The Portland daily press., 1863-02-13
NJ At e RS ABOUT TO w N.
An Important Case.


Of Edwin S. Hovey VS.. VIM. Chase, and was
one of a series of actions brought to recover
possession Of what was formerly known as
the "Mellen lot" bounded on State, Pine and
Winter streets, and containing $4,000 square
feet Of land, besides about dozen large and
elegant dwelling houses more recently erected
on the lot The valuation OF the lot and
buildings is variously estimated at from $780,
900 to 100000.
The lot in question fell to the ownership OF
the late Stephen Neal, formerly Of Elliot, as
one of the heirs of James Neal. Stephen was
placed under guardianship in April, 1884, but
In September, 1884, the guardianship was re-
moved by Judge Potter, then Judge of Pro-
bate. AMER the removal of the guardianship,
the lot in question was purchased Of Neal by
Eben Steele, on speculation, July 10, 1895, for
the sum Of $780, Steele sold the lot to Sam
uel Z. Croker July 9th, 1886, for 5000.
The deed rom Neal to Steele not having been
recorded, and Mrs. Steele being absent, so that
she could not sign q deed from Steele to
Croker, the former deed was Withdrawn from
the Registers Office, and a warrantee deed of
the lot made from Stephen Neal to Croker.
Mr.. Steele divided the profits he had made on
the speculation, with Neal, and paid him $4,000
for the lot, which was the sum named in the
deed from Neal to Croker. Croker occu-
pied the lot in ls36-37 by hauling bricks on to
1t. Subsequently, April 2sth, 1887, he sold
the lot to Samuel Coolidge of Boston for
$1,000. Coolidge sold the lot, with another
piece of land in this city, TO VIM. Savage Of
Boston, May Is, 1870, for $1,000. Savage sold
the lot in question Sept. 4, 1916, to Alvah
Libby and Thomas O'Bron for $500. O'Brion
released his interest in one half of the prem
Uses to Libby, which included the lot in dis
pute in this case. Libby conveyed one half
Of what he owned to Eben Seavey Dec. %,
iS46, and Libby and Seavey then conveyed to
Sewall c. Chase a lot on Pine street, upon
which Chase erected block of two brick
dwelling-houses. February /, iS49, s. c. Chase
conveyed one half in common of the lot and
block to Edward P. Chase, and on the same
day SewaIi and Edward P. conveyed to Will
liam Chase, for the sum of 5000, the lot and
brick building thereon, being the premises de-
manded by plaintiff in this case.
Stephen Neal died in December, 1896, leav-
ing one heir, Mrs. Lydia, wife of Oliver Den
nett Oliver bennett died in December, 1851.
July "a, 1858, Mrs. bennett released, by naked
quit claim, her interest in the Mellen lot to Ed
win S. Hovey, for which he gave his notes
on time for $4,000, with the understanding
that he was not to be called upon to pay any
portion Of the same unless he recovered the
premises. Within a week afterwards suits
were commenced against the various holders
of the estate.
The claim of Mr.. Hovey was based upon
the assumption that, at the time of the sale by
Stephen Neal, in 1885, he was non compos
mentis, or afflicted with senile dementia, and,
therefore, incompetent to give deed, and
that the deed he gave to Croker was void, or
voidable, against his heir, or any one claiming
through or under her.
In order to establish this point many wit
nesses were examined, who testified as to the
state Of mind of Stephen Neal in the years
ls34-38, and who were of opinion that he was
manners and habits and sayings were gone
pretty thoroughly into to show that he did
not know what he was about, and was entire
ly unfit to negotiate even the smallest tran
sactions. The testimony on this point in the
shape Of witnesses and dispositions was quite
voiuminous. Drs. Harlow and Bates were ex-
amined upon the question Of senile dement,d,
and hypothetical question being put to them,
they answered that, such facts being proved, in
their opinion, they would be conclusive of an
unsound mind.
On the other hand, 1t was conteuded that
Neal ,oas competent to transact business, and
that In the sale Of this lot he got a fair price
for it. The testimony on these points was
pretty extensive. The opinions of these wit
nesses were directly in conflict with those for
the plaintiff, and it seemed to be question of
veracity between them. 1t was also contend
ed by defendants counsel that, even II Stephen
Neal was Of unsound mind at the time Of ex-
ecuting the deed in 1885, still the sale of this
property through sundry mesne conveyances
70 the present owners, for valuable consider
alton, without notice of any defect in the title,
was valid, and the plaintiff could not recover.
The case was ably argued by Mr.. Rand for
the defendant, and by Mr.. Woodman for the
plaintiff. No one could say that either of
them had not done justice to their clients.
Mr.. Rand occupied three hours and a half in
his argument, and Mr. Woodman nine hours
and three quarters in his. Better specimens
Of forensic eloquence have seldom been heard
In that Court.
The charge Of Judge Cutting to the jury
was an able and impartial one, occupying
about one hour and hall. He held that the
plaintiff had right 10 purchase of Mrs. Den
nett, either by note or otherwise.
That plaintiff, to prevail, must impeach the
deed, and must satisfy the jury that Neal had
not "due intelligence to make contract
because If he had such degree of under
standing at the time, the deed is valid, and de-
PENDANT must prevail
No degree Of physical or mental disability,
which does not deprive him of legal compe-
tency to act, is sufficient to invaldate the deed
Alter remarking upon what constitutes legal
competency TO act, and the proof required
from the plaintiff to establish the want of this,
he LEFT it for the jury to determine from the
evidence the effect of it upon this case.
In regard to the opinion of the experts, he
remarked that it amounted to but little, I'M
less all the facts upon which it is based are