, 1873-05-27
The COURTS.
Another Chapter Of tho Celebrated
Kingsbury Case,
The Claim Of the Infant Hoir to the
Spencer Tract" Sustained.
Important Decision Of Judge
Thornton.

Transactions in the Chicago
Courts Yesterday.
Tho Supreme Court, In tho celebrated Kinga-
bury caao, coma two or thrce yoara ainco, gayo
to Mrs. pucl11lor tho Blare Of hor fathera prop
erty conveyed In 1861 to her brother in trust,
md sent tho CASE baok 10 tho Circuit Court, With
IN order to ontcr docreo that hor property bo
reconvoyed, partition made, and IN account Of |
ronta and profits duo her be taken. Such de-
cree was rendered, when tho friends Of tho In |
fant heir Of Col KingBhury discovered that auali
piece Of land On the North sido. worth, perhaps,
$4,000, had been sold undor dood Of trust to d
Miss spenoor, who had In 1861, at tho request OF
Mr. Latrobo, OF Baltimore, who then represont-
cd the infant, conveyed 1t to Gov. Swami, to ao-
cure q certain sum Of money, and, upon tho pay
ment, to bo conveyed to tho infant. It wns
claimed that this pieoo OF property belonged OK
olusiyoly to tue infant, and that Mrs. Buck
nor had lost all hor iuteroat In 1t.
Tho Supreme Court upon second
appeal, las sustained tho claim Of tho infant
heir to this part Of tho property. and we publish
tho opinion below.
l1o supreme l0uEt, Aohofa4s AoAlAA sAo
title Of Mrs. Duckner to all tho rest Of tho prop
erty, and holds as n matter OF low that tho
Court cannot go back OF tho doc1sion upon the
first appeal. This principle is doomed worry I'M
portant by tho profession.
The counsel for tho infant heir havo
porsiBtontly contested tho title Of Hrs. Bucknor.
Atter tho frat decision in tho Supreme Court,
new counsel wero employed for tho helr, and
thoy undertook to eare the property, and SGT
nBIdo tho docroo In favor Of Mrs. Bucknor. Last
summon. bill WAS filed In tho United States
Circuit Court to review the proceedings in tho
State Court because OF alleged errors, and fraud
aud colluson in conducting them. but Judge
Dlodgett dismissed tho bill, both for tho want of
jurisdiction aud powor to Interfere with the pro-
coedingB Of State Court.
In Tho 3uprono Court 1aet winter, at Bprng-
field, motion WAS mado in bolalf OF tho heir
to recan tho n1andato TO tho Circuit Court, and
dismiss tia appeal, because, as It WAS assorted.
tho Circuit a,d Supreme Courts had no juris-
dict}on, nna tie resuit had boon obtained by COLI
lusion botwoon ,ho counsel in tho caao but the
Court oyerru1od eso motion, holding that there
was Jurisdiction in both COURTS and that tho
charges OF co1usion were entirely without
foundation.
Upon this second appeal to tho Supreme
Court, 1t waH oh1noat1y urged by the counsel for
the heir that the former decision Was ERRONEOUS,
and that humorous orzors existed, to which tho
Intention Of the Court had not been called, and
that the infant could not be included. It waa
also claimed that his rights had been neglected
In tho former proceeding. nat tho Court now
the first deoiBion, and refuBe to reylcn or oycr-
rule it. Tue last decroe, allowing Mrs. Buckner
one-half OF the tract purchased from Hiss
spoacor, ia rovorsod, giving the whole Of it to
to all Of the rest OF tho property set Of to her by
the Commissioners. Nothing remains to be
done except to tako an account OF tho rents and
profits due to Mrs. Bucknor. The decision la as
follows:
Henry y. Einusonry rs. Harry K: R'Asta-r <s~--'
Goa9
the decision then made y necessary to unaeFstand
decision wns bascd 1or tho purpose Of having d
partition. Tho Court then decided that the doed from
Mary K Buckncr aud husband to har brother was not
originally properly delivered to bc effective but that
it bca,e operative by the subsequent acts and eeln
d. Ss doesos dor ed' Of tho % oo1
missing the bin WAS reversed, and The cauao rcnanded
and 10 g1ant lie relisf prayed ior ID tho cro.sb 81
decree establishing tho equitable tito In Mary
Racner to haye proper share IN al he renl estate
tle real sssate; T1is sa6eot t. fatgTo inquiry
sscaltatnol by tho 6oaFt beiow It was not doanite,
father before s ienh had alienaod portion Of the
property, Hhe could not inhert such portion, and II
guen has pSe Inn so Il, 70 pro4o ae error Of ths o
decision Of the Court and Is charged that fraud
70 t.
Wits. II thcro hayo been fraud and colluson hepropes
sailed could have opportunity Of mixing defense
Or the decree is directed by tho Court Of final resor
by an application for rehcarsng
court decided that Henry r. KlgsbuEs held tlo prop
q S a h I'D
asea . BY y MT,hns ,h aud ths shs bad sn Equitable
crust The latter Ind bcen established by tho dccara
ton ot this Court. Tha appeal L. prosecuted from
Or oraer r tor Partition W osamine rs to ID
subsequent to TIC declslon At the former hearing.
thu course auggeste and 60 atrenuonsiy insisted upo,
p a esaps F5aP lF iP @oaa s
sad preaent additona points for ad}adicsiiSn, r.
81 ths court roaa then b. e4eseissa
those Of inferior courts. Ths tfust relation bstwse1
the parties eatabliahed by tho former decaion
t. s sast
which would destroy oil respect for tbs Court. Th
proper mode would havo been m application for re
made would have been entitled to consideration. This
tho doctrine Of the courts as definitely settlsd BY r
peated decisions. ual1owbush V. Mcdonnell, Il Ill
30a.' Washington Bridge Company '. Stewart,
How III. DroWder v. McArthur,7 Wheaton, 80. South
ard '. Russsll l6 How, 647. Roberts V. Cooper, 2
Howard, 497.
After remandmens Of this BY this Court, th
Court below rendered 1ecrsa Ia accordance with th
mandate OF this Court and appointed Commissionsr
70 inquire as to iaonmhrances upon tho property an
to make partition. These facts were developed, Mne @
j. D. Kingstn4ry Tho ANCESTOR Of th
parties aud tho of tho property In con1oyors
died intestato in 1885, and prevous to hs dcah ext
cuted decd Of trust tho land known IN this
as the "spence1 tract.n The note secured was due
ave years. With interest, and power Of salo was give
In case Of defauls In payment. The language, aa
tho notice to be given Of tho eac, waa - follow
newspaper" In 1Bd2 the truaee upon tha request Of
holder q tho noto pu1.@hed @ notice in Tak ou1oAo
ea11 nm the 41at dhx nj tina ANNA Jnnnth. The dGs