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” defendant’s 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 plaintiff’s 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. 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 Winchester v. City of Stevens Point

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 Porter’s suit? • Statutory estoppel • Equitable estoppel

12. 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.” Porter v. Wertz

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 hotel’s 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