Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1917-12-19
REVEHSES VERDICT IN BREEN VS.
IOWA CENTRAL AND AFFIRMS
TWO OTHERS.
JUDGE WllLETT'S RULING
UPHELD IN BASH VS.. BASH
Ruling Of Judge Cummings in Mccoy
VS.. Tewksbury Is Affirmed BY SUI
pealed From Tama County-AII
Gases Involve Large Amounts.


farm lands and claim for personal
injury, which were appealed from the
courts of this and Tama county, were
decided by the supreme court in rul-
ings filed Tuesday. A total of $4,000
is involved in the three cases. They
are j. w. Breen VS.. the Iowa Central
reversed and remanded; Bash VS.. Bash,
affirmed; and Mccoy VS.. Tewksbury,
affirmed.
The Breen case. which has been
tried three times in the district court
and twice appealed has been in the
courts for six years. 1t has to do with
the personal injury case of ,Myles kel-
leher, a former locomotive engineer,
who was injured when a locomotive
side rod broke and crashed into the
cab.
Federal Law Involved.
kellehers claim was assigned to
Breen and was first tried in 1911, when
verdict Of $4,000 was returned for
Breen. The case was appealed by the
railroad company and the verdict was
set aside and reversed and the case
remanded for retrial. 1t was tried
again in 1913 before Judge Nichols, and
the jury returned a verdict OF 1880.
This verdict was set aside by Judge
Nichols on a technical question of
pleadings and proof The third trial
was in 1915 and the verdict that time
was $500 for Breen. Again the rail-
road company appealed.
After the first trial and appeal to
the supreme court the railroad at
torneys discovered that congress had
passed the federal employers liability
act in 1908. which the lawyers believed
should govern in this litigation as all
persons engaged in interstate COM
merce were brought under its provi-
sions. In the last two trials the rail-
roads defense was based on this law
and so strongly did they feel intrenched
behind it that in the last two trials no
testimony for the railroad company
was introduced in defense. Presumably
the case will be tried a fourth time.
The opinion was by Judge Salinger.
Bash Estate Case.
The case of Bash VS.. Bash involved
heirs Of llebbeus Bash and land he had
conveyed to his sons and daughter.
The case was brought by Mrs. Delphia
Bash now Mrs. w. F. Koontz, in be-
half of her children. Catherine and
Kenneth, the son and daughter Of Leb-
beus Bash, against Calvin and Charles
Bash and Mrs. Nora Elliott the latter
children of Lebbeus Bash by his first
marriage. The property involved in
hn
land in Pocahontas county.
Some years before his death Lebbeus
Bash decided the land to his sons, Cal
vim and Charles and his daughter. Mrs.
Elliott. Mrs. Delphia Bash. as guard
ian Of her children, brought suit to
establish that the deciding of the Paca-
hontas land was an advancement to
them on their share Of the estate.
Judge Willett, before whom the case
was tried early last year, did not take
this view Of the case. He held that
the conveyance of the land as a gift
of the father to his children and that
the. value of the land should not be
deducted from their share of the estate
brought. Attorneys for Mrs. Bash ap-
pealed. The supreme court affirmed
Judge Wilett's ruling.
More Of Dannenhrink Property.
The Mccoy VS.. Tewksbury case had
its origin in Tama county, where it was
tried before Judge Cummings. This
action involved land formerly the pro-
perty Of Fred Dannenbrink, over whose
property there has been SO much liti-
cation in the last ten years. Mrs.
Sophia Mccoy, his granddaughter and
sole heir brought suit to have set
aside deeds by which Dannebrink con-
veycd the land to George Tewksbury,
of this city. 1t was alleged for Mrs.
Mccoy that Tewksbury had acquired
the confidence of Dannenbrink and had
unduly Influenced him in selling the
land for less than 1t was worth. The
land comprised 1876 acres in Tama
county worth about 500 an acre. Judge
Cummings ruled that Mrs. Mccoy had
no claim in equity in the land and dis
missed her action.
The case was filed as far back as
1907, but it was not brought to trial
until 1915 chiefly because the lawyers
were engaged in litigation involving
other Dannenbrink property in the case
Of Mccoy VS.. Nuese.
Word telling Of the rulings in the
cases was received from Des Moines
this morning by c. N. E. Boardman,
who was interested in the three cases
in the lower court: for the railroad in
the Breen case; for the older Bash
heirs Il the Bash case, and for Tewks-