MR. C. S. MACOMBER: I move to lay it on the table. (Duly seconded.)

My reason for so doing is, that I do not believe the bar of the State of Iowa has degenerated to that extent that they cannot be trusted to make contracts with their clients. When it goes out abroad that the bar themselves have such an opinion of themselves that they do not think they can make a contract with their clients unless it is approved by the court, if this convention passes that, I will move from the State of Iowa.

The motion to table was duly carried.

DEAN EVANS: Section six is as follows:

The interest of all distributees in an estate should be established by a final decree.

I move its adoption. (Duly seconded.)

A MEMBER: How is a final decree good and binding in an estate where there is no notice served by an executor, when he has had no notice?

MR. D. D. MURPHY: It seems to me that the greatest benefit to be derived from this is in cases where we have to deal with attorneys outside of the State. I find in my practice, they are always expecting a decree of final distribution. We have to do a great deal of explaining in order to cover that apparent defect.

JUSTICE WEAVER: In the State of Minnesota they have a statute such as is suggested here. When you examine an abstract of title of real estate in the State of Minnesota, you will find a final settlement or closing up of the estate, and a decree entered fixing the title, that is to say, that each shall have such and such a share. Now, I suppose those decrees have the value of being at least prima facie evidence of the settlement of the title. There may somebody else outside come in and move to set it aside, but it does have a very decided advantage of having a record showing a prima facie title in the devisees or the heirs of the deceased. I think the amendment is something the State has long needed.

JUDGE GEORGE JEPSON: They also have a similar law in South Dakota. Before the estate is finally closed there, notice is re

quired, a decree defining the heirs and their distributive shares. I think this would be a very wholesome law. The final decree would show who the heirs are that are interested in the property. Of course, the heirs who had no notice would not be bound.

SENATOR C. G. SAUNDERS: It does seem to me if a law of that sort is adopted, it should be very carefully worded, because we have a five year limit in which letters of administration can be taken out. A great deal of property passes without there being any administration at all. It seems to me it ought not to be made the sole evidence of the descent of property.

The motion to adopt was duly carried.

DEAN EVANS: Section seven is as follows:

Requests for instructions must be submitted to the court before argument begins. All exceptions to instructions given or refused must be taken before they are read to the jury. No exception, unless so taken, will be considered on a motion for new trial, or by the Supreme Court.

Unless the members of the Association care to take it up, we will pass it, as it has been covered by a recent statute.

SENATOR C. H. VAN LAW: I want to go on record as being opposed to that section. I have heard the same expression from a great many lawyers here, with reference to the matter of requesting instructions. Under the present form of the statute, as adopted, if you are to ask instructions, you must ask them before the arguments begin or you are precluded subsequently from asking any instructions.

Section 2 reads: "All requests for instructions must be presented to the judge before the final argument to the jury is commenced and before the reading of the charge to the jury." The rest of it has reference to exceptions to instructions, which is equally reprehensible from the standpoint of a practicing lawyer. I do not believe it will be two years before this Association will go on record as against this law, because it will be considered prejudicial to the rights of the client.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair is rather of the opinion that this discussion is out of order. There is nothing before the Association, as I understand it.

SENATOR C. H. VAN LAW: I move you that the matter of Section VII, relating to House File No. 158, be referred to the Committee on Law Reform subsequently to be appointed, for their special attention, and report at the next meeting.

The motion was duly seconded and carried.

DEAN EVANS: The eighth recommendation is as follows:

In all actions for divorce, if the defendant does not appear either in person or by attorney, the court must appoint the county attorney or some other attorney to investigate the case on behalf of the State, and it shall be the duty of such attorney so appointed to investigate the case carefully, to discover if fraud or collusion exists between the parties, and by answer to report his finding to the court; a fee of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars in favor of such attorney to be taxed as costs in the case.

I move the adoption of this recommendation.

MR. ROBERT HEALY: I move that the eighth recommendation of the committee be laid upon the table.

The motion was duly seconded and carried.

DEAN EVANS: The ninth recommendation is as follows:

When a party demurs to a pleading, thus raising an issue of law for the court, he should either stand upon the demurrer and appeal or waive the question submitted by the demurrer.

I move its adoption.

MR. B. I. SALINGER: I move as an amendment to the pending motion that recommendation number nine be re-committed. (Duly seconded.)

I take this position, because I for one favor the principle embodied in the existing recommendation, at the same time I am constrained to feel, as written, it would be idle and fail of accomplishing its purpose. Secondly, in connection with the good it would do in any event, it would also tend in many instances to subvert the real administration of justice. The recommendation as written is right to this extent: There should be no place in an answer for an issue of law to permit one who has had a demurrer overruled, thereupon to plead in answer the same proposition embodied in his demurrer.

Let me illustrate: I today lay my petition and there is a demurrer. The demurrer is overruled. I am the successful party. I can not appeal from a ruling favorable to me. My adversary, finding me in that position, re-injects the law points that have just been ruled against him, and the only thing left for me is to try my case to a final end. It may take months of time and cost thousands of dollars, but I cannot find out until after that expensive trial has been had, and until the entire case, including the ruling on the demurrer, has gone to the Supreme Court, whether or not my petition ever did put me in court. Certainly some way ought to be found before the trial is proceeded with, where a point is seriously raised, to have that question determined before the trial on the merits is had. There is a clear analogy in that procedure in the Federal Courts, where the point is made as to a lack of jurisdiction. The moment that is done, an appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States to settle the question whether the plea of jurisdiction is or is not well taken.

I think the matter ought to be re-committed and the proposition should be, that if a demurrer is overruled, the party must then stand upon it and appeal from it or forever after waive it, unless the court in its discretion, thinking the demurrer is not frivolous, is authorized to stay proceedings and certify up the question involved in the demurrer before trial is had, and that the hearing as to time should proceed with the celerity now governing in cases of certiorari.

MR. W. A. HELSELL: It is hard enough to try a case once, without going to the Supreme Court three or four times. I apprehend, from the knowledge of my friend Salinger, if it were possible to demur to my petition to get a ruling, it would be a long time before I could get judgment.

Therefore, I move you, that the tail go with the hide, and that we lay the motion and amendment thereto on the table indefinitely.

The motion was duly seconded and carried.

DEAN EVANS: For a wonder, two of these sections have passed

the Association. So the committee reports that we are making progress.

THE PRESIDENT: We will now hear the Report of the Committee on Resolutions.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

Your Committee on Resolutions beg leave to report and recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, that a vote of thanks be extended to the Honorable Emory Speer, of Macon, Georgia, for the able and eloquent address delivered by him before this Association.

In this connection the Bar Association of Iowa takes the opportunity to express its full concurrence in the sentiment so happily and forcibly stated by Judge Speer in his address; that the absolute independence of the Judiciary of this country, State and Federal, is necessary to the maintenance of the rights and liberties of the people of this Nation. This Association further expresses its accord with the sentiment of such address, that the espionage of Judges of the Federal Courts, by other departments of the Government, is un-American, and highly detrimental to the proper administration of justice. That such practice tends to impair the confidence in the integrity of the Courts, to which they are justly entitled, the respect in which they are held by the people, and should receive the stamp of unqualified condemnation by the Bar of this country.

Be it further Resolved that a vote of thanks be extended by this Association to the local Bar of Woodbury County, the Commercial Club, Riverside Boat Club, Council Oak Boat Club, Commercial Men's Boat Club, T. O. T. S., the Elks Club, and the Hawkeye Club, and to the good citizens of Sioux City for the kind and courteous treatment and entertainment accorded the members of this Association while guests in the city.

Be it Resolved that a vote of thanks be extended generally to the persons who have read papers and responded to toasts during the meeting of the Association, because of the instruction and