, 1863-06-29

The Title to $40 Acres Of Land in
the Eorth Division Involved.


the forth Division Involved.
The report which we subjoiu, Of one Of the
most important land suits ever heard before
Western Court, will be read with interest by
the hundreds Of persons who arc directly In
terested in the premises In question, and also
by the community at large, who are also inte-
rested In the event Of the suit. This case Is
onoof series in which the legal points in
4olyed hare considerable degree Of impor.
tance to the members Of the bar, as present.
ing features quite neW, in many particulars, to
our practice:
The cases inFo1ye the title to 30 acres o
land in the northwest part Of this city, known
as Wieht's addition, originally described as
the n. E. Il and 2. Il, 9. E: T. 80, R. II,
which, was purchased b. b.. II the late Captain
Of his decease, September 8, 1S44, at Erie, Pa,
the place Of his residence
Ii The August term {1gtfD Of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, a Judgment
was rendered in that Court against Captain
the United States Bank.
The Judgment was dated August e3, 1874,
and no execution was Issued upon 1t before
Wieht's death; but an Administrator Of
Wight's estate, with the will annexed, was
appointed by the County Court Of Cook Co.,
By tic Attorney Of the owners Of the iudg-
ment. J. 7. Scammon, esq, who assigned his
certificate Of purchase to Wm. B. Ogden and
Allen Robbins, who received Sherlff's deed
therefor IN 1850.
The main question Of law presented on this
nrt nf fha 7ncn IT JcEafhaY fha apt
was or not lien upon the premises levied on
and sold. The plaintiff insisted 1t was not,
because no execution was sued out within q
year from the last raay Of the term at which
the Judgment was rendered;
This question was argued before the Court
in bauc, in February Last, and the Court de-
cided that the Judgment was lien, and SO far
as TINT question was concerned, the title to
the property passed by the sale.
CAPT. j. 3. F. Russell was Administrator,
With ha tho%m I%s1 a1pnexed 9f Wgnts es1tate apd
County Court Of Cook county, for leave to
sell the real estate left BY Wight, to pay the
debts of tho estate, and obtained d decree for
that purpose at that term, By virtue Of which
he made Esie Of the premises In question on
, received q deed Of the lands, which be con-
:yeyed to Ogden & Robbins in 1850.
The plaintiff insisted that the appointment
Of Russell as Administrator, with the will an
nexed, was void for want Of Jurisdiction; that
his application for leave to sell real estate,
and the decree for Eale which he obtained, was
void for the same and for other reasons, and
the eale made by him was also void for these
reasons, and because 1t was f1audu1cntly con-
Quoted and made.
Tho questions were oil made In the case Of
Wight rs. Ogden & Robbins, tried In April
the execution sale vas void, because the judg-
ment was, in fact, paid before tho sale was
made.
That trial lasted nearly week, and the.
Court decided the case in favor Of the Defend
ants, thus holding the execution and the nd
passed the title to the purchasers.
The Plaintiff Is one Of the heirs OF Capt.
Wight, and insists that all the proceedings
ogainst the premises in question, were void,
1or the reasons above stated, and that, rs One
Of the heirs Of Capt. Wight, he was entitled
10 recover one-GfIh Of the lanlts left by his
father, at bis deceasc.
The su1s against Hocl and Grimes WIS tried
bya jury and al the above questions we're
presented for consideration; and the defend
ant also insistcd that the parties under whom
they oaaim title were bon aide purchasers for
value Of the premises in question, from Og-
den g. Robbins, which defence will be inter
posed In many Of the other cases yet untrled.
Tho jury found verdict for the defendants,
and The plaintiff moved for new trial.
These cases will not be. finally determined,
probably antil the questions involved shall
be eiCed BY tic Supreme Court, but they
are Of great importance to the parties, from
the large amount Of property involved, and,
to the community, from the Interesting legal
questions which they present.
neys for plaintiff3 F. Il. Kalcs and scammon,
McCagg and Fuller, for tho defendants.
TEE BATHING ORp1SAScE.-During the