The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-06-17
A TOWNSHIP TANGLE.
Chicago Improvement Company
Charges Fraud.
ALLEGED CHANGES IN CONTRACT
settlers OF the Property Sued for Dam.
sses-Jury in Trumbulps Case
Disagrees-The Blotter.

The case of the Chicago Improvement
Company against John c. Kellogg ct al.
which was on trial yesterday in Judge
Osborn's court, is an interesting one that
arose out Of dispute over the land occu-
MED by the projected town of Chicago that
was to be built on WILDLY island. Ac-
cordng to the plaintiffs allegations the
defendants were in September, 1890, the
owners of sixty acres of land in Island
coun.y. On September 3, 1890, Herbert ].
Williams contracted with John c. Kellogg
and Caroline T. Kellogg for the purchase
of the land at $500 an acre. Hewas to nav
$500 down. $3.50 inside of sixty DAYS.
5000 on January 1, 1891. S. 900 on July 1.
1891. and the balance on January 1, 1892
When $500 had been paid the Kelloggs
we're to give Williams a deed to the prop
ertv and receive 4 mortgage on it to secure
the payment of the balance of the purchase
money. The land was to be used as a
townsite, and whenever any lots were sold
and there was paid to the defendants the
amount of money for which those lots
stood security, they were to be released
from the mortgage. Williams paid the
first $500 and then assigned the contract to
the plaintiff
SD. Vrooman, relative of the Kelloggs.
who is notary public, was employed to
draw the contract, and by his request it
was left in his possession to make copy
oft. 1t is claimed that while he had it
he altered 1t, leaving out the portion pro-
yiding for a deed and mortgage in return
upon payment of S., 600 and also the pro-
vision for the release of the lots from the
mortgages as soon as the amounts for
which they stood security were paid.
Williams is said to have had no knowledge
OF this alteration.
On November 1, 1890, the plaintiff, ac-
cording to contract, paid 81 500 to the de-
PENDANTS On December 81, 1890, it sent
an agent TO pay $1,000. and get the deed
from the Kel!oggs. Then for the first
time it was learned how the contract was
altered. The 81, 900 was offered to the de-
PENDANTS if they would make the deed.
but they refused to take it. The company
had plated the land and sold twentv-six
business lots for $500 and twenty-five
residence lots for 50 $50, the whole cover
ing about five acres, one-third of these
amounts beng paid in cash. 1t had also
been offered $1,000 cash for two blocks of
business lots, covering three acres. The
Kelloggs, it is alleged, upon these facts
being made known, told the company to
90 ahead and sell the lots. and that they
would make deeds to them when neces-
sary. The sum Of $1,000 was then paid
them. Afterwards, however. they re-
fused to execute the deeds to purchasers
Of lots. The company was therefore COM
PEELED to cancel tho sales and refund the
purchasers money. 1t claimed that it
was damaged $4,000 in this way, and
brought suit to recover that amount.
The defendants deny that there was any
alteration in the contract and that they
failed to live up to their obligations under
it. The evidence in the case was not
finished yesterday, and will be resumed
this morning