Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-01-11
ANOTHER N[9g)|T
CASE BROUGHT Up
MADE TO TAKE SUIT
INVOLVING CITY PROPERTY
TO FEDERAL COURT.
is LAWSUIT GROWING
OUT OF WEscorr WILL
Attorneys For Mrs. ccnover and w. L.
Brown Want Case Removed to Fed :
erai Court For TriaI-Weseott ct A.,
Sue to Quiet TitIe-Interesting His
tory Sack Of Cases.

tory Sack Of Cases.
Another move, in another Of the
many cases that have grown out of the
John Wescott estate and the property
of it. was made in the district court
Friday afternoon when the attorney for
the defendants. Della L. s. Conover, of
Chicago, and William L. Brown, Of
California, submitted an application to
remove the case to the federal court
for the southern district of Iowa. The
plaintiffs in the case are Leon +. Wes-
colt, of California, ct al. The property
involved is the business block and lot
at ITO East Main street.
Resistance to the application was
made by the attorneys for the plain
tiffs, most of whom are heirs OF John
Wescctt. The application for the re-
moval of the case was based on the
fact that the defendants are not resi-
dents OF the state. Judge Nichols took
the application under consideration
Is One Of Many Suits.
This case is one of several that have
resulted from the will of John Wescott
a document that has been unsuccess-
fully attacked in the district and su-
preme courts repeatedly. For ten or
more years periodical assaults have
been made on this will of forty five
years ago, but each time the supreme
court has upheld the will
The history of the will, and the liti
cation that has grown out of it. makes
one of the most interesting narratives
dealing with local realty and lawsuits
that has ever come to light in the dis
lrict court.
Life Interests Stumbling Block.
For a proper understanding of this
case that is in court, together with
others involving the property of the
same estate. it is necessary to go back
half century.
At that time there lived one John
Wescott, who owned the lots where the
Strub restaurant, the National Wooden
Mills store, the two buildings occupied
pied by the LaSheile store. and the
Fidelity Savings Bank now are.
When Wescott died, forty five years
these provisions. summarized: To his
wife he left life interest in these six
business lots. The will provided. in
addition that when the widow died
one Of the lots was TO go to each of
Wescctt's six children. who were TO
have a life interest When they died
the will provided that the life interest
OF each should become the property OF
their heirs in fee simple.
Lawyers Buy Life Interests.
Some years after Wescott died. his
wife died. and the life interest in the
properties passed to her six children.
At that time the properties were i'm
proved with only shactss and small
buildings, and they were fer sale. But.
owing to the provisions Of the Wescot'
will. there were few purchasers who
wanted to buy life interest
However. some Of the pioneer law
vers Of the city. including j. +. Mee,zer
w f. Smelling. II. e. ]. Boardman.
Timothy Brown, and Thaddeus Bin
ford. believed a purchase of the prop
critics was safe. They based this be
lief on an old court decision, and on
the occupanying claimant law that 4
was supposed would give the person
who improved the property recourse to
recover for Improvements made on the
property if the title was taken from
him.
Working under this theory these law.
yers purchased this property of the
children, the conveyances being vari-
Gus kinds of deeds.
Were Certain Titles.
title was good ard secure. went ahead
and expended money. making improve
ments and building the business blocks
that now stand on the premises. SO
certain was ]. F. Meeker for instance.
that at one time he refused to pur-
chase, for very nominal sum. the in
terest of certain of the heirs in some
of the property.
One by one the children Of John
Wescott died. and the shares Of each
passed to their heirs. These heirs be-
gan then to bring suit to recover title
to the property. There were a great
many Of them in some instances. and
cases were begun, one after another.
In two Of these cases, brought by the
heirs against j. F. Meeker and Thad-
deus Binford, the heirs won. These
cases involved two of the six business
properties
Supreme Court Supports Will.
Each Of these cases was carried to
the supreme court. That court sus-
tanned the will in both cases. and in its
ruling said that the purchasers had
bought from the children of John Wesc
colt no more than a life interest, be-
cause that was all the children who
owned could sell and that when the
children died. they ceased to own the
properties which. at their DEATH passed
to their heirs as the will provided. The
court further said that the lawyers who
bought from these holders of life in
terests bought knowing that the sellers
had only life interest and they bought
at their own risk. Therefore their title
became null when the grantors who
sold to them died.
This Case Similar.
In the Wescott VS.. Conover and
Brown case tho same issue is at stake.
Wescott. ct al. are suing to quiet the
titl.. to the property at No 10. Mrs.
conover and William Brown inherited
their interest in the property from II.
F. J. Boardn1an and Timothy Brown,
their respective fathers.
The title to all of the other SIX prop
critics has been adjudicated or settled
in the courts or by purchase. excepting
the property occupied by the east naif