The Oskaloosa herald., 1908-04-09
SUPREME COURT
UNTANGLES WEB
FOLLOWS THE FORTUNES OF
THE SMITH FAMILY
AoLDs MARRIAGE NO FAILURE.
Extraordinary Complications Do Not
Bar the Woman From Her To-
terest In Some Valuable
Iowa Real Estate.

Des Moines, April S.-This is the
tale of the wonderful matrimonial
complications OF one Smith family.
To tell 1t the supreme court OF Iowa
combined four important lawsuits and
devote score of pages of opinion
and recital of the facts in the case.
Louisa Smith was married in April,
1872. to a man named Sylvanders, at
Pennington, Ia Four months later
Sylvanders went to Burlington and
that was the last ever seen or heard
of him.
In 1875 Louisa Smith married Frank
e. Smith, the ceremony being per-
formed by a justice of the peace at
La Grange, Mo. They returned to
Lee county and lived together seven
years, one child being born to them.
In 1882 Smith left home for Council
Bluffs and that was the last his wife
heard of him for twenty years.
Before he had married Louisa Smith
he lived with woman named t,but
one fine day she left with a travelling
man and that was the last ever seen
or heard of her, and so the original
Smith marriage.
Enter Second Husband.
In 1889 Louisa Smith, thinking Syl-
vanders and Smith both surely must
be dead. married a man named Dickin-
son, and he died in 1902.
In the meantime the husband, Smith,
had married Ann Norton at Council
Bluffs in 1889 and she died about 1900.
He then married Mrs. Scheyli and
divorced her in 1902.
And then Mr.. and Mrs. Smith, who
were married in La Grange, Mo-, in
1875, were remarked at Council Bluffs
and were happy ever afterwards, or
until he passed away year or two
later.
~ During ,his residence IN Council
huns he had sold property to man
named Richards and declared himself
single, he sold to man named Gref-
feth and his wife, Anna, joined with
him, and he sold to Fuller, Grobe and
others as bachelor.
When he died his widow began suit
against these purchasers for her dow
er interest in the land that they had
bought of her husband. The lower
court decreed that she had no such
dover interest, but the supreme court
yesterday found that she and Smith
were married in 1872. that the mar
riage was binding at least since 1881,
and that the widow was entitled to
her one-third of the property disposed
OF by Smith during the last quarter of
century.
Why the Remarriage?
The attorneys for the purchasers
of the land insisted that the marriage
could not be binding, for when Smith
and his wife married he had wife,
Net, who had eloped with travelling
man, and she had husband, Sylvan
ders, who had disappeared in Burling-
ton, and disappearance in Burlington
they insisted waslnot sign of death
And why did they remarry in 1902 if
they were married in 1875, asked
these attorneys.
IL was very simple, suggested the
supreme court. She had married and
lived with Dickinson during the inter-
i'm, and she thought 1t was not becom-
ing or proper to resume marital rela-
tions with her original husband with.
out the sacred sanction of anew cere-
mony, especially in view of the fact
that he had buried one wife and di-
vorced another during the interim.
So they remarked and the new cere-
mony did not divest her of her wifely
property rights during the period that
she had been living with Dickinson
and he had been living with two diff
ferent wives.