, 1879-07-27
THE LAW.
Anothef Decision in the Flaglor-
Gay Row.
Landlords Not Responsible for the Goods
Of Their "Boarderz."
4 Guardian Requested to Account h
His Ward.
Judge Kniokerbocker Interprets Miss New
berry's Will

THE FLAGLOR-GA1 LlT1GAI1ot-
The old and notorious litigation over the Gar
tett estate received another airing yesterday be-
fore Judge Bodgett. It came up this time on
aquestion as to the validity OF mortgage for
ST, ,000 made Aug. 10, 1851, BY Charles Flaglor
to his father, and by the latter assigned to
Catherine Reed, alias Catherine Parpart. The
first chapter will be found written up in good
shape by another reporter in the fortfeth and
seyenty-third volumes OF the Illinois Reports.
This mortgage covered the property on the
corner Of Randolph and State street5, now
owned By A. ". Windett. After the settle
ment of the original litigation, which took
nearly ten years, Catherine Reed, who had only
been made q party By publication, ap-
pearcd personally in the case in 1873,
and asked to be let in TO plead. This was done
und she fled an answer, and q cross~bill asking
for foreclosure Of her 1000 mortgage. An
svere were filed BY the other parties In interest,
and in the latter part of 1877 the case was trans
ferred to the Federal Court. It was finally
heard some months ago, anil Saturday Judge
Biodgctt decided it.
He said the main and essential poiut in the
case vas whether the $40, 600 mortgage given By
Charles D. Flaglor was lien on tile fec Of the
land in question. The defendants in the pres
ent litigation contended Charles had only life
estate in the land; that in part,
q life estate. The complainant in the original
bill claimed that Charles never acquired a vest
ed estate, that 1t was the intention OF Mr. Car
rett only to give him life interest, and that in
the partition suit his estate Was fixed at life
estate. On the other side, 1t was urged that
Charles took an estate In fee, which vested on
the death OF hts mother, and that he never con-
sented to or ratified the decree In the partition
suit, and that the $4,000 mortgage was valid
lien on the lot IN Question,-Lot Is, Block ., OF
Fort Dearborn Addition. But the Supreme
Court had held in the Narhans case, reported
in - III. Rep, AS, that Charles took an estate
in fee, and that the partition decree was not
decree by consent SO as 10 bind him. The facts
were nearly the same as in the present case,
and the decision might we'll be followed as
binding in the present instance. The
litigation over lhe Jarrett !1ats es.a.o
contests in the history Of the State, and nearlv
every Judge who had in turn heard the case
concurred In holding Charles took an estate IN
fee. With such repeated Judicial construction
truae dissent. But the Judge thought it was
not necessary to dissent, for be felt compel; d
| to agree with the construction given in the
| Wadhams case in Charles favor.
The only remaining question then was as to
! the validity Of the mortgage given BY Charles.
| The lands In question had been for some pur-
| pose placed IN the hands OF the father, Fred
! erick, and he conveyed them to Charles, who
| gave u mortgage back and paid the interest dur
| ing his life. After his death, Frederick made a
Sd:' Ssvins had I@ two iiiss'timate children b
her, and IN 1868 he assigned this
100000 mortgage to her to give, hez
means Of supporting her and his children
! Tbs assignment was regularly made, and
! though the original mortgage remained in
| Erodar;nl-sa nosanasion thAt did nut inYallQate