The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1867-01-09

cision Of the Supreme Court in the case
James MacGregor, Jr., against George !
Gardiner, ct. al, has been furnished us
John T. Stoncman:
These parties have been three times b,
lore this court in relation to same. subjee
matter, before this present case. This &C
: ton was brought to set aside deed exc
cuted by James MacGregor, Jr., to An,
G. MacGregor, and left in escrow with Geo
ID. Gardiner, to be delivered on the hap
: pening of certain contingencies.
The transcript, pleadings, exhibits, &c.
IN the present case, embrace 304 closely
printed pages.
In 1851 James MEG. lived in N. y, and
Alexander MEG. at McGregor, Iowa. Al
exander transacted business as atty in
fact Of James. In 1845 Gregor McGregor
died, leaving by will to Ann g., wife of
Alexander, and heirs, $4,000, to be held in
trust by james and Duncan McGregor for
Ann G. and her heirs.
In 1851 James visited Iowa. After
some difficulties between James and Alex
ander, they agreed to compromise, James
selling to Ann G. his interest, which AL
exander had managed Us atty for James,
for ST, 500, of which $500 was paid in
note by Ann G. James gave bond to con-
vey land on payment of note, and execut-
ed deed, which was left with Gardiner to
be delivered on James, being released as
trustee Of the trust fund of $1,000.
In Dec, 1862, Gardiner delivered this
deed to Ann G., which she had recorded.
Ihls suit is brought to set aside the deed
In 1852 Ann G. instituted suit in n, Y.
IN which she claimed that the lands men
toned in this deed were hers, being the
proceeds of said trust fund. In 1855 a
decree was rendered averse to her claim,
and in 1862 this was, on appeal, affirmed.
In 1852, in Dec, Alexander, claiming to
act as atty for James, conveyed these
lands to Geo. D. and Egbert Gardiner, for
| the benefit of Ann G.
In 1858 James brought suit in Iowa to
set aside these deeds as fraud on him.
The two GARDENERS, Alexander, Ann g.,
Duncan, Gregor and Gardner McGreyor
made or became defendants. Defendants
claimed that the settlement Of 1851, the
execution of said title bond and note for
A,5OO, was fraud on Ann G.. and Alex
ander, and also that said lands belonged
to Alexander as being purchased with his
own money, and also asking that said note
should be cancelled. The district court
made decree cancelling said note, and de-
creeing the land to be the property of
James. This decree was appealed from to
the supreme court, which modified decree
as follows: Note to be cancelled. The
lands in controversy found not to be fruit
OF trust fund, and case sent back again to
district court of Dubuque, which made
this decree, the trust fund still in N. Y.
the two deeds executed to the GARDENERS
set aside as void, and James the owner Of
the said lands.
Atnext term notice to set aside this decree
was sustained and decree set aside. New
decree was then entered, us follows: The
land in question not fruits Of trust fund.
The deeds to the GARDENERS again set aside
and James declared to be the owner of the
lands. From this decree Defendants ap-
I"aloa tv ouproine court, where ucvip;oa in
the main was affirmed. Bill for review
was then filed, and was overruled, which
ended this bitterly contested suit.
AT the request of Alexander and Ann
u. in that suit and by the assent of James,
the bond and note aforesaid were cancelled.
The decree was rendered three days before
the delivery of the escrow deed in the
hands of Geo. D. Gardiner. In the pres
ent case Ann G.. claims to he the owner of
said lands by virtue of said deed. In this
decision the supreme court says: "That
decree fixed the rights of the parties at
the date Of its rendition. If James was
the owner of the property at date of de-
cree and three days after, it follows that
he is still the owner us against Ann g.,
who has acquired no right to it since the
decree. but whoseright-if it ever had an
exlstence-accrued before the decree and
was cut off by it.
Ann G. claims that the decision in the
former case does not bind her, from the
fact that she was made defendant by order
of the court, and that she was a married
woman.
The court says: The fact that Ann G.
was a married woman does not affect the
conclusiveness of that Judgment or her
rights under it. The controcersv was in
relation to the property claimed by her in
her own separate right.
We conclude, therefore, that the iudg-
ments in the former litigations are res ad-
jucata upon the rights of Ann G. and the
other parties to the compromise agreeament
and sale, and that she is estoped thereby
from claiming anything therefrom.
AT the trial of this cause in the district
court James demu1red to Defendents ans
wer. The district court sustained the de-
murrer, which was error, as the supreme
court holds in this language. "The ans
wer contains specific denial of all the
ayerments of the petition. The demurrer
admits the truth of the denials. 1t was,
according to the strict rules of pleading,
error to sustain the demurrer, as the ans
wer presents, to that extent, issues of fact
upon which defendant had right to tri-
al /; but of course on such trial the record
of the former adjudications will be sufi-
cient to overcome the denials."
Thus the reader will see that the cloud
so long hanging over the title of the land
on which our city stands has at last been
lifted, and that there is light ahead.