New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-05-14
THIRTY YEARS OF LITIGATION.


THE RELATIONS OF COUNSEL AND CLIKST-AN M
PoRTANT DECISION BY JUDGE vAN BRUNT.
After 80 long years of litigation, an old suit,
embracing probably million Of dollars, has been decided
by Judge Van Brunt the Special Term OF the Supreme
Court. The opinion OF Judge Van Brunt extends 70 II
foOlscap pages including large amount OF reprint and
embracing also the whole story, which is very inter
esng one Of the leading to the action, and the
subsequent history Of tedious progress through the
courts.
Away back In 1889 John Mason died, leaving eight
children. Some time before his death his son james
had offended him by marrying a Mise Wheatley, an
actress, and he had settled him on farm on Long
Island. which held in trust for him. and IN mis- will
left him comparatively small estate for life with
mainder to his children. Litigation was begun to set
aside this Wi and after the exhaustion Of nearly every
form Of litigation the will 1nay broken. and James
Mason was declared entitled 10 oneeghth OF his fathers
estate in 1886 part allotted to him included ninety
lots near what the Central Park, with other real
estate During mis- HtigauOns James j. Ring was his
counsel and hIs charges in al some 100000 After
a settlement Of their accounts, Mr. Ring claimed and
Mr.. Mason conveyed to him forty-dye OF the ninety
lots, under iwhat claimed 70 be the old
agreement. Soon after this Mr.. Mason. who then
advised by Mr. Cone his attorney determined TO re-
cover these As lots and accordingly sent retainer TO
Mr. Cram the defendant, 70 secure his assistance
little later admitting the nsuicency Of this retainer,
Mr. Mason suggested that Mr.. Cram should take his
share In the lots as his fee which would thus be conn
gent on success. After delay IMr Cram accepted
one-third Of the his share. On June 1858. Mr.
Mason his first wife having died, married the plainun
until sent l. 1868 thus tying his real estate, soar
sale was concerned for five years On examining
heavily ncumbered with unpaid taxes and assessments
bearing heavy interest ANA endangerlng some-
vIat the property itself But the Obligation against
Ring went aud finally Judge Hoffman gave decision
the case in favor OF M MasOn Mr. ram I'M w.
A.. Mr.
Mason. being unable TO raise money on his property
owing the minority oil MS wife, suggested through ni
Conc that Mr. Cram purchased the fOrY-hve lots After
negotiation, all OF which wac conducted Dy mr.
Cram VITA Mr. Cone II wa agreed tnas lns r S id
not hold under the trst agreement for O0 That tNo
in cash should be paid by Mr. Cram that out OF the
600 he should pay and assessments the
property and should gave mortgage Tor the Dalahce
ch Turned out To be about $4,000 but that this mort
gage should bear interest until the close OF the uli
Mr. Cram bear the expenses or the SUIT ana III
demDify Mr. Mason against any costs. In 1899 an ar
Tange,nent Was made with Ring by which Mason, or III
fact Cram 10 be repaid All taxes ana assesauleuIs
thereafter paid In case Of Rings success The suit
dragged along by appeals anu references October
1865 finally closed, but III 1854 decision OF
the Court OF Appeals affirmed Mr. Mason's rights 10 the
real estate and the rest OF litigation only concerned
the that should be repaid BY the estate oi MI
Rng-he having meanwhile died-to Nj. Mason .
In 1865 Mr. Mason quarreed With Mr.. Cone and Mr.
Cram. Hls new attorneys were hessrs Iherasson hha
Bryant. Mr.. Cram demand on hr. Mason 70 lu
mi his contract Hs new counsel ADVISED him that this
contract could enforced but he expressing great
fear Of Mr.. Cram and great dread OF new htgst0n de
eidrd 10 carry II out la place a release OF dover
By the WIFE, deed OF The property was executed by both
His wife acknowledged deed m the usual i0fin but
she this that she was influenced W DO
by her husband, who told her ms honor SAs psdsTu
10 it. This deed executed Nov -, ooS, aud hr.
Cram paid the $4,000. The stamps ne placed on
the deed represented value OF $4,000 James Mason
died July l69, and widow, sole lcgatee' after
rendering 100000 Mr. Cram Tor his expenses, outlay
c. brought suit tO set aside the agreement OF she
Der, 1855, aud the deed OF November. 1885,
Judge Van BTuuts decision 10 Ia favor OF the deichd
ant Mr. Ia his opinion he holds that transactions
between attorney client subject ~ gave
suspicion, carefully sorutinzed ~ COURTS
He says however. that according 10 the best evidence
ney these As lots, IS ON sixty secOndst running
Fourth 10 Fifthdges, and niue In the DOCK Dt
tween Fifty.fourth and Fifty fth-sts aud Fourth ana
Fithycs., which were then only valued at N5.UOa tuht
Jg0thirs not therefore, Tar out Of the
way then, however greatly the value may nave ih'
creased since ana that however In many respects the
contract favored Cram lie terms. there on the
side the doubt Uf the uI the suit, tho posi-
bility should u turn unfHvUrably, tnat AL the
moneys paid by Nun Tor axes ana assessments, might ne
lo-t-t DOUBT which not relieved untu next
year. only part tue certainly OF eXpouse ahd
the possibility having pay heavy Gusts. He Safs
mat perhaps All thn might nos nave SUSTAINED silt 10y
Mr.. Cram tAs CONTRACT. but ia tls os-s M
MsOu two years after relations u =LI1rDey ANA
client ceased ana after Ma nsa Deen AnSi-d bt is