The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-19
latch LAND CASE.
p,.;rtiffs Victorious in Open
ing Skirmish.
~.o,,aLE OVER HILL ESTATES.
..s,.t a Authority OF Husband and
wMe,s Representatives-"Kid Conn
wtttee' in Court-Blotter.


=, made very important ruling yes
sDs.v in the case of Esther Hatch ct al.
&c. Ferguson ct al. which involves
:. title to property lying in tine town of
s..,,ts. and valued at about 500, 900. The
q, ras brought by the plaintiffs. who
y. !, Oregon, in the United States court,
- they are residents OF another state.
s.murrer was interposed by the defend
=. an the ground that the court lacked
.-.:.diet;ou. II was argued at length on
fts,sdsy before Judge Hanford, and yes
'.s.v he gave his decision overruling it.
=. circumstances Of the case are ex-
.,ised in the courts opinion, which is as
hao~s:
~ eomplainants, who are minor children OF
-. Hatch, deceased, bring the suit by their
.,sse- a their next friend, asking to have a
800 of tho superior court of Snohomish
..rrty. In this state in partition suit, vacated
- The sale OF property pursuant to that de-
- srnuiled, and their claim of title to the
-. state, affected by the decree and sale,
etshlishsd.
m. ground alleged is q conspiracy between
C. Ferguson, who was appointed by their
..,hsf,s will to be their guardian, and the de-
,.ndsut, Henry Hewitt, jr.. to obtain this prop
,Asf those proceedings, by reason Of collision
betsecu Mr. Hewitt and Ferguson, were hurried
thsough the superior court without fair in
ves,irston and entertainment OF the facts, and
emtrsry % the principles of equity. In short,
~ mound for the proceeding is fraud.
They show that the decree which they ask to
lave vacated has been fully executed. Nothing
,suains Of the case pending in the superior
eouu Of snohomish county. Everything that
sould Be done to completely transfer the title
- besn done. and since the completion of all
~ pfoceediugs in the superior court. Mr.. Hew-
III vho was the purchaser at the judicial sale,
Ia transferred tie property to the defendants,
IN Everett Land Company and Judson La
yosn
IrHppors OF this demurrer the defendants
s,in bat this court has no jurisdiction. be-
nun ~ case is still in such condition in the
sass,Geourt of Snohomish county that she
eonplG1nfs can go there and, upon establish
II 81 0 alleged in their bill, have the de-
an0dFoceedings vacated by an order OF
h6eCt II IL appeared to me to be the fact
naab9 could be fully restored to all their
nthay simple motion in the superior court
d suoAomish county l should feel inclined
blow my own decision in the case
gswiey VS.. The Northern Pacific Railroad
Company. Forty-sixth Federal Reporter, So, and
Hiadependent suit in equity to vacate a judg-
nst or enioin proceedings to enforce a judg-
aEns could not be maintained so long as the
Dsu had a remedy BY motion in the same case
nd In the court in which the Judgment COM
gained of was entered. But in this case, sup
~ the infant compliments should to go the
superior court of Snohomish county and show
hs facts alleged in their bill to be true and
bsss N order yacating the decree and the pro-
aedings In that court, where would they then
aand! The defendants who are now claiming
his land would not be affected They would
Risn the land until by a new, original, indie
DGudsat suit 1t could be recovered from them.
This ease is one in which something more is
nught than a nero vacation of Judgment,
enoueously and fraudulently obtained, or to
sSson proceedings upon it. There il now a
zearossssy between new parties, who were not
Mstes to the suit in the suohomish county
eoafS who must DO brought into court before
tts compliments can be restored to the rights
d which they have been Invested. On this
gsound hold that the case comes fully within
the rule in the case OF Arrowsmith vs. Gleason,
ISL. g., g. and compliments have the right to
sue in this court II an independent suit in
equity 70 establish the rights they claim here
can b maintained in any court, this court has
no right TO say that they shall 90 to another
court By the express provisions of the act of
congress this court is given concurrent juris-
dsc.on With the courts of the state. Its juris-
dicsoa ia founded on the fact that the case in
wolves controversy between citizens of differ
eat states; on that ground they have the right
70 ehoose this as their forum, and the court has
10 right 70 refuse to hear their case.
The code Of this state by an express provision
ayex the rights Of bona fide purchasers OF land
scld under decree or Judgment even against a
nsty who subsequently TO the sale succeeds in
spfocesding to reverse the decree or judgment
Msror or to set IL aside for fraud. This case
duplicated By the fact that one of the de-
esarn has already fled an answer, pleading
u&aha purchaser OF part OF the land in
saaa goot faith. aud under the provisions OF
VII be maintains this plea he would be
ssha TO keep that land although the pro-
Oaaesi IN the superior court of Snohomish
eaasN should be set aside, and the complain.
va they are wronged, would be RENTED to
vel remedy by an action for damages The
"a HAL tenders an issue as TO the good faith
" purchases by the defendants, who now
cain the land.
StEerefOre Ia ha Aar,urrap