The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-10-03
THE OURTN.

ID
EqUrrY CoUnr-Judgo Wyiic-Yester.
day, ator calling the Calendar, the first case
taken up was
No. 2os. Smith Harley W. Rich A. Hyde ct al.
This Is an action by Harley alleging that Hyde
was indebted to him for advances to carry on
the wood businets; that he had obtained jndg.
nent therefor, and had had real estate sold
Hereunder, purchasing the same himself and
had brought an action Of ejectmcnt TO recover
the same, which was now pendingi that Hyde,
BY fraudulent deeds executed TO r. =. Miller.
Harvey Crittenden and bis sons, had endeavored
to cover up his reaf estate from bis creditors and
to bar the ejeotment cult mentioned;J thnt,
although the wood business mentioned was
eopartnsrship between himself and Hyde, the
latter had never accounted to him for It's profits.
The bill prays discovery Of tho facts upon the
oaths Of the parties concerned therein; tho an
nullipg Of the deeds Of trust mentioned; al In.
junction to prevent the use Of the titles conveyed
In said deeds OF trust defenoes 10 tho action Of
ejectment; and also an account Of the profits Of
the Hyde wood and coal business.
Tho defendant and all tho parties to the deeds
Of trust answer that the deeds were bona 6d,,
and for valuable consideration Mr.. r. A. Hyde
answers that there were no profits In the coal
business, tho bad debts Of tho concern having
swamped Il.
The injunction prayed for in this case was
disalloued some timo since after argument; and
no testimony being filed in the papers, the case
was heard yesterday on bill, answers and OK
hibits.
Mr.. Swami for complainant Bradley 4 Son
for defendants.
The case 10 the argument turned upon the
question whether a judgment 10 lien from its
date upon the equitable estate Of q debtor 10
land, conveyed under q deed Of trust; II having
appeared In the progress of the case that Hyde's
deed to his son Of his interest In certain Of the
property incumbered by deeds Of trust was not
admitted to record within six months, nor until
aftet the rendition Of the judgment.
The court took tho papers and reserved its
decision.
$50 Mary A. Robcy vs. Robert Prout. This
Is an action to recover tho possession Of lease
hold estate In certain real property on south A
street, between Third and Fourth, and Of certain
rights Of purchase thereon brought by the plain
th, who alleged that she Is the daughter Of one
Jane Malleon, who held to her separate use, the
lease and right In question: but that her step.
fathor-sho being ignorant Of her rights-took
possession Of the leAsehold, and on his death de-
yised II to Rev. Edward knight, then pastor Of
Capitol Hill Catholic church; that Knight held
the property awhile, but then gave it up, when
II was taken into possession by Robert Prout,
owner Of the land leased, and against whom the
action 10 brought.
Tho answer admits the lease, &C., but denies
that the plaintiff is the daughter Of Jane NAL
leon. and AYERS that the lease has been forfeited
for non.pnyment Of rent, and the land re.entered
upon.
Mary A. Robey has died in the aims.house
since the commencement Of the suit. which Is
now revived In tho name of Robert A. Robey,
Who claims to DO her son.
The evidence as TO the pedigree Of Mary Ann
Robey was to the general effect that Jane Nal.
Sa ssT to SS ns sA calling
mamma. Some witnesses testified that Jane
MAllson raid that Mary Ann was her adopted
child. II also appeared In evidence that Prout
obtained the tenants acknowledgment Of bim as
their landlord after knights relinqui,hment by
threatening to distrain their goods for the ground
rent.
TO.ten for plaintiff Bradley, jr, for defend
ant.
Mr. l.. Totten argued that even If under tho
terms OF the leaso the landlord was In q situa-
ton to enforce q forfeiture he had not done so in
a proper manner; and had he done so 10 q
proper manner 1t was In the power Of court Of
equity TO relieve against the forfeiture.
At this point the Court said that as the main
point involved was the heirship Of Mary Ann
Roboy to Jane Mulleon, and It was a question Of
act only, upon which evidence conhlcted, he
would send an issue upon that point to the Cir
cult Court for the verdict Of a jury and deter
mine the other points after that question had
L been settled. The issue was accordingly d.
| reotod, and the case continued until next term.
900. KimbAll VS.. Dean. Order entered grant
| ing leave to
| sIa- pa-ar VS. Power A Eala having been
made in this case and reported to the court, an
order was entered ratifying tho sale, unless OBJ.
lection DO made within a month The account
Of sale referred to the auditor to ascertain IL II
be proper to pass the court.
| 9o1. Mackall vs. Mackall. In this case. upon
/ petition, M. Ashford was named a special au.
ditor to state the unsettled accounts in this case
vice Mcpherson.
24I Linthicum VS. Jones. The auditor hay
ing properly stated the accounts in this case,
his report was confirmed.
7fs, McLsod vs., Mcleod. The auditors re-
port in this case was confirmed, subject to ex-
ceptions within month.
1864 Provost VS.. Winter Tho auditors 70.
port In tho case was submitted and confirmed.
Tho court then, at 3 O'Clock, adjourned until
ten O'Clock this morning.