Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-10-04
A Real Estate TFnnsactiOn i'm COurs.
CHAs. h, AUULroN ONE OF TIE PARTIES TO T1s

R(Rt EStaIe ETHnsaCtfOn IN COufss
CHAs. H. NUULToN ONE OF TIE PARTIES TO T1s
SUIT.
Yesterday the case OF John II. Mcdaniel AFT,
John C. Wright. Chas. II. Moulton, B. II. War
ner and James s. Edwards was taken up IN the
Court in General Term. The bill IN this cause
was flied December 4, 1876, Alleging that all
were residents, except MoultoE, who had gone
to rarts unknown; that defendant, Wright, Oc-
tober IS, 1874, executed a deed OF trust to Moul-
the payment OF note Tor s., 200, due to L. d.
Isham, one year after date OF said deed of trust;
and that complainant purchased said note be-
fore maturity; and interest was endorsed paid
to April y, 1876, and the note extended to Octo-
Der Is, 1876; that since then the complainant
learned that Moulton, the trustee, fraudulently
the same day DEFENDANT, Wright, executed an
other deed OF trust to warner and Edwards to
secure Sl,4OO to Moulton; and charged that
Wright and Moulton conspired to deprive him
OF his security by such release; and Wright has
no property other than the tract so conveyed In
trust. and he is seeking to dispose OF that; and
defendants. Warner and Edwards, trustees, had
advertised the property: The bill asked
That the sale should be en1oined;
that the trust to secure be restored to its
position as first trust; that trustee be ap-
pointed to sell. and for general relief. SubSG-
quently petition was filed by ID. l.. MorrtSon,
the holder OF all the notes except one, repre-
sentfng the s. AGO, secured by deed or trust to
defendants. Warner and Edwards, and asking
10 Re admitted as party defendant in this suit,
and this petion was granted; and he filed his
answer, admitting the execution OF the re-
lease by MoultOn, averring 1t to be In due
form; that the Eotes came In his hands In
the course OF business, without any know
ledge OF complainant claims or OF the a.
legged fraud, &C. warner and Edwards au-
sweTed that they were proceeding TO sell In &C
cordance with the deed to them at the instance
OF Z. 2. Gunfon, the holder OF one of the notes.
The defendant, Wright, answered that at the
time the deed Of trust TO Moulton, to secure the
81. 200 note to lSham, was executed, he was
building on the premises, and the complainant
came and examined the property, and few
Gays a1terWard Mouiton gave him the money.
That when said note became DUE being unable
TO meet 1t, he applied to MoultOn for an extern
sion, and Moulton told him he must see the
plaint1f and he saw the plaintiff, who informed
defendant that Moultop was attending to his
business, and that whatever arrangement
Moulton made would be satisfactory to him.
That he went back TO MoultOn, who agreed, for
Mcdaniel, to extend the note for one year, and
ne continued to pay the interest to MoultOn as
McDan1elS agent. In July, 1876, Moulton told
defendant that Mcdaniel wanted his money,
and defendant asked Moulton II he could not
negotiate a new loan on the property to be re-
paid III small monthly instruments. In August
Moulton said he had found some one who would
loan him Sl,4e0 on the property. Defendant
then executed deed Of trust to Warner and Ed
wards, to secure 20 notes OF $40 each, payable
monthly: These notes were payable to and
were delivered to MoultOn as McDanielS agent,
in payment Of the first note and all expenses of
the new loan, and he did not receive one cent
from the proceeds Of the second loan, and never
knew but what the plaintiff had been paid In full
until alter Moulton went away. He admits the
TACT OF the release, and OF the execution of the
second deed of trust, and denies all charges of
conspiracy and says that the charge of fraud
and conspiracy is false and malicious. He ad-
m1ts having no other property, and says that
he has conveyed his equity in the said property
10 bis sister, Mary Roberts, to secure 800. In
March; 1877, complainant filed an amended bill
ayerring the deed to Mary Roberts, and that it
was given without any consideration; where
upon Mary Roberts was made party defend
ant, and May 26, 1877, she answered that she
purchased the property OF Mr. Wright, Novem-
per 20, 1876, without notice OF plaintiffs claim,
but subject to deed Of trust to secure 81 400 to
defendant Morrison. She released a $500 claim
for money loaned In consideration OF such deed.
In the court below in July, 1875 1t was decreed
that the release OF the former deed of trust to
secure the 81 ,200 note held by complainant was
void; that said deed of trust be re-instated;
that complainant recover $1,000 OF defendant,
Wright; and, If not paid in ninety days, that
the real estate described be sold by Rodolphe
Claughton and Il. Ross Perry, trustees, for cash,
alter ten days notice. Also, that defendant,
Wight, have leave to file a croSS-btl for RELIEF
against payment of the notes held by Morrison
From this Decree defendants Morrison. Warner
and Edwards appeal. Messrs. Claughton for
plaintiff and BARNARD for defendants