The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1913-01-17
Suit Against {. 7. Bartruff for $4,000
Is Decided for the Defend
ant by Judge
Hamilton.
MRS. GRIMsLEY'S PLEA
Had Told Judge Hamilton That It
Was Her Wish That All
Litigation be
Stopped.

In the district court at two o'clock
this afternoon Judge W. S. Hamilton
directed the jury to return verdict
for the defendant in the case of B. A.
Dolan, guardian of Louisa Grimsley
VS.. e. T. Bartruff for $4,000 for dam
ages sustained by the eviction of Mrs
Grimsley from her home.
Subsequently Judge Hamilton told
Mr.. Dolan that Mrs. Grimsley had
come to him and protested against the
litigation as not being her wish and
asked that it be stopped. Judge Ham
ilton said that her requests had not
entered into his decision In any way
but that he thought that her wishes
should be respected. Judge Hamilton
also said that any one who had talk
ed with Mrs. Grimsley certainly could
not say that she was not sane
The Decision.
The opinion handed down by Judge
Hamilton which will probably settle
the long standing litigation although
| the plaintiff made exceptions to the
ruling is as follows:
| The evidence in this case shows that
on the 31st day of July, 1907, in an
action pending in the superior court
of the city of Keokuk, Iowa, wherein
iE. T. Bartruff, the defendant herein,
was plaintiff and Louisa Grimsley
was defendant, a decree and judg-
ment was entered to the effect that
E. T. Bartruff was the absolute owner
in fee simple, of the front fifty feet
of lots 10, IL and II in block 1902 in
the city of Keokuk, Lee County, Iowa,
and entitled to the immediate pos
/ session thereof. and that the defend
ant Louisa Grimsley was wrongfully
in possession of said premises, and
ordering that she and her tenants
and agents be put out of the posses
sion Of said premises, and authorizing
! the issuance of an execution for that
purpose.
court an appeal was taken to the SUI
preme court of the state of Iowa. Sub
4 sequently settlement of the contro-
/ versy between the parties was under.
4 taken, and in furtherance thereof the
/ appeal taken by the defendant Grims-
1 ley to the supreme court in said ac-
tion was dismissed. A deed was exc
cuted and delivered by the said Bart
ruff to f. T. Hughes for the front fiji.
ty feet of lot IL and the front fifty
feet of the northerly thirty feet of lot
I IL in block 102, and the said Hughes
was paid the sum of SIS by the said
Bartruff, and F. t. Hughes executed
and delivered a deed to Bartruff for
the front so feet of lot 10 and the
southerly 20 feet of lot II of said
property.
4 The evidence further shows that on
or about the goth day of April, 1910,
the said Bartruff requested the issu,
ance of writ of possession upon the
! decree and judgment heretofore en-.
tered in said superior court in said
action and in writing instructed the
marshal to contine the same to the
front so feet of lot 10 and the south
one-half of the front SO feet of lot IL
of said property. In pursuance there
of, on the 10th day of April, 1910, the
Judge Of the said court issued said
hands of the marshal Of the city OF
Keokuk, who made his return that he
of Louisa Grimsley from the front Sc
had removed the personal belongings
feet of lot 10 and the south half OF
!. the front SO feet of lot IL, block 102
in the city of Keokuk, and put the
, said e. T. Bartruff in possession
thereof. The evidence shows that the
marshal removed said property of the
! said Grimsley from the property las
therein described to the front SO fee
Iof lot - and the front SO feet OF the
1northerly so feet of lot IL. block lo2
I in the city Of Keokuk.
Out of these facts arises the pres
ent controversy between the plaintiff
herein and the defendant. Counsel fol
plaintiff contends that the facts here
, in stated constituted settlement
satisfaction and cancellation OF th'
decree and Judgment herein before re
ferred to, and that the said writ o
, possession was wrongfully issued.
Plaintiffs amendment to the petl
, ton in this case alleges that the salt
r. r. Hughes had no title to the salt
property No evidence upon this poin
was introduced, but it can be said tina
l. If such allegation was true Their
a could certainly have been no satisfac
J. ton of the decree and judgment ren
n dered in the superior court. and tn
l. same consequently would have re
manned valid and enforceable a
4 against all the property involved Il
!, the said action.
J; Disregarding the plaintiffs allega
!, tion that the said F. T. Hughes ha
!, no title to the property. and eivini
the fullest effect to his actions a