Evening journal., 1889-12-18
/, COMPLICATED LEGACY.
STORY OF THE CASE OF HAMBLlN
vs.. BISHOP.

In the United States Circuit Court,
yesterday, Judge Wales delivered the
opinion of the court in the case of Hannah
M. Hamblin vs.. James r. Bishop, which
was argued on the 10Th of last month
Miss Hamblin had filed her bill in equity
for decree TO compel the defendant to
reconvey to her certain real estate, in
Sussex county, which she alleged had
been conveyed by her to him on the 9th
of July, 1880, under circumstances
of fraud and misrepresentation on
his part and in ignorance
of her legal rights. Gross inadequaey Of
the price paid by the defendant was also
charged. The facts of the case are some
what peculiar and novel. Isabella Bishop,
the wife Of the defendant, had died intes-
tate and possessed of considerable real
estate in Sussex, without issue (never
having had any children), and without
leaving any brothers or sisters. or the
issue of brother or sister, or father or
mother, but leaving uncles and aunts,
and four children of a deceased aunt.
Miss Hamblin was one of these children.
Isabella Bishop was the daughter and
only child Of Joseph 5. Carey who had
married Hettie A. Hamblin. Joseph 8.
Carey had a brother Jonathan and
sister Mary Ann, who afterwards inter
married with Captain John Hamblin.
Mary Ann was therefore aunt of Isabella
and the children of this aunt were
cousins to said Isabella; but those chill
dren were likewise the children OF Cap
tain Hamblin who was the maternal
grandfather Of Isabella, and they are
therefore half-brothers and sisters of the
mother of Isabella, and are respectively
uncles and aunts of the half-blood of
Isabella.
Captain Hamblin had been twice mar
ried, his second wife being Mary Ann
Carey By the first marriage there were
three sons and two daughters, and by the
second, three sons and one daughter, the
complainant. The complainant was thus
related to Isabella Bishop, both as a
cousin of the whole blood through her
mother, and an aunt of the half-blood
through her father.
In settling the estate of Mrs Bishop, her
heirs having taken legal advice on the
mode or rule of division, were informed
that James R. Bishop, was entitled to all
the personal estate of his wife, abso-
lutelY, and to one half of the real estate
for his life; and that the uncles and
aunts of the whole blood would take the
whole of the realty subject to the life
estate of the husband in one half
There were four (4) of these uncles and
one ~ aunt living and four
(4) children of deceased aunt. The real
estate was estimated to be worth So. 600,
and this sum being divided into six equal
parts. each uncle and aunt living would
receive 81 600, and the remaining sixth
part would be divided among the four
children of the deceased aunt, giving TO
each $3.50 The defendant bought out
all Of the heirs at this rate and paid them
their respective shares Of the $4,000.
The complainant was the last one Of
the heirs TO agree to this sale, and was
induced. as she says, to convey her in
terest in the estate of the defendant,
under the representation made by him
that all of the other heirs had sold their
shares to him at the sums above named
/ About a year after the date of her deed
she discovered that two of the heirs had
not, at the time she made her deed, ac-
| tually and formally executed deeds to tht
defendant for their interest, and did not
execute their deeds until April and May,
/ 1881 and also that one of these two
heirs had received 81, ,425 for his share.
After reviewing the evidence the courf
decided that there had been no actual o.
constructive fraud or imposition prac
ticed by the defendant in obtaining thl
complainant's deed that, although twl
of the heirs had delayed making thei
deeds, they had long before agreed will
the other heirs to sell to the defendant
and that the sum of 81, 425 paid for on
of the shares was on q resale, the de
fendant having paid only 81, 900 for it.
AS to the inadequacy of the price, tn
sale was q private one and made afte
ample time had been afforded to ascertain
the fair market value of the property
and no purchaser could be found VIII
was willing and ready to pay large
cash price for the whole property, subjec
as it was, to the life tenancy of youn
man in the one-hslf of it,
Two years after the date of the com
plainant's deed, she discovered that
through her ignorance of the laws Q
Delaware relating to intestate estates
she had conveyed to the defendant
larger interest than she had intended {
sell, or than she then knew she was Ell
titled to. Briefly, the division of Mrs
Bishops real estate, and which exclude
the uncle, and aunt, of the half blood ha
I been made under mistak
of the law. The preference given by th
law to brothers and sisters of the whol
blood and their issue, does not apply
. uncles and aunts, except in special case
! The estate of Mr.. Bishop should, therl
fore, have been divided into forty share
8 of which each uncle and aunt livin
i should have received four, and the fol
j shares Of the deceased aunt should hay
I been distributed among her fol-
children. So that the complainant WI
r legally entitled to four shares as Q
{ aunt, and to one share, as a cousin
\ Acting under this mistake, she had co 4
q veyed to the defendant hve-fortieth
r when she had intended to convey on
y fortieth only.
4 At the hearing of the case, Senat
) Higgins appeared for the complainant
and Mr.. Massey for tine defendant, b
neither of these gentlemen had been Il
original counsel Of the parties. ~
II main question discussed was, wheth
o. such a mistake could be corrected by
J. Court of Equity, where both parti
had acted in equal ignorance
: the law, and the transaction W
l. unaccompanied with any fraud, impo'
-e tion or concealment on tine part of t
10 defendant who was bona fde purchas
5, for fair consideration. The judge {
If cided, following the opinion of the
rs preme Court of the United States in 7
le Bank of U. S. VS.. Daniel 10 Peters
1r that it could not. The questi
y there presented was alm'
+ precisely similar, in princip
or and the Supreme Court said that M