Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-01-24
THE COVRTS.

ECPRKMK Cor RT OF THE DISTRICT IN q EN-
IRAL TERM, Chi1 Jssttee 0Gr-t 10 Ia 4vessI-
tre; Associate justices OtH, VI ite ssl5 fSsasr.-
Edward NJ. LmtnioUm We. Alexander Ray.
John A. Wills Tor appellant; Dlvidge AMI UOx
Tor Gpleilte. This case eJnes up on an appeal
4. ON TIE Circuit Court below. Ii involves the
qUtsitcn rs to the right of plaintiff t. use the
NhaIf of def, ndant for shipping coal The
llalntif, 1t appears, owns a lot ol the no tn
eide Of Wafer street, @ Georgetown, between two
triek warehouses. On the south side OF the
ste ct was a lot. now oil yi6ed Into three, run
ming few yards south To the river, on w hieh
was formerly WHAT The controversy turns
upon the question as TO time when the right of
the parties begin, under WI om the plaintiff and
de fendant sev,rally claim. The defenalnt
claims that IN lSs, Charles nd Francis I.own-
des conveyed the brick house together with the
" harf IN fIoBt OF the same To {ohn TempIetsI,
IN trust IA 1897, Francis LoWndes anG John
Tempt, ton to Walter Smith. In 1924, Walter
smith in trust, to sell for benefit of Bank Of Co
lumbia. In 1924 Smith sold under this deed
and in 1873 conveyed to the bank of the United
States, after other cpnyeyaHCeS, the property
came to the defendant IN 1857 X. and l.. w
Johns occupied the ~ foot lot and used
the wharf a few years after recei wing
their deed, but both have been vacant
and unoccnpied since se67, except
two years until the defendant Ray purchased
in ls5S. The original wharf in the meantime
had disappeared, defendant built another, and
has had possession since. The plaintiff den les
the defendants cl1im that his right originated
under 10th the deeds of trust from the
under the deed OF trust TO Smith in 1907. On the
contrary, he con tends that it did not originate
until the year 1897, under the deed 20 Smith,
and that IN the meantime nSGi) plaintiffs right
To said wharf originated in the deed Of
conveyance made by the Lowndes To
the Johnses, ~ anting the lot, and the
joint right to use wharf in question, anu this
rs subject 10 the prior right - it, acquired
by the Johnses III rs 4, under whom he Lin
thicUm claims, and he sets up the support OF
this LIST. The deed of trust from Lowndeses to
Temple man, dated April %, 1s0J. I'd. The deed
of conveyance from the Lowndeses 10 the
JOhnses, dated January IL. 1914. Sd. Th. deed
of trust from Templeman and T. LowndeS to
Walter Smith, dated Sept. -, 1871. 4th. That
IL appears from the evidence that the right
claimed by the plaintiff, was claimed ar d exer-
cissd from the beginning by the Johnses by
Helen and by their yendus. withoutOhiection.
for upward of 50 years, and that the right has
been 70 long recognized, that whether it was
strictly legal in the beginning not Is imma-
urial. ii has now ripened into an adverse legal
title, and is too late to begin TO deny il.
Defendant's counsel contend that the right to
use the wharf was not made appurtenant to the
twenty foot lot by the deed TO X. and l.. u.
Johns. but was n mere easement in gross. not
assignable, and consequently never acquired
by defendant. ID. That all the various deeds
down 10 the defendant passed the title To de-
PENDANT free of the easement claimed by the
plaintiff The trust of the deed to Templeinan
both he and the bank were interested. As 10
Templeman. the trust was to indemnify against
loss by reason of his endorsement. and n power
of sale>given for that purpose. As to the bank,
the moment Templeman accepted the trusts of
the deed to him. the bank became Interested,
ahd could have enforced their execution
They could equally agree to extend the time.
and 10 the substitution of a new trustee,
The deed of Templeman TO Smith, therefore
was fully authorized by the terms of his trust
and the title derived under il by defendants.
Ray. is valid in equity as well "a at law. If
in an equitable point there is any irregularitv
still the legal title passed and Invested all legal
title IRON the plaintiff, who never had more
than an equity, and the legal estate with the
possession, has been held by the defendant for
ten years, while the equity of the plaintiff has
not been asserted for fifty years, and il is ar
gued that the plaintiffs not in a condition 10
MAINTAIN a suit al law. Stii on trial.
Equity Court, Justice Cartter-Yestardav
in the case of Owens W. Owens ct al, il was
ordered that complainant may withdraw re-
ceipts on leaving certified copies
Cammack VS.. Powers. Jones and Ashford
for appellant; Jackson for appellee. This was
an appeal taken from the Judgment of the Cour1
below. The original action was brought for
the payment of SIs6.5S. The jury returned
verdict Of S2S6.56-Sl9 more than the amount
claimed. This action is brought To set aside the
verdict of the Court below. The clerk of the
court had changed the amount from S2-6 81 10
Sie6.JG. which the counsel for the plaintiff
claimed was Illegal. Judge DIN said Such "a
change by the clerk was not within his power
that he had no right to make such a change 1t
was not even IN the power of the Court to alter
the verdict of the jury. There was no case here
for this Court, as the record showed only S1Sj.56
The Court below was sustained