Show 1 CASE OASE DECIDED Supreme Court Reverses Judgment i Of or tho the Lower Court CourtIN CourtIN CourtIN IN SUIT sun TO 0 QUIRT TITLE nul n In h I Out Onn hil In II Wi hi dl cli li 1 tJ J the I U I I I I I a I ra a mo dl ito I ruo supreme court today d handed down ah eli a opinion reversing the Junta ment tent of ut ut tb tha lower loer IOle court In iii the eaSe cane of oC It John Deer Baer and wife vs VI Henry K 1 et al 11 1 The action waa Wa ae brought In fl the Ihl Third district dl WIN court to quiet title tle to detain r ul property In iii Inthe II the tie city and to 0 declare null nul and und void oId oIda u n certain mortgage t on uin the Ih premise which was wai alleged to hive ha I been forged by br I 1 J T 1 Conway n a f defaulting nace real ral estate men man of or this city t told and old to set aside oil all al proceedings Iro had hall In Inthe inthe I of or said Mid forged mort mortgage mortgage the foreclosure ure lil mor gage laO A demurrer wm was Wi interposed t by I defendants which wets overruled by ly Judge Jt Hull Hall HII and nd upon tipon the trial of oC the theM vale rase M lt a UIt woe was rendered re in favor of ot Pie The opinion of ot the court which was wai WI written by b Ju Justice and 1101 concurred In by Chief Justice lu HUH Baa Int kin anti and Justice lucid hold that the plaintiff ant are lUl not entitled to any relief localise they have obtained relief t tIn In the foreclosure suit mitt had lied they used I J due lIner Huer ant his wife were In Iii when the suit null was Wa brought them bent to 10 the purported mortgage and they thy hail had notice to appear but hut tint did nut hut do 10 co so 1 either In or orby orby orby by attorney Tin property wa wu was sold Blid to tonn I toan nn an A Innocent purchaser er who hind had hal no Ito 10 notice nule that the mortgage wu was wal a n forgery h hence nce tnt the Ihl court will wil nut not disturb the We proceedings In iii th the foreclosure ure suit The opinion further holds that thai the Iho proper method methot of bringing Ins t question before the court curt U is II by luton to set ll n the Judgment t ant ami not nut by hy bringing an Ru Independent action In lii II equity IU I y In InI I such uch kil eec nf where part have 11 11 a remedy y by 1 motion a 1 separate and IJ distinct Mul IK lilt l We Ve are re In e cannot in tn 1 of the opinion that the plaintiffs ha hu have e mistaken thi ir remedy and Ild that tiLe the demurrer ought to l have hae hI II bert been sue HUH tamed The court then ordered the tue Judgment reversed arid ami the complaint dismissed |