rule have been applied in Tapscott
  given there was no evidence that Cobbs ever took
  actual possession?

6
Searching Titles
Root of title A to B in 1856 B to C in 1874 D to
E in 1934 E to F in 1975 F to G in 1983 G to H in
1990
How do you prove these conveyances? Are there any
problems?
7
Winchester v. City of Stevens Point

• Plaintiff is both titleholder and possessor of
  Blackacre
• Defendant wrongfully floods Blackacre
• Plaintiff sues Defendant for money damages
• Plaintiff unable to prove title
• Why?
• Judgement for Defendant?
• Why

8
Searching Titles
Root of title (Louisiana Purchase A to B in
1820 B to C in 1825 C to D in 1850 D to E in
1852 E to F in 1855 F to G in 1860 G to Plaintiff
in 1861
How does Plaintiff prove these conveyances?
9
Life Tenant and Remainderman
A
B
B
Then To
W cuts down tree worth 100 A sues W for 100
10
Porter v. Wertz

• Porter owns a Utrillo
• Porter bails the Utrillo to Von Maker
• Von Maker through Wertz sells Utrillo to Feigen
• Feigen, in turn, sells it to Brenner

11
Porter v. Wertz

• What defenses does Feigen raise to Porters suit?
• Statutory estoppel
• Equitable estoppel

12
Porter v. Wertz

• Section 2-403 of UCC (entrusting provision)
• Any entrusting of possession of goods to merchant
  who deals in goods of that kind.g gives him power
  to transfer all rights of the entruster to a
  buyer in the ordinary course of business.

• Section 1-201 (9) (BOCB)
• Buyer in the ordinary course of business is a
  person who in good faith and without knowledge
  that the sale to him is in violation of the
  ownership rights . . .of a third party . . .buys
  in ordinary course from a person in the business
  of selling goods of that kind.

13
Porter v. Wertz

• Does statutory estoppel apply?

14
Porter v. Wertz

• Equitable estoppel
• Precludes plaintiff (Porter) from denying or
  asserting a material fact by which by his words
  or conduct . . . intentionally or through
  culpable negligence, he has induced another who
  was excusably ignorant of the true facts and who
  had a right to rely upon such words or conduct,
  to believe and act upon them. . . See page 140
  for full quote
• Does it apply here?

15
Peet v. Roth Hotel

• Peet owned a ring
• Peet wants Holtz to repair ring
• Peet hands ring to Ms. Edwards, hotel clerk, who
  puts ring in envelope with Holtz name on it.
• Envelope and ring stolen
• Peet sues hotel to recover value of ring

16
Peet v. Roth Hotel

• What are the requirements for a bailment
  contract?
• Which of the requirements does the bailee (hotel)
  challenge?
• What is the basis of the hotels claim that there
  was no intent to enter into a bailment contract?
• Mistake as to value
• Who should bear the risk of that mistake?

17
Peet v. Roth Hotel

• Assuming a bailment contract exists, what reasons
  might a bailee offer for failure to return the
  goods, and what effect would the proffered reason
  have on the liability of the bailee to the
  bailor?
• Misdelivery
• Theft, fire, other casualty

18
Peet v. Roth Hotel

• What are the three kinds of bailments recognized
  by the common law?
• Bailment primarily for benefit of bailor
• Bailment prmarily for the benefit of the bailee
• Bailment for parties mutual benefit
• What importance attached to the classification of
  a bailment?
• Degree of Care/Standard of Negligence
• Does this court agree?

19
Peet v. Roth Hotel

• In a suit on a bailment contract, what must the
  plaintiff prove to make out a prima facie case?
• Prior possession
• Creation of a bailment contract
• Non-Return
• At this point, what must the defendant do?
• Respond or face a default judgement because
  Plaintiff entitled to presumption of negligence
• Respond with reason
• Burden of proof