Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-05-06
THE COURTS.

surRENE OoURT og THH DieTRt.T OF 90
LuMBtA = 0HNERAL Term = Ohief justice
gsss,sr .nd J,,lsss w s s9s or 80 q
4 o. ". Olark md Frank o, DanIela made hp-
plloation for a,t ssion 70 the bar Of this Dis
isrred 70 the eSsminibs eommittse.
The biIi in this ssss was nied BY Truman
| 4 widow and has siaoo lnfsrmArried with
Joseph Stanley Jones, to compel the specific
performance Of certain covenant, dated the
X. Whey promised 70 pay fht said Cook for
prossoution Of her claims as heIr OF dlsiribuS
but not TO be paid until her clAlms are finally
dtcided, and 10 SECURE The sald amount by 4
Ilen on her properly. The .eomplainAnt sets
engaged In the prosecution OF the riThts 10
the contract referred TO, aud that a larre part
not All her claims 10 aaidcontraot lpeolhed,
plalnant further alleges that the said Emily n.
Wiley and her husband, In 1900, conveyed GER
tain real estate 70 Mrs, Elizabeth Brown, who,
for the said +. p. wiley, and ne AYERS tho
same TO be property Of the said y. y. wiley,
70 Zee simple, and that he has demA nded from
the said covenant, but she has failed to con.
i, "That tito said Emily r. Wiley may be
NJ
chief Justice Cartier pronoupeed tho opIn-
Ion Of the court, The case on heating below
involves the specific performance OF this I'M
dcrtAklng; "In confederation Of services Iend-
cred and 20 be rendered by Truman Cook TO
a. heir and distributee Of my father, TIllotson
y. Brown, hereby agree to pay said Cook
$1,000, u being Understood that said amount IL
nnally decided, and hereby agree TO give said
yoot, al his request, lien on my property
for securing said amount"
u 10 conceded Ia the argument Of this care
that n this argument IL not begotton ID fraud,
the complainant Ia entitled 10 the relief 10
seeks In his hiil,aud tho whole defence IL made
70 depend upon tho Tact whether IL Ia or not.
The hrst item Of defence that We are prsscnt-
ed with on this subject Ia me deed itself There
IL the solemn undertaking made over the
tho respondent, and should be mpeAehed be-
fore u ls considered fraudulent either by a
court o. law or equity, BY clear and indisIpu.
the execution OF the instrument and oontsmH'
poraneous with u, supports the Instrument.
Mt; Brent, the only diliniereated witness pre-.
executed and tully Understood by the parties
20 Its execution, and that the respondent free.
iyput her signature TO Il aud after discussion.
anything which TRANSFERRED con empoT aneously
wiih the obligation they arc infofmed that Il
was freely. iutelligently, and deliberately
the instrument to another period, we have il
tsstidcd by the respondent and refuted ia the
testimony Of her mother and others that 10
the course Of the connection with the Browh
matter Cook became possessed OF y deed Of
real or Imaginary value to the parties. There
il also evidence thaf he held II IN terrorcm over
Mrs. Brown anti Mrs. wylle, hut there IL no
evidence, save the Testimony Of MfB. brown
aud Mra. Wylic, that &c bore UPON her or was
brought Into confederation In the execution Of
this Instrument, and II 10 denied by Cook; and
upon this Doubtful tssue, whether her eGeotl-
tion Of the Instrument which 10 testified 10
have been fully entered into without reference
to this deed, aeoutt OF chAneorg Ia asked to
set aside the instrument.
Judge q. continued reviewing the tesiI-
mony, and ended by pronouneing the judgment
OF the court below.
Judge Wylle read from an opinion concur
rlng and Judge Olin dlssenteI, saying that
there was proof that the paper OF CoOk was
,exeouted under dutess.
orav ford ct al vs.. Moshsrry. In this esfe
the bill below was dismissed below, = demur-
reI thereto having been sustained. ...|
Adjourned.