Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1912-10-25
MRS. GRANT WINS CELEBRATED
LAW SUIT.
(contiued from Page one.)

(Contiued from Page One.)
with fences, farmed and cultivated
it for over 80 years, paid all taxes
levied against 1t, received and retain
ed all of the rents and profits, and
| in every manner treated the place
as his own.
No Effort to Gust Miller
| No evidence was brought out dur
ing the trial to show whether any of
the plaintiffs had ever made demand
on Mr.. Miller for possession of the
property or for any share of the
rents and profits. None of the plain
tiffs claimed they had made any
| move to secure premises or any in
terest therein, during Mr.. Miller's life
| time. AS an excuse for such inaction,
they testified that they had been ad-
vised by lawyers many years ago
that Mr.. Miller had an estate by
courtesy in the property and that
they could do nothing as long as he
lived. In answer to this allegation,
the defense denied that Mr.. Miller
had ever been a tenant of the prop
erty by an estate of courtesy. The
a period of only six months before
her death, hence, it was contended,
she had only possessory right to
the land and had acquired no title
to the fee
Concerning plaintiffs excuse for
delay in bringing the action-that
they had gained the impression
from advice given by attorneys more
than 80 years ago that Mr. Miller
was entitled to possession of the land
during his life time''-the defense
was made that IF ignorance of the
law would excuse the plaintiffs delay,
they are still guilty of gross laches
in resting upon such advice and in
not making some further efforts since
the early '70s in ascertaining where
they stood; that while ignorance of
facts may serve as an excuse for
laches, ignorance of the law will not,
and that where the suit is delayed
until the witnesses testimony is OBJ
scured, and witnesses and partici-
pants are dead, court of equity will
decline to give relief"
The advice on which plaintiffs act
ed was sound at the time it was Civ
United States in 1880 reversed the
former decisions which held that the
husband had a life estate in a dona-
ton claim where the wife died be-
fore the completion of the required
period of residence and cultivation,
and held that there could only be an
estate of courtesy where title had
been secured from the government
before the death of the wife.
Plaintiffs Win in Lower Court.
After hearing the testimony of nu-
merous witnesses and the argument
of counsel, Circuit Judge Galloway
filed a decision on the 4th day of
January, 1911, in which he found for
the plaintiffs according to the cOnten- |
tions of their complaint. J. C. Hay |
ter was named as referee to sell the |
land and divide the proceeds among
the plaintiffs and defendants accord I
ing to their several interests. In ac- !
cordance with this order the land |
was sold at public auction in May, |
1911, to Joseph Craven, of Mon
mouth, whose bid was $14,4O0 for the
800 acres. Immediately after the
filing of the referees report of sale, |
pealed to the Supreme Court
The final decision in this important |
case will be of interest to every land |
owner, inasmuch as the questions here
decided had never been passed upon
by the Supreme Court of this state.
1t is evident from this decree that |
the court will insist that where pos
session of land is held with intent to
claim the property an adverse claim
ant will be required to exercise
and diligence in present
ng his claim, after decision point
ng out his remedy has been decided
oy the highest court in the United
States, and will not be excused in re-
ying upon advice given 80 years ago
md not ascertaining whether there
las been any change in the law.
L, M. Curl, of Albany, appeared as
attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas
crowley ct AL The defendant, Mrs
Grant, was represented by Attorney
Oscar Hayter.