, 1874-05-08
THE COURTS.
miscellaneous Business TRANSACTED
KcntcrlnYs

1cHECT4MYs
Judge Williams decided demurrer TO tho bill
OF Irats and wife against Btono and others,
which decision virtually tllsposcs OF tho caso. In
ono way and another litigation has boon going
on concerning tho lunl In this suit for nour1y
twontv years, aud has beon twice to tho 6upremo
Court. James Pratt bought tho land III 1862 Of
ONO Stephen Bronson. Tho property is described
ss tho W. II of Lot 7, In Block 81, o. r.; the N.
Ii ncros Of tho W. 11f Of tho 8. W. x Of soo 81,
80 II, aud tho ". II OF tho N. Z. X Of Soc. 9,
SO, IA. One-haH OF It WIS aold to James brother
Amos, md he subsequently conveyed the whole to
Cloment DeWoH for the benefit Of Calvin
Do Wolf. In 1858 Amos assigned all his right
in the contrnct he had for the land to Warrcn
PARKER, for securing tho performance Of D cou-
tract. Amos, month or two aftor this last
conveyance, sold nll his interest to Jeremiah
prast, acknowledging TINT ho bad held tho title
to one-half in trust for htg brother james. Fl.
o. Stone, in 1864, became tho owner OF this
land, as grantee OF DoWo]f. Amos failed to
Leop Ills coutraot with rarltcr, and hib agreo..
mcnt with Drownson was forfeited aud sold, md
bought IN by Stone, giving HIM apparently
IL 1867 Emily II. Pratt, wife OF james Pratt,
filed tho present bill setting up tho above facss,
and also stnting TINT her husband had bceni
Obliged to borrow largo amount Of money Of
her ut aomo past timo that ho had thou, to
make tho account good, ineuced Jeremiah Pratt
10 convey to hor four lots in tho 8. =. corner Of
iom ni ia N N ncres nfthc W u! IN tl,o " =
M If Sec. 81 gG ID. and also 4 Of tbc ". K of y III
:, Block 81, 9: Il, tho ". II Of tho N Z. Of Sec.
=, ~, ~ "T fri;a INA waa h.,1 rv T"rn-
rntnh IN trnst Tnr Tnnns and ftho iat.
tnr hnd 4 convnvod to h;a wife IN
repay tho sums borrowed Of hor. It Is claimed
that complainant did not know Of Amos con-
- 'o oya ,as , nssn aa,a ~
icr md ahe thorefore ssl,s that the ti,Io nav ho
dec,cod 10 he Il, her free from ali liena and
4 general demurrer was fled to thu hill. and
on tf1;n t]la decision Yesterday VIVA renleron.
The Juduo remnrkod tint tha focts must,
ha uo1v fem;iar ~ tho coan hn;s
boon before ilr' linn twice. There wore wore two ,
nnost,nnn rniand rhirI, would hn couclnsivo
Alrs. P1ntt M clSimea under a deed from Jeremiah
Prntt. and lie. It was said, hold tho land il, So
crot trust Tor Jamcs. II, then, Jeremiah had no
iecisinn Of Tia Supreme Court in tLe Torty.seo-
ind Illinois, page l08, proved that jeremiah
prntt's titlo 'yas not GOOD, Mrs Pratt hold only
~, conitv in thoir laid. She was not bona tido
purchaser. She vas eInatopped by fhls .! decree TO
cfoo wns so,,elt to be attacked On the nround Of
want nf inrisdiction. mt apnonranco yan on-
torel iu The Supreme Court-as it lawfully could
h. i1one, md tbis was sufficient.
Another point W in the tie % case was tho question Of
1achos. Il wnn argued that Iaohca conji not
ho ;,nnutod tn Mira Pratt ahc hcinr n
fcmnn coyart. Bnt laehes could bo i'm
nutad 10 .Jnmes Pratt. md be, from
1Ia5a to 1sG5. n,ntlo no demand for Tho nropnrtv
md rnyo no evidence OF ownerehin. n couid
not Be- held that party might lie jllo for 40
nnnnv yenrs Hha woH hound hv his 1nchcs and
IN 10Th tin points. tho bill did nok show n oosn'
Tho demurrcr was thereforo e1Btaiucd
T,5on Nnr,om vna oItnwoJ mil tho t.+ ~
Juno 70 goe vhother he would amend the bill or
no to tho Supremo Court on the demurrer. 40
That the end is not yct,
rbo c,ao of nrown;o Rnaa "ra,ns. F5norra
poss for ;ynrco whinh stnrtea ~ NJ, a,nsrnnt1v
@ successful course before Jutlce TarwolI WednesS.
anys cn,no to nm abrnnt termsnntion voatorilav
~ comrHcncsmcne ~ No ~ ths coas eo,,tt,
.tion WAS nakod on The arouutl tIatt tho oom.
ans,1 ~, ,hor, 4 os ornaot"S ~ ,,re..o ~
t,1tcrv Of tnn ofendant. Sfr KIM ~ on bohaif
of tho dofendant. argued that. ayen AN; r