Humbert v. Rector of Trinity Church
24 Wend. 586 (1840)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations bars a claim to recover real property after 20 years of adverse possession, regardless of whether the possessor knew their claim was wrongful or acted with fraudulent intent. A possessor's bad faith is irrelevant; the focus is on whether the possession was actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile for the statutory period.
Facts:
- The complainants are heirs of Anneke Jans Bogardus, and the defendants are Trinity Church, both of whom claim title to the same lands.
- In 1705, Trinity Church obtained a government grant for the 'Duke's farm,' which was adjacent to the Bogardus lands.
- Complainants allege that the Church intentionally described the boundary ambiguously in its petition for the grant to facilitate encroachment onto the Bogardus property.
- Following the grant, Trinity Church began taking possession of parcels of the Bogardus lands, using threats, violence such as pulling down fences, and making monetary offers to induce the Bogardus heirs to leave.
- Despite resistance, one of the heirs, Cornelius Bogardus, remained in possession of a significant portion of the land.
- In 1785, after years of pressure, Cornelius Bogardus accepted £700 and executed a conveyance of his interest to Trinity Church.
- After the 1785 conveyance, Trinity Church took general and unrestrained possession of the disputed lands and has held them exclusively ever since.
- The complainants allege the church concealed this deed from Cornelius and always affected to hold the land in severalty under its original grant, not as a co-tenant.
Procedural Posture:
- The heirs of Anneke Jans Bogardus (Complainants) filed a bill in the Court of Chancery of New York.
- The defendants, Trinity Church, demurred to the bill, arguing that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The Vice Chancellor of the first circuit overruled the demurrer, allowing the case to proceed.
- The defendants appealed the Vice Chancellor's decision to the Chancellor of New York.
- The Chancellor reversed the Vice Chancellor's order, allowed the demurrer, and dismissed the complainants' bill.
- The complainants then appealed the Chancellor's decree to the New York Court for the Correction of Errors, the state's highest court at the time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's knowledge that their possession of land is wrongful, or their fraudulent intent in acquiring it, prevent the statute of limitations from running in their favor for adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowen, J.
No. A defendant's fraudulent intent or knowledge that their possession is wrongful does not prevent the statute of limitations from barring a claim for adverse possession. The statute is a 'statute of repose' intended to quiet titles and cut off stale claims, and its enumerated exceptions for disabilities like infancy or coverture are exclusive; courts will not create a new exception for fraud. The essential inquiry is not into the possessor's state of mind or good faith, but into the character of the possession itself—whether it was actual, open, and inconsistent with the true owner's rights for the statutory period. Here, the complainants' own bill demonstrates that the Church's possession has been hostile and exclusive since at least 1785, far exceeding the 20-year period. The law matures a wrong into a right by cutting off the remedy, and to allow an inquiry into the good or bad faith of a possession from decades or centuries prior would defeat the entire purpose of the statute by reintroducing the uncertainty it was meant to prevent.
Concurring - Furman, Senator
No. The claim is barred by the statute of limitations for the reasons stated by the chancellor and Justice Cowen. Additionally, a careful examination of historical maps and names suggests the complainants' geographical claims are doubtful. Further, one of the complainants, Teller, appears to lack a valid claim due to the application of English primogeniture law, and this misjoinder of a party without interest is fatal to the entire bill.
Concurring - Lee, Senator
No. The claim is barred by lapse of time, as the Church has been in exclusive possession since 1785. The allegation of fraud concerns a mere 'intent' rather than a specific fraudulent act that could vitiate a deed, making it intangible. The policy of the law is to quiet titles and prevent litigation based on ancient claims, and overthrowing this long-standing possession would shake the security of titles throughout the state. The case of Livingston v. Peru Iron Co. is distinguishable as it concerned the statute against champerty, not the statute of limitations.
Concurring - Livingston, Senator
No. The decree should be affirmed based on the public policy behind the statute of limitations, which is to quiet old possessions and prevent endless litigation over dormant claims. Disturbing a possession of such long standing would be unjust and would open the door to countless 'antediluvian claims,' destroying the peace of communities and the security of property owners. The wealth or poverty of the parties is irrelevant; the law must protect long and peaceful occupation of land.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the objective standard for adverse possession in New York, clarifying that the possessor's subjective state of mind—their bad faith or knowledge of their own trespass—is irrelevant. By rejecting an unwritten 'fraud' exception to the statute of limitations, the court prioritized the policy of finality and repose over an inquiry into the original merits or morality of the possession. This precedent significantly strengthens the power of adverse possession to cure title defects and bars claims based on allegations of the possessor's historical mala fides, making it more difficult for original owners to revive stale claims.
