, 1873-10-08
THE LAW COURTS.
Mark skinner's Answer in the Bost-
wick Case.
Revival Of tho Old Suit Of Flaglor
versus JcsSclf.
An Injunction Granted Against Opening
Fifty-trst Street.

Fifty-tirst Street.
Bankruptcy Mntters.-'The County Court
1.-The Courts in Brief.
Mark sknnor and vito filed their joint answer
yesterday to the bill Of Sophia Dostwicl<. In 1t
thoy admit that Skinner, III Amy, 1885, owncd
tho promises described in tho hill, boing tho
southwest quarter Of Soc. II, 81, II, and that he
signed tho decd purportiug to convey 1t to Dost-
wick, but did not Mt that timo know him. 11e
does not know whom DoHtwIck died except by it,
formation, nor whether ho was tostate or intea-
into, nor of Lis estate or tho amount Of his iu-
dobtctnoas, nor Ind llo ever had any personal
knowledge OF tho alleged fraudulent operations
OF Cornell and Downing III roforonco to putting
tn claIms against Bostwiek'a estase, Or inyo,,to-
rying tho disputed promlBea as his, or Of tho.
Administrators sale. but believes that
Downing's arpointment WIS lawful, md
that Bostwick Ind died inBo1yont.
Defendant asBorts that somo timo in tile spring
Of 1866, Cornell introduced john Bostwicl to
him. as Wishing to buy some real estate, and de-
fondart made arrangements to sell this south-
west quartcr-section to him; and that 1t sas at
first proposed to aoll for a100 par acrc, 1naking
$tG.000-one-fourth in cash, md tho remainder
iu throo equal payments; aud Doatwick ropro-
sentea that ho had little money, but that ho
would got John II. Kraum to furnish what waa
needed; but defendant declined to so1l tho land
on these torras aud nov arrangement was
made by which Dostwicl should pay 90, 900 cash,
and the romainlor as charged In tho bill,
tho whole consideration boing $4,000,
but docs not know whothor tho decd
was prepared by him or not. Dostwick
at tho sumo time drow tho mortgage and gayo 1t
to dofondnnt Skinner, or lott it for lin, and
also gave him a draft on Kraum for 81 900. which
was honorcd, and ls yet In existence. Tho re-
mining $1,000 was noyor paid, md defendant
says ho never gaye Bostwick . decd, nor wcrs
tho decd aud mortgage recorded. or even doliv-
Defendant kept tho land TOR two years, and
paid tho taxos, until finding thls b,lrdeilaoluo
he wished to get buck his money or His land but
he claims tlat he was under no obligation to
rooognize any right in Bostwick or his heirs, but,
finding the decd and mortgage were made out,
md tho premises inyontoriod aB Bostwiok's he
decided to give the heirs chance to carry out tho
contract, nnt he considered tho bcst way
to do this would DO BY foreclosure; garo tho
matter into the hands Of solicitora to do 10, aud
with no instructions to sottle or compromise
other than by tho paymont OF tho sum duo.
0Alnner KnoW llat Afaunt hau BONO lntoTcat,
but he cannot tell whether he learned it boforo
the deed WIS nude to Doatwicls or not, and also
knew TINT WaBllburn had MI interest, and hence
consented to their purchasing the promises, mud
give mortgages Tor tue purchase money.
The answer then sets out in detail tho changes
Of tho premises III question, aud stnteY that
Skinner believes that no dcou was over mado BY
tho Mastor in Chancery to Ararm md Cornell,
nor any redemption by tho DoBtwck heirs.
That n1l that defendant has dono YRS to enforce
his rights, and recover his money aud Inns been
in good filth and with 10 collision with Cornell
or any other person. mud that tt4oso statements
arc made OIL his bost recollection.
AN OLD RESIDENT CASE.
In the case Of FlaGlor against Jessel and 9TH
ers, an old cllancery case which Inns boon in the
Courts for years, was carried to tho Supreme
Court aud remas.acd, and las lain dormant FOR a
long time, an answor was filed Monday evening
by ono OF tho defeudants Catharino Roid now
CathRrino Parpart, and her husband, Lotlia Par-
pnrt
In tho answer, she admits that Augustus
Garrett died in 1913, possessing tho eBtato
olaiu1ed in tho BILL and lenving no child, but lH
widow Eliza, aud will. Mrs. Garrett aftorward
ilod remuneration of hor 1cgncieH, doyiaes aud
loauests, md tl,orco bocamo entitled to ono
halr Of tie real estate III fee;. A partition was
ht-law Of said Garrett, being complainant, and
her husband, and c. D. Flaglor, but respondents
cannot state whetlior it was binding on moro
than tho parties themselves. In 1851 Lotitia mud
ises, being in Lot No. Of Block IS, Original
Town Of Chicago, and also in Lot 25, Block 0,
Fort Dearborn Addition, and aaid Eliza
Gnrre1t osoamo nc, Possessed OF her aha,o,
,lam with Mrs. Garrett, l,ayo obtained
possession OF the lands claimed by them.
In November, 1854, Eliza dlud, a4-l il. '";'ary,
1856. Letitia also diod: and by the will CuAr!2s
D, Flnglor, SOL OF Lolita, was to take ono-third
Of tho estate wore It not for this partition. III
1857, Frederick T. Flaglor, clamng title to Lot
20 in Fort Dearborn Addition. sold it to Charles
D. for 540,0 900 by warranteo decd. aud shortly
note Of 100000. Frederick Il. assigned this sub
ecqlently to said respondent, Cntlnrine Roil.
The nominal confederation Of the assignment
was 81, but Frederick owed respondent about
$4,000 for services, and subsequently became iu-
ttobtod to her @2 600 more for additional services
IN to tho time Of hiB death, and tlcso wore a
part Of the consideration Of said assignment.
Whether the original complainant, Elizabeth
Flgglor, since dead, waA Frcderick's only child
respondent cannot state.
Respondent denies that Bhe knew at the time
ot the assignment Of the mortgage that Charles
derived title to tho premiHos, otherwise than
iocree through which CLarlosI Or Frederick
c}aimed title. In 1868, before and at tho time OF
tho delivery Of tho bond, there WAS found written
thercon BY Frederick an assignment to rcspona-
nnt Catherine, wherefore she claifnB to DO ont-
tied to said Block 25, at least until all tho prn-
cipat aud arrears Of interest from 1869 arc paid.
aud Aore claim tho rights Of bonn tldo purchasers
without notice, having actually pail value tiloro-
for, to tue extent Of tho lion Of the mortgage.
INJUNCTION AGAINST WIDENING F1FTY-f1RBT
STREET.
John II. Dunham filed bill in tho Superior
Court yesterday, tor himself and all others who
may choose to join with him, against tho Village
of Hyde Park, g. NJ. Cady, II. Il. Stobbins ". r.
Gray, McI,ae! Doyle, ). +. Barney. J. i. Bon
dcld, and r, s. Thompson.
Plaintiff sets out that he ia the owner OF tho
). ". x Of tho N. Z, i Of seo. IL, SO, II, in
Hyde Park, excepting tlerefrom Lot 49, In
Dunhaln's Subdivision, Of tho south GG1 foet Of
:he said s. ". Il section. In 1860, he recorded
plat OF the Aafd south COL feet, dividing 1t into
l40 lots, tlo most Of thom hoiug Is by 145
foet, and including park from Mad
ison avenue to Wooalawn avenue.
Ia9 feet wilo for the use q tie owners Of tie
property fronting OH II, which plat waH approved
and confirmed by tue Board Of Trusteos OF Hyde
Park. by this record, the park WAS dedicated to
said Truateea iu trust forflo owners. Tho lots
In this subdivision frontad north and south, and
wero bounded north by Tiftioth street, cast by
Woullawn avenue. gouth by Fifty-firat atraot,
and wost by Madison ayen,lo, With tho park
running east aud west through tho middle;
Duuhan,, after tho record Of the pfat, oreotetl
brick houses on several Of the lots, fronting
north, and 20 feot from tho south line OF
tho parL, and sold lots oil tho soutll sldo,
with tue condition that thoy should nll front
north nnd Lc tho sumo distance from tho