, 1860-05-08
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

A0"AAA
AEssRs. EDszoas:-A sonewtat erroneous re-
Chicago Land Co., IS John A. Washington and
Wu1 +. Turner, lately tried in the 7 oirea states
Circuit Court, for this Distsiet, appeared in the
PREss AND TRIBUNE Of yesterday. That coutto-
versy has heretofore attracted the attention OF
.the press Of this city. Abont the Goth Of Au-
Washington had gone to protest, suspended,
&c. II Is to be hoped that there has been no
intention 10 do injustice to any Of the parties.
but the statements which hare been published
xse ces,aialy calculated to have tia. effect. aud
such IS the character Of the report in the PnEss
AND TaIBcSE.
The tacts a7e briefly these :-On the Goth of
June, l6:59, a brief memorandum VI cuntrac.
WAS signed BY Mr. o:dea, Of the one part. aad
Messrs. Washington Il Turner, Of the other, for
the purchase Of real estate bv the latter, amount
10 $G7 500. Of which t3j,UtD WIS payable within
the next sixty days, and the residue in thlee
yearly ayments, to be secured By bord and
mortgage. The property had been previously
contracted to be sold, in 1856. 10 one john 4.
Wright, who had expended large AMOUNT Of
money in erecting 1 reaper msuusactor{, and
bis assignee The having tui1ed and made an u.s.
signmeut) was in Possession Of the property
When the Washington and Turner contract was
made. The contrnct with the latter gentlemen
concluded with the following stipulation:
Tn1s agreement is tn b. dependmeut on the
surrender and capeelmens Of the cortract with
said Wright"
The action was brought upon this contract
for the $4,000. 1t Was defended en- two
grounds:
render and cancellation # John S. Wright's
contract within the sixty days. and,
2nd. That while the contract only entitled
| Mr. Ogden to common bona and mortgage on
| the deferred paJ meuts, he demanded pYomlzsorg
notes, negotiable, and liable to be put in the
ket, and bound to be paid ut all events, al hough
the title to portion Of the properly might tail
| {the contract providing that there should be an
I abatement Of the price, and that portion is ye'
III i,tigation) while Mr. Ogden, acs1pg as trus
tee, du not propose to gre warrant OF title
| H. required the notes to be dated back 10 the
| Goth Of June, making difference of *325, and
that they be secured by what Is known "a 4
"cut.tdroat nlortg ,ge, with clauses OF forfeit
ute, power Of sale un> any default, the whole be-
coming du. in that event. ard Divers oshe'
cianses equally objectionable.
Under the hrss defense it appears that3iessr5
Washington and Turner lett for S.r2iniu the
t1ar after thcr c1osed the contract, leaysu& G. r
| u Hughes, Esq, ns their agent; d few days At;
ter the contract was made, Mr. Wright deliver
cd his contract to Mr. O.. sa5 ing l2 Was glad ia
re. rid oft. Sit. CIapp. the a~ssyuce Of Wright,
Testified that both Messrs. Washington aud Tur.
! uer and himself were desirous that the Wright
contract should be surrendered. nut that be had
| no Knowledge that Wright hnd delivered it to
| Ogden during the 60 days, mud that be executed
| no release until after the expiration Of thai
| time, when he made one, which WAS produced
| It was nude after the frbt Of september. bu
was dafe dttrf, tD as to bring it within the G.
| days. There was no presence that Washi gtol
and Turner or their agent, knew OF ihe.e trans
actions, the only evidence on the punt being
that when appltcd to By their agcnt Nr. Ogden
/ 4777on7isfd to attend to II,
The dslendan,s insisted that there could be
| no release Of interest in Clapp. held under the
deed of assignment, without writing, aud thai
it verbal release was sufficient, still it could
| not he done without the knowledge Of Claup
| Who held The title, and that there was no com.
PLUNGE with this positive stipulation in the COZ
tract, until the time had elapsed.
This defence the Court oset.ruled.
The ietendants under the other defence
showed that they were rendy to pay the money
before the expiration Of the sixty days, bur thai
Mr Ogden demanded the securities in tue form
above mentioned
His Honor rulsd that Ogden was entitled to
interest back 10 the 10th Of June, but that be
was entitled to common b md mud mortgage
only. 1t appeared that mr. o. :e" ID receded
from the demand Of d nor'gaxo x"h power o
sa!e, bnt the other objectionable fea'ures were
Hughes testified.
Two clerks in Mr. Ogdep's office testified tha
they heard Mr. Ogden say, when he delivered
the iurke notes and mortgage to Mr.. hughes, L
be forwarded TO Virginia, that if be not likt
them he might prepare Them to suit himself
aud be would ba satisfied. but that Mr.. Ogdet
did uos rccede from his demand. Mr Hu9Lc
however testified that after the return Of th,
second mortgage and notes fr"m Ttrgnis. aat
uuti1 the sixty DAYS expired. afr, 0gdFn s.fl ia
sisted on his demand Under Ibis defence hi
Honor further ruled that Mr. Ogden has no righ
to demand securities of the kind stated; tha
the defendants, however, were bound to teude
the money and such bond and mortgage as th
Contract required, unless Ar. Ogden waired il
Whether the persi-t;nS iu his demand Of th
notes aud the mortgage prepared By him wou'
amount to such waiver be did not inform tn
jury, but stated to them that if he told tn
plaintiffs agent that he might draw the note
and mortgagein form 10 suit himself, .h= eri
dence would be sufficient on which 10 I'm
against thas defence.
The jury. ate. being out about eightee
hours, returned a verdict for the ptuiatif.
The defendant moved for uea trial, "hic
motion is still pending, snd the case Is still il
process Of litigatian.
Scammon, McCacS / Fuller for plaintiff
Gookine, Tuomas i Roberts for defsndan's-