The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1908-09-24

ASKED FOR DECREE.
Hearing in the WillistOn chaneery Case
Of TalcOtt VS.. Bishop.

Of TalcOtt vs.. Bishop.
A hearing was had in Burlington Mon
day evening before Judge Waterman, al
chancellor, in the foreclosure suit o
Harvey H. Taleott of Chicago, againsl
W. Clark Bishop, ct ais, ON motion o.
the orators solicitor, II, S. Peck, fol-
a decree. y. u. Taft and j. y. Cush
man appeared for certain defendants.
It appeared that ten years ago, w
Clark Bishop mortgaged the farm in
Williston to Daniel y. Bishop for $4,000
and $4,000 Of this remains unpaid, with
two years interest. At that time his
sister, Mrs. Priscilla Ferguson, and her
| husband, were living on the farm, and
have ever since lived there. The orator
at the request of some OF the interested
parties-all the parties being related
advanced money and took up the unpaid
notes and brought foreclosure to fix the
title TO the property, and secure the
payment Of the unpaid notes. 1t also
appeared that w. Clark Bishop on the
same day he mortgaged the premises.
but later in point OF time, himself signed
written agreement 10 the Fergusons,
which il Is claimed by them gave them
life interest in the premises, subject
10 said mortgage, however. In 1906 said
W. Clark Bishop also signed another
written instrument purporting to give
his sister, Mrs, Ferguson, and his BROTH
err, Dr. Rufus w. Bishop OF Chicago, a
lease of said premises To secure 10 them
both a home, subject to the other so.
called lease. II also appeared that in
January, 1907, said W. Clark Bishop ex-
ecuted warranty deed of the same
promises to DIR. A. L. Bingham, Charles
d. Warren of Williston, George l.. Pease
OF Burlington, and others, trustees, for
the purpose of establishing home for
the charitable poor in Williston. These
trustees never organized.
Motion was for a decree against all
defendants with one years equity OF re-
demption.
Mr. Cushman, for the Fergusons,
claimed that they should have longer
time for the redemption Of the premises
than any Of the other defendants, on the
ground that they had an interest under
the socalled leases.
Mr.. Taft. representing DIR. Bishop,
claimed that his client should have an
esual opportunity to redeem with the
Fergusons, because in the second So
called lease Mrs. Ferguson and DR.. Bishop
were given equal rights.
The solicitor for the orator asked that
all of the defendants be put upon the
same level, with one years equity of
redemption, but if any extension of time
be given to any Of the defendants, it
should be given to DR.. Bishop, rather
than to Mrs. Ferguson, who with ner
husband has had the use Of the premises
for ten years and had paid nothing on
said notes The orators solicitor claimed
that as between the Fergusons and the
orator, these so-called leases which were
not executed by anybody but w. Clark
Bishop, gave the Fergusons no superior
right or privilege over the other defend
ants, nor any priority in the equity of
redemption of said premises
The chancellor took tne papers under
advisement.
One purpose of the bill was to clear
the title and fix it in some one persor,
and, secondly, 70 secure the payment Of
the mortgage notes, and to do this before
any more Of the parties to the original
had died.