Los Angeles herald., 1892-11-22
THERE WAS NO STRING TO It,
Mrs. Wier's Deed Causes a Curl
GUS Law Suit.
A Much Married, Woman's Plan
Which Failed.
Yesterdays Happenings In the Various
Trlbunals-A Suit Against.the In
ternational Company-WOng
Ark's Trial-Sotes.

Ark's Trial-Sotes.
Judge Van Dyke handed down an
opinion yesterday in quite curious
case. The action was by VIM. p. Tucker
against Ellen @. Chown ct al. Mrs.
Sarah Jane Wier, while sick, decided all
her property to Tucker. She rallied
but finally died seven days after execut
ing the deed. At the time the deed was
executed Mr.. Robbins, one OF the de-
fendants, had in his possession a no te
and mortgage for $4,000 belonging to
Mrs. Wier, and held them, claiming
Mrs. Wier had verbally requested him
to secure an indebtedness of her sister.
After her death Robbins collected the
money, and the suit was to obtain it.
The defendants contended that the deed
was made in anticipation of death and
that her rallying caused a revocation.
The opinion OF the court upon the inte r
esting questions involved is as follows !:
The authority upon which the plaint-
if acts is conferred by an instrument
executed by Sarah Jane Weir in her
life time. In a proceeding directly at
tacking that instrument it was ad-
judged in this court to be valid and op-
erative az a deed of trust. 1t was ex-
ecuted and delivered on the 10th day of
February, 1888, and the trustee therein
named, the plaintiff in this action, at
the same time accepted the trust by en-.
dorsement upon the deed. On the Goth
day of February following, seven days
after the execution of the instrument.
said Sarah Jane Weir died.
It is claimed on the part OF the de-
Chown and Robbins, that the
gift mentioned in the instrument in
question was made in contemplation
of death, sand was therefore subject
to be revoked. 1t does not 30 appear
upon its face, or in terms and it is held
in Mowry We. Heney, SO CAL, AL, where.
in it was claimed and found by the trial
court that the deed there in question
was made in contemplation of death,
that the terms of the written ipstru-
ment could not be changed by parol.
The court says: Here was an absolute
deed to the property delivered to the
grantee. Its legal effect was to vest in
the plaintiff the title to the property,
free from any conditions. The effect OF
the finding, if upheld, is to vary the
terms of the deed and render it one
upon condition, and defeat its opera.
lion. by parol proof of the intention,
npon the part of the grantor, that it
should have an effect different from that
upon it's face. This cannot be DONE"
Referring to Devlin on deeds, page
284, and quoting from he same, as fol-
ows: "If it has been executed and de.
livered its effect is determined by its
language. When 30 executed and de-
livered, it's legal effect as to the passing
)f title is not altered by the fact that
,ne object of the transaction was to save
expense and trouble of administration
upon the grantor's estate after his death;
and where grantor executed deed for
this purpose to his wife, the fact that
The placed the deed after delivery where
her husband equally with herself could
have access to it does not change
its legal effect as a conveyance.
deed cannot be delivered to the
grantee as an escrow. If it be delivered !
10 him it becomes an operative deed.
reed from any conditions not expressed |
IN the deed itself and delivery vests the
title in him, though this may be con-
;rary to the intention of the parties.
One Of the grounds upon which the rule |
Ia based is that parol evidence is mad
to show that the deed was to |
AXE effect upon condition. If it be in.
Tended that it shall not take effect until |
Iome subsequent condition shall be per.
formed, or some subsequent event shall |
happen, such condition must be insert |
ID in the deed itself, or else it must not
be delivered to the grantee"
But this instrument was not revoked |
BY the grantor, and as shown, seven |
lays after. she died. The title to the |
note in suit, with the mortgage to &C.
,ure the same, passed to the plaintiff |
BY virtue of the trust deed in question.
The defendants, Chown and Robbins,
both had notice of the conveyance of ali |
the property, real and personal, of said !
Sarah Jane Weir, to the plaintiff in this
'uit, by the trust deed in question. At |
he date of the deed the note and mort
rage in suit were in the hands of the |
Robbins, az the agent of said !
Sarah Jane Weir, and he claims that |
he agreed that he should hold the same
ls security for his endorsement with |
Ellen Weir9 sister of the said Sarah |
Tane, on note for the sum of $500, but no
luch agreement on the part of said |
sarah Jane Weir to answer for the debt |
# her sister, was in writing. His
!gency, If any, terminated with the
leath of the principal, and the agree
nent OF guaranty not being in writing
vas VOID, civil code 2793, and the as
ignment of the Chown mortgage has no
fleet, being without consideration and
Ifter the trust deed. The plaintiff, as
,rsntee under the trust deed from the
ime Of the execution and delivery, was
untitled to the possession OF the note
Ind mortgage in suit, and the payment
oy the defendant Chown to the defend
mt Robbins, which occurred long time
and particularly after notice
'eceived on the part of both, lie not a
payment as against the legal owner
hereof, and he is not bound by the
Iame.
Judgment will 60 for plaintiff for the
amount claimed, together with reason
Ible attorneys fee; and $3.50 would be a
reasonable attorneys fee.
MRS. HUNTERS TWO DEEDS.
A Plan OF . Much-Marrled Woman
Which Miscarried.
Judge Van Dyke sustained demurrer