, 1877-10-03
ona of Obadiah Jackson's Trans
ters of Title Before Judge
Drun1mond.
An Amusing Case About tho Eject
ment Of q Variety
Show.
4 Patent Owner Wants 100000
Damages from the Pull
MANS
New Suits, Divorces, Judgments,
Confessions, Etc.
OBADIAH JACKSON.

OBADIAH JACKSON.
rnH rifLK To THE OLD DuHNErT HOUSE
PROPERTY.
fudge Dr,lmmo1ld wal occupied al day yes
tcrday in hearing complicated Chanccry suit
rrowtnr out OF the tli1, a,tfcs of.Obaliatl Jack
r,u md Involving st0o, O0Uln muncy and the title
10 valuable piece OF property 5uat aoutts Of the
urw Custum-1 1lousc. The facts, briefly stated,
are as follows:
On the 1st DAY Of October. A. y. 1868, Charles
q. While, OF New York, WIS Tho owner OF lots
II and III, In Block Ill, In tho Scloot-Scction
Addition TO Chicago, aud on TINT day male
warr,.s,ty.tlecd Of saia premises 10 George n.
williams, u whom the sail Waite knew
nothing, the entire transaction having
been conducted fpr Waite by Oba-
dial, jackson, Of Chicago. Waito received
for the property from Jackson $4,000 IN
cash, md two notes purportlng to lave been
made by said Williams, ono for 10000 and the
other for $4,000, both Of which notes wcrc
stated 10 l,avc been secured by nn alleged decd
OF trust Of said premises, dated Oct. I, teGs,
having the nnmc Of sail Williams M Erantor,
wherein jackson wns utsre'l as Trustec and the
mote for $4,000 was payable Oct. /, 1872.
within few days after receivlQ tic notes, c.
G.. Waitu suld and transferred them to his
brother, q. n. Waite, Of Hrattlcboro, W. AZ
terwarsls tho .,ote for po0o, Iudorscs1 In blank
by s. NJ. Walte, was placed with Jackson for
collection. Oct. +, rs;s -four days aftcr tho
ifmsfcr from c, G. Waite to Wfllian,sl tho
p1c.n,scs wrrs conveyed to Mary I. Moody, Of
Na''S ,,a I.n. Te' Api y f. Tff5nnty 1s1 ocfse Sss
borrowed sJl,5oD Vi Duvia Smith (now
deal), upon his nutG fur that sum, pny.
ablu two years utter tho iale thereof, md, MS
collateral thcrgto, pledged the said Williams
f.sH M II btE. tri$ s1rf t+zshk
from Williams TO- .tnckaun. When JACKSON 30
pledged the said Williams notc, he n!,t several
Endorsements OF Interest tlereon. The lus' uf
said Endorsements mas 'iatcd May u, lS7l, a.ld
Jaekton:" May 7,ls7l, said Moody, by her war
rBnty deed, Conveyed tho s1la premises to
Charles Y. Dyer of Chicago BY a decd lnted
Ut. i le71, nnd acknowledEcd Aug. y, 1si:';
from Williams to Jackson. juno |, 1872, Dyer,
ly his warranty decd, rctdting tho sud incun-
Irancc of eD0Oo, conveyed the premises to
Eksr ssksS "S o on ns !sf 81 n day 4 oasn Aa9as hK; s
defc1'dants, Of rllilndclphh, thu sum
1nent thereof, ,maac fEs deed Of trust Of said
premises to Norman c: Perkins. For David
adminlstratrix suco his death, HcorEe and John
tFatson,o Chicago, llatl, and irre had, exclusive
charge t,t IL thc M transacton xh9rsi,i slo Wil'a,ns
il from April 1s, 1571, until November, 1870,
without collecting, or Attempting to collect,
s!thrr tho principal or interest Of said note and,
nIont tne last namsd date, tue eomplalnant
tncutn6rnnes a MIR, &C. thereon Il s5,ooo undcr wbci.
lhc swifts claim, upon the theory that tho re-
lsasc ir.n .nsksun to Dyar w ~as f6auaglenl,
was not nado until Aug. 8, 1872 tho day or tho
Ewift 1unn), md that tie Swtfts arc charged
with notIcu nf the Williams luclimbraneG, by
The recital thereof in tho deed from Dyer TO
jackson.
The case was argued, Mt great length, by
1ddgo Higgins and sir. Burgess Tor the COM
pfatnant, uld by A!r. uouly and Mr.. Skinner for
tne defendants, WIN resist the complAlunnts
ahd au alias III Jaeksun, reasoning tlcrcfrom
that thu decd from Williams to Jackson, under
which tho complainant clalnIs, Is simply decd
wnnt Of parties, and, consequently, lid not coli
vcy the land. The defendants counsel alao
urged that concedlng the Williams notu to t,u
genuine (which, however they clal!nel to be
II waa piaced With Jackson by i. 81. Waiie
fof collection ONLY. with nolico OF which
fact the complainant Is charged, by reason VI
s}scksou having Endorsed payments Of interest
q. jacksoit.'' Thu defc,nallts' counsel further
atgucd that the complainant wAa guilty ug such
iacl!es In holding the Williams note for four
senrs @ aites maturity without ny attempt to
3rds e,nef sr f.a, p.c " 'e'e'' as "oao
r,,i Tho position of the uefsnlants2 IN ,aasutning
Wiat vi ~ ,st bs ytn' ~ eh1 pln'nts % soa,
Itom Waite 10 Williams, aud from Wlll,nms to
Needy. were also void. which would deleat tho
s!sip sai1ned hy tlc M defendants, t swf under
scr .m1 t', rsrHGs aeG 1' ~ 's aFgameht MF Skill
Both silcs claltn tftlo from. common
source, c. =. Waite, antl tho complainant urges
myth, ays u,lsilcatllc.l % sworI l.,at suts notH
sFays-that. II lIe Il myth, thu defendants
cannot dcratgn title from Waite. The Claim Is
spacious, but pour upon 1t the light OF analysis
and ouly shndow rcn'hins Deeds arc but
scs!cti contracts, anl in all contracts, whether
scaled Or by parol, the rulo Us u parties Ia the
eame Tho esscIlte ot tho rnlo Is 6est expressed
~ Tie eant'n Of tho civil law which requires
lha5 IN contracts, as to parties, there must 1e
cohhlct Ut niin.ls. III other words, tho rule re-
enises M Tint, In deed Of land, there shall bc
Two Opposing Detklttatt,fs tkt1fnyfhp tl]n nraf.