The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1909-11-27


Ing their claims upon the real estate
as before and reciting the facts lead
ing up to and including the execution
of the Bishop trust deed and averring
the invaiidity of the foreclosure pro-
ceedings had thereon. they each seek
to redeem theref
Judge Paulus says Upon these is
sues we are TO determine the various
questions presented"
It is admitted that on the End day Of
October 1872. Samuel II. Kerfoot was
the owner IN fee simple OF these lands.
On Oct. of that year s. H. Kerfoot
and his wife conveyed their lands to
Amariah A. Dewey
Dewey and his wife conveyed the
lands to Susan Sinclair who paid no
part of the consideration for this con-
veyance to her and received the con-
veyance only in trust.
WHAT CONTENTION WAS.
On one hand it was contended that
Susan's father. Joseph F. Sinclair. alone
made the purchase from Dewey and
paid the entire purchase price and that
the deed from Dewey to Susan was In
trust for the sole benefit of Joseph
Sinclair as the sole owner of the land.
On the other hand it was claimed
that the land was purchased Of Mr.
Dewey by both Joseph f. Sinclair and
William S. Proudfoot, Jointly and
equally, and that title was placed in
the name of Susan W. Sinclair in trust
for their joint and equal beneht.
| Judge Pauius then remarks: This
contention presents one of the most
| important questions in the case" Then
follows a long story about the deal.
/ 1t speaks of the difficulties that pre-
| ceded the panic of rs and OF the re-
trenchment in business that resulted.
BACK TO 1874
As to the contention Judge Paulus
speaks Of he says in part: Going
back to July To- 1874. we find William
S. Proudfoot assuming to convey an
undivided one-half interest in these
lands to Nathaniel T. Wright This
to our mind. in connection with all
other evidence that we have recited, is
very strong proof. in the nature OF
verbal act. in support of the conten-
ton that Mr.. Proudfoot and Mr.. Sin
clair were joint and equal actors in
the matter of purchasing the land of
Mr.. Dewey.
With all of these matters before us
we feel irresistably lead to the con-
cluson that by the deed from Dewey
to Susan Sinclair the latter became
trustee Of Joseph Sinclair and Will
liam S. Proudfoot as the Joint and
equal owners of the fee simply of the
lands, and we so find.
Nothing in the evidence to the con-
trary. we feel fully warranted In say
ing that Isaih f. Libby was q bonafde
holder Of the Wicker note and that in
his foreclosure proceedings he believed
that Susan Sinclair was the sole and
absolute owner of the equity of re-
demption in the lands in question and
that he had no actual notice or knowl-
edge Of the trust deed to Washington
Libby or of the interest of William S.
Proudfoot or his guaranter, Nathaniel
T. Wright. therein.
BASIS OF HIS CLAIM.
Through this foreclosure sale, and
sherif's deed executed thereon. the
plaintiff, John Gunzenhauser. bases his
claim Of title and operated only as an
equitable assignment of the Bishop
mortgage lien. yet in good faith treated
and regarded by him as valid and
legal conveyance to him OF the land.
and operated at least as a color of title
in his favor and under virtue of this
deed. as a remote guarantee thereun-
der. Mr. Gunzenhauser. early in 1888
entered into the exclusive possession
of the lands peaceably and without
opposition from anyone"
The decision goes on to state that
Gunzenhauser believing that he was
the sole and rightful owner OF the land,
having paid a good round sum for It.
spent large sums Of money in attempt
ing to improve it.
In the year 1855 he built dwellings
, upon it, built fences and dug bitches
to drain it. In 1901 the Union Stock
Yards was reported to have plan for
moving to the neighborhood OF the
Gunzenhauser property and the value
OF the land jumped to 5000 and $500
an acre.
WHAT LAND COST FORMERLY.
: Nevertheless John GunzenhauseI
! continued the owner Of the land ano
believed he was the owner until the
fling OF the cross complaints. Ths
question Of the operations of the sta
tute of limitations is also taken up IT
l the decision and 1t was decided tha
the law did not sufficiently cover tn,
Sinclair claims.
: One OF the interesting facts stated
s in Judge Paulus decision is that il
: 1873 Joseph F. Sinclair and w. s
Proudfoot paid Mr.. Dewey $7,11s03 fol
land that today is worth millions.
( william J. WINERY was one of tbs