Schley v. Pullman Palace Car Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1885
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: SCHLEY v. PULLMAN PLACE CAR CO. [1] SAME v. ALLEN PAPER CAR-WHEEL CO. SAME v. TRUSTEES PULLMAN LAND ASS'N.

25 F. 890

SCHLEY v. PULLMAN PLACE CAR CO. ^[1]

SAME v. ALLEN PAPER CAR-WHEEL CO.

SAME v. TRUSTEES PULLMAN LAND ASS'N.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

December 23, 1885

S Corning Judd, and Ritchie, Esher & Judd, for plaintiff.

Alfred Ennis, Lyman & Jackson, and Lower, Remy & Gregory, for defendants.

GRESHAM J.

These are actions in ejectment to recover lands upon which the city of Pullman in part stands. Juries were waived, and the cases were submitted to the court upon a stipulation that if the following instrument should be held valid and binding as a deed of conveyance by husband and wife, judgment should be entered for the defendants:

'This indenture, made this twenty-sixth day of May, A.D. 1856 witnesseth, that I, Christina Lynn, sister and heir at law of Henry Millspaugh, deceased, who was a recruit of Lieutenant T. W. Denton, of the 13the regiment, United States infantry, ware of 1812, with Great Britain, of the county of St. Clair and state of Michigan, party of the first part, in consideration of the sum of $43 in hand paid by Milton and Thomas C. McEwen, of the county of Orange and state of New York, party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby release, grant bargain, and quitclaim unto said party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, forever, all her right, title, claim, and interest in that certain tract of land granted by the United States unto David Millspaugh and Christina Lynn, the brother and sister and only heirs at law of Henry Millspaugh, deceased, as follows, to-wit: The south-east quarter of section numbered fifteen, (15,) in township numbered thirty-seven, (37,) north, of range numbered fourteen (14) east, in the district of lands subject to sale at Chicago, state of Illinois, containing one hundred and sixty (160) acres, by letters patent bearing date of November 23, A.D. 1849, and founded upon warrant No. 27,495, reference being made to said patent will more fully appear,-- to have and to hold the said premises, with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, to their only proper use, benefit, and behoof of said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, forever.

'In witness whereof, the said grantor have hereunto set our hands and seals, the day and year first above written.

'CHRISTINA LYNN. (Seal.) 'WILLIAM LYNN.' (Seal.)

Following is the certificate of OBED SMITH, a justice of the peace, of St. Clair county, Michigan, dated May 27, 1856. The officer certified that on that day Christina Lynn and William Lynn, her husband, personally appeared before him; that he knew them to be the persons who executed the foregoing instrument; that they acknowledged it to be their free act and deed; and that after he had personally examined the wife, separate and apart from her husband, and had fully informed her of the contents, she acknowledged that she executed the same freely, and without compulsion from her husband.

Section 2 of the act of February 22, 1847, (2 Scates, T. & B.St.Ill 965.) declares that when any married woman, above the age of 18 years, and not residing in this state, joins with her husband in the execution of any deed, mortgage, or conveyance of any real estate situated within Illinois, she shall be barred thereby of all the estate, right, title, interest, and claim of the dower therein, the same as if she were unmarried and of full age; and it is further declared that such a married woman may acknowledge such deed, etc., as if she were unmarried. This statute was in force when Mrs. Lynn and her husband executed the deed in Michigan where they then resided, and she was at the time above the age of 18. It is insisted by counsel for the plaintiff that the statute required the husband to be a joint grantor with his wife; that his mere signing, sealing, and acknowledging the deed was not sufficient when his name did not appear in the granting clause or body of the instrument; and that it was therefore inoperative and void. It was only in substantial...