Where proceedings are instituted in the state court of Iowa
under certain articles of their code, and then removed into the
United States court, although these proceedings do not conform to
the mode prescribed for chancery proceedings in the courts of the
United States, yet if the pleadings and proofs show the matter in
dispute between the parties, this Court will adjudicate the
questions which they present.
The principle adopted in the preceding case respecting the
execution of a deed by a married woman as trustee, is equally
applicable to a deed executed under a power of attorney granted by
her.
This case arose out of the same circumstances nearly as the
preceding
Page 64 U. S. 504
case, as will be evident from the statement in the opinion of
the Court.
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was commenced in the District Court of Jackson County,
Iowa, by the appellees, under articles 2025 and 2026 of the Code of
Iowa, to quiet their title and possession to certain lands in that
county against the impending and adverse claim of the appellants,
the heirs at law of Sarah A. Blakely, deceased.
The appellants appeared, and answered the petition, and procured
the removal of the cause to the District Court of the United States
for Iowa under the 12th section of the Judiciary Act of September,
1789. After the removal of the suit to the district court, the
appellants commenced a cross-suit, asserting therein their own
title to the lands in controversy and praying for a decree of
delivery of the possession to them and an account of the mesne
profits. The original and cross-suit were "consolidated" on the
motion of the appellants, and were heard as one suit.
The proceedings in these causes seem to have been framed upon
the course of practice prevailing under the Code of Iowa, and we
have found some difficulty in entertaining the suit as not
conforming to the mode of proceeding prescribed for courts of the
United States in chancery proceedings; but as we are enabled to
ascertain from the pleadings and proofs the matter in dispute
between the parties we shall proceed to adjudicate the questions
they present.
The facts disclosed by the proofs show that William. B. Beebe,
an insolvent debtor, in order to carry on business without
interruption, made purchases and sales of property on his own
account in Iowa, but under the shelter of the name of Sarah A.
Blakely, the mother of his wife, a resident of Missouri. To enable
him to do so with facility, he procured from her powers of
attorney, which conferred authority for that purpose.
Page 64 U. S. 505
The land described in the petition was purchased by Beebe with
his own money, and the titles were made for his use to Mrs.
Blakely. Subsequently he sold them to one of the parties to the
cross-suit Mrs. Wells for a valuable consideration, and, as
attorney in fact for Mrs. Blakely, executed to her a deed, and the
appellees, Westbrook and Guager, claim as purchasers from this
person.
At the time of the execution of the deed of Mrs. Blakely, and of
her death, she was a
feme covert. The appellants insist
that the conveyance to Mrs. Wells in the name of Mrs. Blakely is
void and that they are entitled to hold the lands as heirs at
law.
We discover no material variation between the principles
applicable in this cause and that of the same appellants and Wynant
which we have just decided. Upon the authority of that case, we
determine that the decree of the district court must be
Affirmed.