Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 W. Va. 421

Amick v. Ellis

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1903

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1903-04-28

<p>1. Contract of Sate — Husband and Wife.</p> <p>A contract of sale of the wife’s land by her and her husband, not acknowledged for recordation, cannot be specificálly enforced in equity, and on a bill to enforce the same there cannot be a decree against the wife for repayment of purchase money! Mere colorable claims of jurisdiction will not do. (p. 421).</p>

Relies on New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana · Thompson v. Whitaker Iron Co. · Laidley v. Laidley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1903-04-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 1942

17 state decisions

8019031910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Beannon, Judge:

¶1Virginia L. Ellis, wife of R. Id. Ellis, being owner of land in Eayette County, sbe and her huband.made a contract with J. A. Amick, 5 September, 1896, selling to him “all mineral and coal” in the tract of land, part of the purchase money being paid down, and part payable in future.. Mrs. Ellis refused to accept the last payment, and Amick brought a suit in equity in the circuit court of that county, asking that Ellis and wife be compelled to perform the contract by conveyance according to it, or if that could not be done, that the contract be rescinded, and that a decree be made in favor of the plaintiff for the money paid him under the contract. A decree was made rescinding the contract, and decreeing personally against Virginia L. Ellis $232.13 on account of money paid under said contract,- and subjecting the sale of minerals and coal in the land from which decree Virginia L. Ellis appeals.

¶2As this contract was not acknowledged for recordation it could not be specifically enforced by conveyance of the land. Rosenour v. Rosenour, 47 W. Va. 554. The contract being on its face void in law for all .purposes of equity jurisdiction, the *422alleged equity jurisdiction is merely colorable or pretended, just to get jurisdiction. Laidley v. Laidley, 25 W. Va. 525; Thompson v. Whitaker, 41 W. Va. 574. To give jurisdiction there must be “in addition to the simple setting up of the claim, some color for it; in other words, the claim must be of such character that its mere mention does not show it destitute of merit.” N. O. Waterworks v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 344. Hence we cannot apply the rule that having jurisdiction for one purpose full relief or alternative relief will be given. There is jurisdiction neither to compel a deed nor for money. If there is any liability on Mrs. Ellis to recover back money paid under the contract, it is recoverable at law under section 15, chapter 66, Code. Williamson v. Cline, 40 W. V. 194; Wick v. Dawson, 42 Id. 43; Rogers v. Lynch, 44 Id. 94.

¶3Therefore, we reverse the decree and dismiss the bill without prejudice to an action at law.

¶4Reversed.

/53/wva/421 · .json · Public domain