, 1875-02-21
FLAGL0R VS.. WADHAMs.
A Litigation Of Years at an
End,
After Many Ups and Downs, tho De.
fendants Succeed.
The Supreme Court Reversas TT
Former Opinion.

FORMER Up1nlon,
Summary Of the Decision.
The cass of Seth Wadhanaa and others, xp-
pellants, against Lucy q. Flaglor Gay, appellee,
recently decided by the Supreme Court, il IN
terestins both to tbs legal profession and the
general reader, Is we'll from tho amount in
| YolVed and the vicissitudes Is it were, through
which the case has passed, as from the number
and importance Of the legal principles involved.
| The case has practically been decided both Ways
by the Superior and Supreme Courts, and in
wolves pat OF the old Garrett Block, property
on Lake and South Water streets, and on tho
West Side, worth before the fire from $3.50, 900
to $400, GOO.
In 1850. Augustus Garrett dying, left BY will
one-8i1th Of his estate to his nephew, Charles D.
Flaglor, in remainder, to take effect il Mr. Gar
rotts wife and bis two sisters should die before
the nephew. They did die before him, and Flag
lor, therefore, took the estate limited to him.
Soon after the death OF the teatator, and before
| tho happening OF the contingency, the other
t devisees, Mrs. Garrett and James md Thomas
I G. Crow, made an agreement to divide the land
| wi1ed to them according to their several propor-
| tions. 4 bill Was accordingly flied for the pnr-
| pose. and decree entered pu1porting to be by
/ consent. By the agreement, Flaglor was to take,
subject to the covenants, conditions, and re-
version Of the will" The agreement also COL
tanned the following clause:
And the 1snds decided to Lea F1sglor md Charles
D: F1aRlor arc 70 be. snd are subject 70 the
who1e and entire tnterest Of tho child and children,
aud tho descendant and thereof Of Charles
D. Faglor which herein may survive tn said estate Of
said Garrett which, under sid will, such child, chill
dren, descendant, descendants may havo at any
ue b enitsd to; which said interest of such child
or children, Or deseendants is hereby declared and
agreed 20 b. charged upon the lands in aaid deed
And said LetlHa aud Charles D. Fl.glor, md Frede.
rich T. F1aglor, husband Of said Leut hereby ~
Children. Of ds.osn.nts .hs1eof Which t6,y oa3 bs %
entitled TO under and BY the terms Of said will and
to sare and keep hhrmleas the ehare aud portions o1
Grow, and Thomas G.. Grow. from "a clatm and
claims which any Buch child children Of ssId
Charles ?; Faglor may have er beeome entitled to
or hereafter to be made.
4 decree of partition Was entered in;0Iay, 1851,
which stated that Charles D. Flaglor was seized
Of q life estate only, the fec belonging to bis
children in accordance with the alleged inteu-
tions Of the agreement above quoted Flaglor,
however, was not satisfied With this cutting
down OF his interest, claiming that the will gave
him an estate in tee and accordingly fled bill
for review, and succeeded in having the partition
decree removed, and his interest declared to be
in tee Prior to this, however, he had sold his
interest to Wadhams and the granto1s Of the
other appellants. Engle and Day. This decree
IN Flaglor's favor remained undisputed
until 1866 when. At tho sui; Of Flag
' r as'Atsff sf eas ras ss Gsss sass dsss sd
md the decree in the bill Of review was ravers-
I'd, on the ground that q bill for review would
not lie, it alleged orrror Of Law only, and error
OF law could not be alleged against Judgment
appearing to be entered by oonsentof the parties.
This reduced Flaglor's interest to life estate,
and settled the fee in the daughter. Sho there
upon, in 1867, brought the present and three
other suits against the parties to whom her faith
er had conveyed to Fecovor the land and the
rents aud profits. In 1858 she died, leaving her
property to her mother, Mrs. Lucy @. Flaglor,
widow Of Charles D. Flaglor, in whose name the
suit was revived. she subsequently married =
n1r. Gay,
In the spring Of 1871, the present suit was
tried before Judge Jameson, and taken under ad-
visemeut. He held it until tho fire, when tho |
papers were destroyed. They we're, however,
restored and in juno, 1872, tho Judge gave = |
decision in favor OF the complainant, Mrs Gay. |
The case was then referred to tho Master for au |
suit of the character, against the estate Of
Griffin Taylor Of Cincinnati, and depending |
on the sane state Of facts, came up before Judge |
Gary, and he gave decision ia, February, 1873 |
Was suspended, the case remaining with ths tacis
agreement to abide by tbs decision in the pres
ent suit, in which an appeal WAS taken.
Mrs- Wadham's case was heard in September,
1873, by the Supreme Court, on printed R<gu-
ments only, and in January, 1874, they rendered
. decision in favoz Of the complainant, Mrs.
Gay, thus affirming Judge Jameson's opinion,
An application for rehearing Was mado and
granted, and in September last full oral srgu-
ment was had, the result OF which was rhat the
and found for the defendants, thus sustaining
Judge Gary.
TIE LAST DECISION.
A large number Of legal questions we're raised.
One was Is to the effect Of the agreement quot
I'd above,-whether by it Flaglor parted with q
irst decision, the Supreme Court had held that
Flaglor thereby reduced his interest to life e.
ate, giving the fee 10 bis children, but after
= further consideration" they came 70 the con-
or only intended to burden his estate in favor
II his children, with such restrictions US we're
imposed by the will Flag1or, BY the partition
lecree. only had life estate, and only
conveyed that interest to Ills grantees,
,ut, by the reversal Of that decree in 1854, be
gas declared possessed Of the fee, and by force
Il the statute that additional title Injured TO the
,onefit OF his grantees, thas investing them with
no whole legal estate. Ths present oTne1s pu1- ..
nased before the reversal Of the review decree
q 1866 in good faith, for value, aud we're there
ore entitled to be protected. The Law was we'll
ettled that il Judgment Was reversed the Z
Iarties we're to be restored to their original t
lights 30 far as it could be done without preju- /
ice to third persons. But the rights Of third ,
ersons we're not affected, and their title to
rope1ty acquired under II erroneous Judgment
tss not 1ivested BY its reversal The decree on
1o bill OF review then. being in full forceras the
me the Engles and Day acquired their rights .
rom Noses, those parties were entitled to rely =
n that decision Is the law which determined
hat VAS the estate which Charles D. F1aglor
ad in tho 1ands. That decree declared anch :,
state to be remainder in fec, and the Court
as Of tho opinion that such Was the estate that
10 Englos and Day took by their purchase. >.
Nor did the fact that the Engles and Day Wero =