
    Wheeling,
    William Cady vs. Mary Gale, et al.
    
    July Term, 1872.
    Cady brought a bill against Gale to enforce a contract for the conveyance of land. The court below decreed in favor of G-ale. This court, on appeal, reversed the court below, andorded Gale to inalce a deed conveying his interest, which w as a life estate, to Cady. After this latter decree had been entered in the court below, Mary Gale, the wife of Gale, filed her petition alleging that she was the owner in fee, and that alt the issues, rents, profits and royalties, (it was oil producing territory,) were hors, and that she was no party to the suit of Cady against Gale. The Grant Oil Company also flltil a petition alleging that it was the lessee of Mary Gale and Gale before the sale of Gale to Cady ; that it was advised that the royalties, rents, &c., wore coming and due to the owner of the fee, and that Cady had notified it to pay and deliver the sam e to him iniuture, and that it was not a party to the suit of Cady vs Gale, &c, An Injunction, or suspending order, was granted on the petition. Prom this Cady appealed to this court. Held :
    1. The decree rendered in the cause of Cady against Gale, is not binding upon, and does not in any way affect the interest of Mrs. Gale, or the Grant Oil Company, as they were not parties to the suit, and are not bound by the decree.
    2. The petition of Mrs. Gale does not set up any matter but what has already been passed upon, In rendering tbe decree against Gale.
    8. And if all the matters charged in the petition of the Grant Oil Company be true, it could not affect the liability of Gale in Ms contract with Cady,
    This cause arose upon the filing and recording in tbe circuit court of Wood county, on tbe 30fch of April, 1872, of tbe decree of this court, pronounced at the January term, 1872 in the cause of Cady vs. Gale. By that decree the defendant, Gale, was required to make a deed to plaintiff, Cady, for bis interest in a certain two hundred and fifty acres of oil land'. The interest of Gale was determined to be for life.
    After that decree bad been entered, Mrs. Mary Gale, tbe wife of defendant, and the Grant Oil Company, filed their petitions, upon whicli injuctions, or suspending orders, to the-effect of the decree, were granted. Mrs. Gale alleges that the land which had been decreed to Cady, was hers, by virtue of a deed of conveyance in 1854 ; that she was not a party to the suit of Cady against Gale, nor were any of her tenants parties thereto, .and that the decree would seriously embarrass her in the future development of her oil territory, by casting a cloud on the title, &c. She asked that the court would decree the property to her as her sole property, together with the rents, issues and profits thereof.
    The petition of the Grant Oil Company alleged that they had leased and operated for oil, two lots of the ground in controversy, of Mrs. Gale and her husband, in 1858, before the sale of Cady; that the 250 acres decreed to Cady, was part of a large tract of 2,000 acres, and that by the terms of the decree it was located, not in the north-west corner thereof according to the terms of the original agreement .between Cady and Gale, but in the south-west corner of the larger tract, thus embracing the petitioner ; that the petitioner was an innocent purchaser for valuable consideration, and had no notice of the sale of Gale to Cady; that it was not a party to that suit, and had no opportunities to defend its interests, and show the im-proprietj1' of the location of the 250 acres, or the groundless claim of Cady to any conveyance from either Mary Gale or E. S. •Gale, her husband. And that Cady had notified tire Oil Company that, he was the owner of tlielandon which their leases were situated, and that he was entitled to the rents, issues, profits and royalties, arising from the same; therefore it was asked to he protected against Cady, as Mrs. Gale, it alleged, being owner of the fee, -was entitled to the royalties. And that Cady was greatly embarrassing it, &e.
    Cady appeals from the order suspending the operations, and oflect of the decree.
    
      Johnson and Cole for appellant.
    
      Boggess and Sands for appellees.
   Maxwell J.

Cady filed his bill in the circuit court of "W ood county against Gale, to enforce specific execution of a. contract made by Gale, for the sale of a tract of 250 acres of land to Cady.

A decree was rendered by the said court in favor of Gale, from which Cady appealed to this court, which reversed the decree complained of, and directed the circuit court to enter a decree requiring the said Gale to convey all his interest in and to the said 250 acres of land, consisting of a life estate, to the said Cady. If Gale should fail to make a proper conveyance, a commissioner was to be appointed to make it for him. An account was also to be taken.

The decree of this court was entered in the court below, and thereupon two petitions were filed in the said court, one by Mrs. Gale, wife of defendant, Gale, and the other by “ The Grant Oil Company,” to review the said decree.

Petitioner also prayed that the effect of the decree be suspended until the questions raised by the petitioner should be determined.

The circuit court made an order according to the prayer of the petitioner, suspending the decree of this court, and the case comes back here on an appeal from this order, and from the order allowing petitions to be filed.

The decree rendered in the cause is not binding upon, and does not in any way affect the interest of Mrs. Gale, or of “The Grant Oil Company,” as they were not parties to the suit, and are not bound by the decree.

The petition of Mrs. Gale does not set up any matter but. what has already been passed upon by this court in rendering the decree against Gale.

And if all the matter charged in the petition of “ The Grant Oil Company ” be true, it could not in any way affect the liability of Gale on this contract with Cady.

Exparte Dubuque and Pacific Railroad, 1 Wallace 69; Sibbold vs. The United States, 12 Peters 488; Campbell vs. Price, 3 Munford 227; Price vs. Campbell, 5 Call 115; White vs. Atkinson, 2 Call 376.

This court must therefore reverse the orders allowing the petitions to be filed, dissolve the injunction or suspending order, and dismiss the petitions, with costs to the appellant.

The other judges concurred,

Order reversed.  