The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1885-11-26
AN INTERESTING CASE.
The Strange Romance Of Mary E. Wood
bridge.
Nice Points OF Law Involving an Estate
Valued at seventy-Fivs Thous-
and Dollars.

MOUNT VERNON O., November ls No
other case on the d0ckets OF our c0nrte
ever elected more interest than that OF
Mrs. DIR. @. E, Swan, now q resident OF
Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, who grew up In
this community az the adopted child OF
Mr.. and Mrs, j Il Woodbridge, aud was
known and welded ~ Mary E. Wood
bridge.
The case has passed through Ito varl'
ous phases until reaching the Circuit
Court, where Mrs. Swan appeals TO the
powers that DO to grant q demurrer 70
the defense that the statute OF frauds
held good M 10 her case.
The following facts are alleged In the
petition: In the year lSi6 the plal alntiff,
then child OF some two years OF age,
lived with her mother In the village OF
WOrthington, Ohio. Her mothers name
was Nancy j, Elliott She was single
woman, and had the sole care and cle'
tOdy o. the plaintiff, James E Wood
Tidgo and wife lived ut Mount Vernon,
They importuned the plaintiff, mother
70 allow them to take and adopt her
child, They had no children OF their
own, and did not expect any ever TO be
born to them. They had a comfortable
and we'll provided home, and ample
means to care and provide for the plain
tiff, These facts they communicated TO
plaintiffs IN pther, and to Induce her TO
grant their request, MIR, Woodbridge
promised that II she would give up her
child and f0r( YER ren0unce oil claim 10
her, they would take and adopt her 90
their own child and heir; would give
her their name, and would care and pro
vide for her the same az they would
we're abe their own daughter; and that
az his death he would give her the same
rights and interest In his property she
would inherit we're she his own child,
He made II o condition, however, that
plaintiffs mother should never make
herself known to her daughter, az he
and Mrs, Woodbridge desired her 10
grow up suppOalng them TO be her true
parents. This offer was accepted and
they brought the plaintiff 10 their homej
named her "Mary j. Woodbridge and
entered the name, together with the
date OF her BIRTH In the family record.
They treated her as their own child, and
she grew up believing she was, In fact,
their daughter. She was obedient and
kind, and bestowed upon her supposed
parents the love and affection OF o
daughter. On several occasions plain
tiff's mother went to MIR. W0odbridge's
TO see her daughter, but pursuant 10 the
agreement she did not make herself
known TO her.
In 1874 Mr.. Woodbridge died, leavinl
an estate estimated TO DO worth $4,000,
but without having made any proyls
ions for clrrylng out the terms OF his
agreement.
Mrs, Woodbridge took possession Of
the estate az sole heir, disogn the
plaintiff, and denied her right TO any
share OF the estate,
In less than q year afterward Mrs.
Woodbridge died, leaving a WILL, In
which she left the principal part OF she
estate TO her brothers and sisters ana
their children. She left the plaintiff the
use OF 10 600 during her life. The do
fendant, Shahan, was made sole execu
tor OF the will, He took possession OF
the property and had partially admins.
tered upon the estate when the plaintiff
learned the facts In regard to her adop'
tion. She then brought suit against the
executor aud legatees for specific per-
formance Of the agreement and 10 70
cover the property belonging 10 the 90
tate OF Mr.. Woodbridge.
In his anawer the executor alleges
that tho contrac, related 10 the transfer
OF real estate, was not 10 be performed
within one year, and was not In writing,
aud hence Ia within the statute OF
frauis, and cannot be enforced.
A number Of other deienses are plead
cd, but as the questions they involve do
pend upon the determination OF the do
Tense setting up the statute OF frauds,
u Is unnecessary TO make mention OF
them.
To thede defenses the plaintiff de-
INJURED upon the ground that they do
not contain facts sufficient TO constitute
q good ground Of defense to plaintiffs
cause Of action.
II Ia admitted that the contract was
not In writing; but II IL claimed on the
part Of plaintiff that having fully per-
formed the agreement on her part, the
contract 10 taken out Of the operation OF
the statute Of frauds.
On the part OF the defendants II IL
claimed that the part performance al
legged Ia not sufficient To take the agree
ment out Of the operation of the stat
utes.
Judge Albaugh, IN o very able opin.
lon. announced the decision Of the
court He reviewed AZ length the ypri.
ous authorities cited, and said that the
part performance alleged by plaintiff
was sufficient 10 take the agreement out
OF the operation OF the statute; that
Northumberland wife, having permitted
the contract 10 be performed IN good
faith. and having realized all the
anticipated benefits from such per-
I finances, and % the plain.
tit would be wholly remediless,
except by n specific enforcement Of the
contract, II would be q fraud upon her
10 refuse the relief prayed for, and for
that reason the demurrer should be sus'
tained.
Judge Follett dlssen cd, holding, g,arst,
that the proper parties were not before
the Court; and, secondly. that In Ohio a
husband can not make an agreement
that will affect the wife's right Of In.