SET ASIDE THE TITLE -- THE WALLACE CASE.

WALLACE

Posted By: David (email)
Date: 1/2/2005 at 00:00:58

The Chariton Leader, Chariton, Iowa
Thursday, April 18, 1907

The case of MARY E. WALLACE vs. O.A. WALLACE et al, to set aside deed and
admeasure dower was tried in the court here, last week, the court deciding
in favor of the plaintiff and by agreement will sign decree during vacation.
The case was about as follows:

Some twenty years ago the elder WALLACE, then about 60 years of age, entered
into a marriage contract, the plaintiff being a widow of 36 years of age.
Two days before the marriage he executed a deed to his real estate -- lands
in Otter Creek Township, in favor of his children, sons and daughters, by a
former wife, and on the day of his marriage to plaintiff delivered the deed
in person to the county recorder for record. It seems that the plaintiff
was unaware of this transfer until a while before her husband's death and
that the children had not been consulted as to the distribution of the
property at the time and did not know of the deed until after the marriage.
Among other things the statute of limitation, was pleaded against the
plaintiff but the court ruled otherwise, but based his decision on the
grounds that the delivery of the deed to the county recorder without the
previous knowledge of beneficiaries did not constitute a delivery as
contemplated by law, therefore the deed is set aside and the widow comes in
for her dower. This was the main point, though other things might have been
set up -- as previous marriage contract, etc., but the court held this
sufficient alone. As to the statute of limitation the court held that the
wife was not compelled to begin action during the lifetime of her husband,
and as soon as the discovery was made, because that would have disturbed
their domestic relations, which the law does not contemplate. In the court
s address he complimented all parties to the suit and dwelt on the legal
phase at length, although referring to the moral side of it. He said the
elder WALLACE had a right to do with his property what he pleased previous
to marriage and had he delivered the deed to the beneficiaries two days
before the marriage it could not have been attacked, as the courtship was
brief, with nothing to show previous to its consummation. He no doubt
intended to deal justly by all parties and felt himself morally bound to
provide for his children by his former wife, by giving them the bulk of the
property, which together they had earned. Nothing in the evidence showed
that his second wife had been remiss in her duties, nor was there a
disrespectful word said against her by any of the defendants. They were all
the court said, intelligent and refined people and it was one of those
interesting cases growing out of a failure to technically perform an act at
the proper time, regrettable as it was, causing hardship to the defendants,
who never dreamed that they were other than secure in their rights. The
case will likely be appealed owing to the large amount involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copied by Nancee(McMurtrey)Seifert
December 14, 2004
iggy29@rnetinc.net