Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1854-08-23

John Pierson. \.
Opinion By Wdliams:' C J.1ohn pierson
commenced his action of right kainst B. c.
Armstrong, in the District Coart l Des Moines
County, for the recovery of the possession Of
lots Nos. twenty eight (2s,) twent nine (29,)
thirty t3O) thirty one (3l thirty-tto (32) and
the city of Burlington IN said Ctlnty. He
claimed fee simple title thereto in himself. He
also claimed for the detention, usdand occu.
patton thereof, one the,s SAID dollarsI
The defendant Armstrong appearcS ana fiji.
ed his answer, denying Plaintiffs risAt to the
possession Of the lots, 4 denied that tAspain.
tiff was the owner of the lots in fee SIM Sle: also
denied that he was entitled to damasa for the
use OF occupancy and detention .her&,f He
also averred in his answer that lie hid and
held the possession Of the lots in queSion by
virtue of a title bond. executed by tha plain.
tiff TO him, for the lots, on purchase hereof,
which bond was made and dated on tlt 18th
day of Jnne 1851 under which he west into
possession of the premises and made valuable
improvements thereon He further averred IN
his answer that the plaintiff. having udg-
ment against him the defendant in said court.
caused an execution thereon to be issued and
levied on said premises as the property of said
defendant; by virtue oi which, the said lots
were sold by the sheriff Of said county, and
being so sold, were purchased As the property
OF defendant: by plaintiff - that from the time
of said sale, the defendant had one year TO re-
deem said lots, and that the time of rsdemp
tion had rot then expired, and therefore no
title bv virtue OF said sale, was vested in the
plaintiff TO said lots:--thats plaintiff was
thereby estopped DC The plaintiff filed his
rep p'icaton denying the answersol the def,n
dant.
The cause, by consent, was submitted TO
the court. without the intervention of n iury
upon the issue Joined The c,nrt found he
issue for the plaintiff and iudpement was ac !.
cordinriy entered The iitle /, ,be lots !,
question was decided to be inI the pImn,iff
with The costs of snit TO be paddy defendant
A bill of exceptions to the proceedings was
taken by defendant and an appeat r., this
court
BY the bill Of exceptions it appears that The
only evidence which was olfsrc,,hy ,h. ,,,i,,,,,
tiff to sustain the issue on his part, was the
deed of conveyance made, executed and te
corded, by Francis j. c. Peaslpy and Mary L
Peasley his wife, to John Pierson, Senior, for
the lots in dispute, dated MAY LIST 1851, ac-
knowledged the same day and recorded May
3D., 1851 in deed book No I6, page Ill Here
The plaintiff rested his cause. The defendant
Ee nnamn. No. ',"e"re ~ &C. on nus part here"pon the
olain,,tf '"'' ''' '"e
ms Judgment must be reversed: The ans
wer OF ,ne defendant, IN me most direct terms.
den'ea 'he ,l'ie OF me piaint'fi 20 the lots IN
epu.e. ne s.oou secure IN ms possession !
she P'en,lsea. uh.i' me Pia'ntn' ny proof OF
sooa ul,e showed MS right thereto Alter
plos'nB .ne purchase OF TIE lots oy himself
RON rea>hy ana wtie, ~ was necessary to
.''s soou ,esa' .Hie 10 tnem IN feaSiey ana
" mne, as 'e'oois' under whom he CLAIMED by
reea. ~ ,he titie OF feasley and wi'e was de.
,ectiVe 10 iaw' SO was ms. being derived from
,nen' ,; ne Shouid nave shown good TILE III
ninseI, oy iega' derivation from the govern
''Gn', =. "a as .ne source.
has ueeh SO oiteh decided, mat, in an ac'
lio" m Eeclncnt or fight, tor the recov.
e,y " e,,e possess'oi OF reai eslate,he P'aint'i
,iust 'eiy on eood title 10 himself and not on
.ht "eaAness : oi we 'itle oi deiendan, who
:" possession, inat we deem IL superhaous
~ aaulce au1hoi,tieS on the SUBJECT.
,ora,.s W, - nnl no'h."g IN the piead'ngs INA,
,.e a.: .'ie lient oi uelehdant TO the DEMENT,
" '"'e P'i"cific oi 'a", anu as ~ uihposes Oi