, 1861-12-07
AN IMPORTANT LAND SUIT
A DoWry Of 100000 In Litigation.

IL the Circuit Court. before Judge Manierrc tho
closing argument for the petitioner was made Yes
trstlny, by Judge Arlington. III the Important suit
for dover brought by Mrs. Z. B. Nicoli agninst
William Il. ogdcn nnd uthcrR. Tho importance Of
thc principles involved in this case, as well az the
amount In iesuc, give it upusual Interest. The
facts in tho case, as gather them from the CYL
dcncc. are briefly az follows:
In 1891. MI Association 1saa formed In Nc,r York
by Edward A. Nicoll husband Of the petitioner.
Charles Butler, and othcrr, for the purchase and
$1qp.t0o and purchased the ''lIunter property
20 called. in this city. together with other lands
The titlc 70 the nroper!y was taken in 1ss5 in the
tar various parties who bad contributed to the
purchase money, setting forth the amount Of their
Respective interests. which amounts were to be
paid in money on o sale Of the lande.
On April LIST, 1872, I'LL OF the lind which had not
been so1d vas divided between Charles Butler On
the ride and the OF her beneficial owners on the
other side, Butler retaining an undivided half Of it
veyine The ether undivided half 70 orsa.nns Bush
but the purposes Of the 1fust not being set forth
On April 18th, 1872 Nicoll and Bushnell cub:
Fcribed declaration Of trust referring to the decd
Of Butler and setting forth that they the lands
ntrutt for Eicol and others, Nico being entitled
s;x.e1ghteenth7 GAS thereof; TINT partition e
| cable; that II any Of the lands should be sold be-
fore partition. the trnsccs would pay over the pro-
portion to thctr respective interests therein. and
thnt when partition should be made; the saarc ol
bseets sGnld b. b. foay{sd ays G Dy she
ueTnl IN 1s1 Sico conveyed By
Sef' nna I'll IN e deeds ta % an On Apf 1h
flc persons to whom Nichols had Conveyed, to-
| gether with the persons owning the re1nainlng
enIc ard Conveyance ofther interests in the prop
| erry to William 3. Ogden.
was then the sole Trustee uuder the deed Of Butler
| Nlcoll having by order ofCou1t been removed from
| liz position a. Co., trustee, 4uit-claimed the
premises for the consideration ofoue dollar to said
| Ogden
Some days ago. the evidence in this case was sub.
| mitted to the Cour1, and the argument opened for
b. III. DecEwith for the defence. and the argument
was closed for the petitioner By Judge Arlington
yesterday, as before stated.
1t was coutended on behalf OF tie defendants:
1st That the power OF sale II the Trustees was
| such that # executed. the estate Of the benefc
ae5 woua Be dea5ed @ s aRd ~ Incidents Of such
| I'd. That the power was executed by Bushnell's
eonveyanee 9, to Ogden, and that tins the right O.
On the other hand. it was ntentled in behalf o
the petitioner:
Isl. That the power given to the Trustees was
| common law authority derived from the benefci
| aries Themselves. and not power under the Stat
ute Of uses: that the exercise OF such authorit,
| can never defeat dover
Cd That tho power Of sale claimed for the TruE
| tees. was never executed fo- these reasons tbs
Ogden became BY assignment to him Of the inter
e=I Of all the bcnefciaries. sole beneficial owner @
the estate and that therefore under the trust he
came the duty OF the Trustee to convey the lesa
title TO him, which he did; that the deed from Ii
| Trustee to Ogden did not purport to be sale q
the 1and, but was mere quit claim Of the lega
title and contained no wordE Of reference to h
| power; that any undertaking OF Trustee to max
sale Of large property for such grossly inadt
quate consideration, one dollar, would he Of itsc
fraudulent and void against heufcIency; an
finally. that as Ogden was at the date Of Bushnell
quit elai. the sole beneficial owner Of the estat
| to claim that Buthnell's deed execution
power Of sale, is to claim that Bushnell migi
sell to Ogden the property which Ogden had bougt
| and paid for sl1 months previously.
3. That even had there been 10 declaration
trust. there still resulting trust in the prem
ises in favor Of the benfciarics who paid the pu
chase Honey.to which dover would ut once attac!
Dover is also claimed By the petitioners in co
| siderable amount Of the land il Rockwelle Add
dition and elsewhere. in relation to which the ae
are not materially unlike those connected with II
- We understand that this suit is brought as te
case and that the total value Of the dover intere
Of Mrs. Nicoll which will depend on the decfeit
Of this case, and which effects lots owned By lar
Il number Of persons in this city may reach $3.50
3 or $10G,(o0
DR.. Hunter of New York. on tt
f.uuHaR 4sn1 f,rrA nf ftafurrEu.