The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-10-05
THE COURTS.

EQUITY CouRr-Judge Wyhe.-Yeste
day the Court opened at 10 o'clock, and ate
authorizing the entry Of some formal orders
proceeded with the Issues Gases on the docke
as follows:
1888. Fowler VS.. Dennis. This case, whici
was heard on Thursday In part, came up agar
yesterday, and Il being agreed that the cas-,
should DO submitted on written Briefs the Cour
took the papers and reserved Its decision.
$40. Columbus Alexander OF al. W. Henri,
Douglas ct al This case grows out Of thi, stat,
Of facts: In 1860, Henry Douglas and his tw,
brothers, John and William, owned jointly
certain real estate in square 90, which was soil
for taxes in that year, and purchr.ed by ont
Plat, who obtained q deed from the city there
for In 1862. Soon Afterwards, Henry Douyla
purchased Plat's title. In 1864, certain judg
mont certificates Of William Douglas levied uper
and sold bis interest In the property which wa
purcho'cd by Columbus Alexander. Alexander
now brings this action to recover from Henry
Douglas q third portion Of tho estate which hs
alleges belonged to William Douglas at the date
Of the judicial sale In 1854.
Swami for the PLAINTIFF Dividgs and Philip.
for the defendants.
Mr.. Swami contendod that upon the principle
that the act Of one joint owner Of real estate
for the benefit Of the common property, enured
to the benefit Of all tho joint owners; the pur.
Chase Of Henry Douglas was, In effect, Q mere
to It's original owners. He quoted Rothwell vs.
Devices, 2 Blacks Report, as sustaining this
position.
Mr.. Davidge did not deny tho law as stated by
Mr.. Swami But 1t did not apply to this case.
The purchase here was madeIby Plat, a stranger
to the title, and to him passed the sole estate,
cxtingushing the joint ownership forever. After
Henry Douglas had thus ceased to be q joint
owner, he purchased the sole estate from Plat.
Certainly this was not the case Of one joint
owner buying up an incumbrance on the Joint
estate. Was the joint ownership TO continue
after tho estate had ceased to oy'st, and forever
fetter Henry Douglas!
He contended, also, that, even II VIM. Doug.
las had an interest in the premises, It was more
right to redeem, and in this District not subject
to sale under an execution. All tho marshal
could sell was the legal estate Of VIM. Douglas,
and there being no legal estate In him, the sale
amounted to nothing. lie quoted 4th Watts and
Seargent, '25l, as authorities
Mr.. Cox thought Rothwell VS.. Devices was
conclusive to this case and this case was even
stronger, for there the party purchasing was
merely interested in right of his wife, and here
he was one Of tho joint owners. He occupied,
too, another fduciary relation; he was at the
time Of bis purchase not only joint owner, but
occupied the premises asa tenant at will Of the
joint owners.
The Court took tho papers and reserved II,
decision.
034. Joseph Patch VS.. Laura A Patch. This
Is an application for a divorce from tho bonds Of
matrimony, the plaintiff alleging that tho do.
PENDANT had committed adultery with Dade
Groves, VIM. Blood, and Frank Etheridgo, the
evidence Of the crime with the latter being Of
very strong character. The parties were mar.
ried when the defendant was but thirteen Year,
Of ago. NJ Thompson for tho complainant, and
r. II. Laskey for the defence.
Tho court decreed tho divorce, leaving the
children in the custody Of the mother until its
further order.
800. Eckels vs. Barrett This Is case for the
pa -tition Of the estate Of tho late O. J. Barrett
In which the only point In dispute Is the owner.
ship Of lot 4, In square 436, which Mrs. Barrett
claims as her own property, and the plaintiff
claims rs portion Of the estate Of Barrett, dc.
ceased.
Thompson for plaintiff Davis for defendant.
After argument on the facts, the Court dc.
cided the lot to belong to Mrs. Barrett and
decree for partition was entered.
Ono Of the practitioners Of the Court asked q
judgment, by confession, against defendant,
who had consented thereto by note In writing.
which was produced In Court.
Judge Wyiie did not think that the practice
Of the Court authorized the entry Of a judgment
in this way. The proper way was for the de
PENDANT to authorize an attorney to appear In
Court and make the confession Of Judgment.
During the session the Court ordered the entry
Of formal DEGREES In suits not at issue as follows
397 Heap vs. Heap. This case, requiring
tho examination Of papers and settlement Of nc.
counts, was referred to tho auditor for this pur-
pose.
Ala Brown VS.. Curtis. The sale made 10 this
case by 4 commissioner was approved by the
Court, subject to exceptions within 30 days
904 Ball Va. Lichau. The bond Of the sew.
eral trustees named In this cause to sell the of
fects of the defendant being found sufficient, |
were approved by the Court.
925. Patch VS. Patch. An order made in thi, |
cause authorizing tho parties to examine and
take copies Of the evidence already heard before
tho commissioner.
534. In 70 Nixon's estatei decree Of sale In |
this case at the risk Of H. Fowler.
1919, Qaw.) Gait 4 Brother VS. Hall Fiat |
for the revival Of a case.
1925 johnson vs.. Mock. Order for a continu- l
anoe Of tho case until next term.
50. Corporation Of Washington vs. The Alex.
audria, Washington and Georgetown Railroad
Company. 1t appearing in this case that Ger
lain accounts and inquiries had been submitted
10 the late VIM. Redin, auditor, and were not
completed, the court ordered that the said ac-
,ounts, &c, with the late auditors notes, &C.,
hsreon, be submitted to Auditor Cox for com
,letion and settlement.
The court then, at 4 o'clock, adjourned until
Monday next.