Sioux City register. [volume] (Sioux City, Iowa) 1858-1871, 1860-10-27
CANDIDATE FOR
SUPREME JUDGE.

In response to request from large
number Of the most prominent men of the
State-irrespective Of party--askipg him
to allow the use Of his name as an indie
pendent candidate for Judge of the Su
preme Court, Hon. DAN'L f. MILLER, of
Lee tcounnty, has written letter acced.
ing to the wishes Of his friends, and ID
now before the people as en- Independent.
candidate for Supreme Judge.
Mr.. MILLER is Republican, but as be
is not party candidate, and is running for
en- Office which many people claim should
be filed without reference to political con
siderations, and as he is we'll qualified to
discharge the duties of the position, we
insert his name in our paper as an "Inde-
pendent candidate
Judge Wright, the Republican candi'
date for the Supreme Beach, made him
self highly obnoxious to the people by his
extraordinary Homestead Decision "
which he rendered in 1857. The facts in
the case, as we learn them from the Keo-
kuk Journal, are as follows:
In 1850 one VIM. Mccormick, = man of
family, owned half lot of ground in the
city Of Muscatine, some 80 feet in front
and l4O feet in depth, ind erected thereon
three story house intended for home
stead. He and his family resided in the
upper rooms OF his house, and the lower
part, first story, he used as his place of
business until the 10th day of November,
1856, when he rented the first story and
cellar. to one Nellis, for stipulated price.
In 1856, firm of the name of Rhodes,
Pegram d Co., got judgmen in the Dis
trict Court Of Muscatine county against
Mccormick, for a debt accruing su bse-
quent to the erection Of said building, and
causing execution to be issued had it levi
ed on said premises. The defendant re.
sisted the levy on the ground Of said pre-
misses being homestead for himself and
family, under the provisions of the code of
Iowa, and not subject to the said levy and
execution. Mccormick still resides in
said building and on said premises.
The case was decided by the Supreme
Court at its June term, in 1857, Judges
Wright and Woodward concurring in OPT
MON; Judge Wright delivering the deci-
sion, and Judge Stockton dissenting and
delivering different opinion. The argu-
ment or rather excuse for the argument
to sustain the decision, is too lengthy and
verbose to quote, but the decision is as
follows The tile to the soil remains in
the case before US, in the defendant or
owner of the homestead. The purchaser
under the execution acquires the right to
the first floor and cellar and every part
of each, which is to continue so long as
the same is ten0ble The owner or occu.
pant OF the upper stories is TO be in no
manner disturbed in the possession of
said premises, has right to pass and re-
pass By the ordinary and constructed pas
sage or stairway so as to enjoy and use
said homestead, but must do nothing to
endanger the purchaser under the execu-
ton nor unnecessarily impair bis rights.
There, fellow citizens, Z your glorious
homestead law of Iowa, for nearly all
practical purposes, swept away by this
extraordinary Judicial decision of Judge
Wright Under this decision, Mccormick
and family are denied all privileges of the
cellar and first floor Of the house forever,
because when he was out Of business he
rented his lower room and cellar for a
short perid to ueighbor. What viola
ton Of the provisions If our code What
perversion Of common sense What G.
field of litigation what uuheard of mis-
fortunes will be visited on many families
by that decision
he better common sense and legal
learning of Judge Stockton saw the folly
and destructive character of that decision
and he prepared aud recorded very able
opinion against it. 1t is too long to be all
copied in a newspaper article, but the fol
lowing sentences and illustrations will
give an idea Of the balance of it:
There is, says Judge Stockton, no pre-.
cedent for so parcelllng ont the title OF
the premises, for so separating the title oil
the house from the title of the lot on
which 1t stands, etc, That purchaser at
Sheriff Sale shall become the owner of
the cellar and first story of the building,
while the ground on which it stands and
the second and third stories shall belong
to the judgment debtor, is an anomaly We.
to be witnessed in our Jadicial history
Whoever owns the soil, owns whatever is
upon it,
At the conclusion Of his opinion he
says that as the statute has not made pro.
visions for a case like that then before the
court, L. e. to authorize the parceling out
OF the cellar and first floor from the rest
of the house and the garrett he thought
it safer to wait until the Legislature had
spoken authoritatively, rather than for the
court to indulge in species of Judicial
Legislation which the facts and necessi
ties of the case do not require
Mark you, reader, the man who votes
for Judge Wright in the face of that deci.
sion, can never be sincere in his assertion
when he says he is in favor of State or
Congressional homestead Law. ave shall
see what we shall see.'''