The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1881-09-02

y The Rfclvarhs' Judgment. q
ED. REGISTERS "A great, deal has
been said some things have been
written, and probably much thought
which would not have been, had al
the facts connected with this case been
understood. It is my purpose briefly
to state some facts which I think due
to all the parties; and first I will say
that 80 far as w. J. Richards judg-
fi1ent is concerned, its validity has new
er been questioned. The verdict was
rendered by twelve good citizens Of
Allen county upon state of facts 90
outrageous upon the part Of the r. r.
Co. that the jury did not hesitate a
moment. This judgment was rem
dered July 5th, 1876. No lien upon
the lands of the company is claimed by
Richards, of course, prior to that day.
Neither does he claim any lien upon
lands which they did not sell and
deed, with covenant of warranty, by
and through their receiver, Henning,
between the date of this judgment and
the decree of foreclosure in the U. S.
District Court; because he comedies
that the mortgage on the L. L. & G.
lands was lien prior to his judgment,
and that this decree of foreclosure and
the subsequent sale by the master in
chancery (if valid) wiped out his judy
ment lien upon all lands not sold be-
tween these dates by the receiver and
decided by the company, and in which
deeds the mortgage, who was then
foreclosing the mortgage. joined.
Now, Richards claims these lands
were never foreclosed upon, but the
railroad company claim that the sale
of these lands having been made by
the receiver, who was an officer of the
company, and upon the order of the
court, had the legal effect to as effectu-
ally wipe out the Richards judgment
lien as the decree of foreclosure would
have done and did do upon the lands
heretofore sold. This then is the is
sue. Of course, as the fight progresses,
other issues may, and probably will,
arise between Richards and the rail-
road company, but not affecting the
purchasers at all. AS there is no
question now but the railroad COM
pany will make the fight, not for the
purchasers, but for itself, and will save
the purchasers harmless. Richards is
pleased to know it, as he began these
proceedings, not intending or expect
ing to get a cent out of the purchasers,
but if his lien was good and the rail-
road company sold lands upon which
he had d lien at the time, and made
warranty of title, it should first have
paid off his lien. This the company
should do, and the only way for Rich
ards to enforce his rights was to levy
on all the lands to which they had
made such deeds between the dates
mentioned above, and thus bring the
company to an issue. I gee no reason
for alarm on the part of purchasers
after they understand it. Personally
I regret the necessity Of suit at all,
and have induced my brother to delay
as long as he could without loosing his
remedy, hoping for a settlement with
out it. It is proper 1 should here fur
ther say have no interest in the re-
suit, personally, and will have none
even rs an attorney, only as against
the railroad company. But it is better
for the purchasers to have this cloud,
though only an apparent one, removed
from their titles: When they pur-
chased these lands there were nearly
a half million of judgments against
them by the records. All are satisfied
now except this one, and the company
should be compelled to satisfy it, eth
er by paying it or getting a judgment
of the court that tits no lien. 1t would
be cowardly in it to pursue the argu-
ment first sprung-"that the old cor
poration is defunct," (?) and the new
one has no interest in it. (?) That
won't work in this case, and they will
get into the fight before the end of it..
In conclusion ] will say that some
lands have no doubt been levied upon
by mistake which should not have
been, but that no body's land has been
knowingly left out which was sub
ject to the levy.