The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-04
TITLE Is GOOD.
u1nnpt to Disturb Vested
Rights Here Stopped.
.ppsy-HoYT ADDITION At ISSUE
a.nre 6anford Makes m Impostant DE-
I nuoes-Prsbate Methods scored sod
oshemers' Methods Exposed.

ientes the suit OF Sarah Hesshhseeer ct ai.
sunt Edwarf B!cwett, concerning certain
- atcu. TO be administered upon ~ part OF
uaste o: William 4. Stricken, the original
Hu1fon claimant, was denied BY Judge Han
- Yesterday for the reasons ret forth In the
/ sewing opinion:
| fsitsd states distr!cs court, district Of wash
YnrtDn, Northern division. Sarah Hefnn.
1e.ss Of ii. W. Edwsrd Bicwess OF a., No d
| - equity. Motion BY piaia:ifs, alter issue
jtnet. % dismiss without prejudice; dsufed.
! In Hardin, TO- plaintiff: 7. & Shepard. ior
| deeedsrtx.
| lay1oEo, District Judge.
~ leave Of court che plaintiff, aave renewed
ue5f motion 70 dismiss this suit without pxeiu'
-, and IL support OF their new motson amoa-
- whereby they attempt TO show that In the
~ 1854 the probate court Of King county, in
ek!ch The land ia controversy Is situsted, aP-
n.sd an stEninis:raso! o. sne ssrs.e Q, ~, ,s.
I'd under the Oregon donation Jaw, and that
- pfobsse court and tie successor, tie supe.
~ court Of King county. have ever since re.
nised jurisdiction Of said estate. The record
! e - probate court offered In evidence consists
4 { document purporting 70 Do letters OF adj
rfsistrssion, an inventory OF said estate filed
= - person named ~ administrator. which
uufoey includes said donation claim aud
sI6&ax okse, and an order for publication OF
49, 10 creditors, dated February 10, 1859.
m e Appears that from the date Of said order
Dn171 November Id, lSt., no STEPS were t&ko0 IN
| ~ ASSASSINATION Of said estate. On the :ast
nen9sonsd date the complainant, Sarah Hersh-
| leyres ~ petition In the superior court Of
esjd couns3 Icr . citation 10 said administrator
q rsndef an account Thereupoa . citation
~ h6usd. aud in response to it said admins
tsso. returned an account. in which he strikes
beiancs by debifing himself with the laud ~
| = aepsaissd value AID taxing credit for the
80 amount: ana he certifies that he has ali Of
| - isnd Oh hand. that no claims against the
e1sste have been presented AID that he valves
eompsnsatson for his services. The sfiidAvits
n3seee inst said superior court IN atont to pro-
1inlsssstion thereof and distribute said land 20
u heirs OF Stricken, and assign dover therein
\ shomsoever may DO entitled 70 such Al inter-
q aud that the eomplainants are about 10 In
| sngnFsse IN administration Of tie estate of
nery esriekief, whose interest % one OF the
| Nm CT william A. Stfickief they claim to have
squirrel through conveyance thereof made by
| Mn ssrickier in her lifetime TO William l.
xttss. deceased. the former husband OF the
ttunptatnant Sarah Hefshbefger. AZ reason for
&lnsine IN administration upon the estate OF
~ Nary 6tricxler, IL Is said that complain
mfs attorneys are OF opinion that the decisions
= ~ supreme court of Washington, particu-
MY the case of Balch Va smith. 80 Pac. Rep,
~ have established rule OF law In this state
ub1ch operates - q bar 20 any suit or action by
IDpessou claiming title to real estate or inter
- therein ~ successor to the rights OF an in
opfAte deceased person. 70 recover such prop
~, o. interest. until the estate of such fn-
nfnD shall have been administered upon and
- property distributed BY decree OF the pro-
he argument Is that by the proceedings OF
- probate court referred 10. the land was
tAced ~ eustodio legis, that this court 10 de-
E,ssa q jurisdiction OF . suit in personam TO
III respective claims thereto. And that even
tsbs cou Z Is not absolutely without jurisdic-
~ ths suit mcs. nevertheless fail OF its OBJ
- Tor the reason that, under the peculiar
u Gsat AT INV II
eur. urti the standardization of the estates OF
NJ liam A. ard Mary Strickier shall have
ma CEN pieted aud the property distri buted to
~. s!fs, the land il liable to be sold by order
Vniais;rst.on. and therefore no title or right 70
htlgats concerning the same has passed 10 the
Mn II other words. the court cannot try the
th y sald property in this suit or render de-
l - shich vii! close the controversy. because
= eompisiaants arc not the proper parties to
- 20 legal title having become vested in
n showing maze will not bear close inspcc-
- = 10 certainly reasonable 10 suppose that
uAen the court is asked to deny It's Jurisdiction
Il Mess on the ground that another court has
nsins the res into its custody acquired ex-
dsslvs jurisdiction OF the subject Of the action.
eiast OF such exclusive jurisdiction In an
40 court would be made apparent. but that
~ not been done in this instance. Tho
4 hue Of Washington territory wisely provided
~ the probate court should be a court of rec
~ and prescribed that the facts essential to
~ jaeisaiotion of said court to appoint an ad-
nss;stsstsr should be set forth in = written Pc
nos and died. and that the main esseutiais,
heisding the fact aud date Of the death Of .
e1ooe, the place OF his residence at the date OF
MI, hts inte.tacy and the existence OF prop
~ within the territory subject To administra.
- saocid be recited in the letters OF admins
eatc9 The probate court was court OF
l 4Gia, and limited jurisdiction. deriving all
upoNe- from statutes. Being a court OF rec
/ ~ ~ proceedings cannot DO shown otherwise
Gr 81 A...J Ia.
mat letters OF administration must be denied
9hn tie record contains proof Of the existence
W The 'scts essential 10 confer upon II iuris-
neslon OF the particular estate or shows affirm
\ eesy by reeitals that the court found and
1 gsdfsd that sufficient facts were shown. No
Eeamption In favor of the jurisdiction arises
- The mere fact that the court assumed it.
9spsf ". sunderland, Iowa. ia; | smiths
sss'ine Cases. ed: Hare & Wallace notes, p.
i ~; Hern,hail VS.. keary, Wall, $50. The
Heasd OF the probate court brought here does
i 4conlain petition or anything purporting
y one. the letters OF admi lstration do nos
i naH or certify a. any facts whatever. aud the
Mssions are net in any manner supplied or
i eeantei for by any pat OF the record, nor by
Pot aliande. The pleadings in this case
ass tina, The land In controversy 10 now of
l ~ value. AID tina; tue defendants dersian
~ hereto through q judicial sale made In
- lsaf Is. The contemplated attempt To set
easagst the proceedings of n court OF general
essaper;or iarisdic teton. and a safe of real es-
- Hhde under tho sanction thereof, by re-
aAfinr ssapposed ADMINISTRATOR OF William
ckscSier from n siuinbe- of twenty five
m duration nso py initiating sdminisrs-
~ toon The estate OF Mary ssr.ckier. " no Il led
svaioi Twelve Yeats $50. leaviag no estate sub
10 administration n this state. goes u
~ sN towards I'm pesehing the good faith OF
htigston. Il under the rule OF
Eeseffy supposed 10 Be established ty the de-
0nn In halch vs. smith, there 20 necessity foe
IaAihssffston upon The estate oi Nay otrlck-
Mea necessarily there mrs. also Re admin
AsEsson upon the ettsIo 81 .he grantee of her
i s~sss william l. kiGer, v no died iutsstAte
~ tasn twsnty-oae ysass ago his alleged in
yus an betr OF william A. stiiekieF aud
ssanS o. Nary sirlck.er being the subject o.
Ana II the pending proceedings Ia
I~safT9icr court o. King county may be iooAea
SSetarasshiug measure of the tire eqaired
up estates ~ deceased persons, flu
Isssaeratsons OF liIigants may wait while adj
1 ~ssstiShs and administrations follow each
iAers is = popular iIea that II a iaRa at
4 @ss 20 dispose OF bis property oy q Wal the
$50 y. viii be consumed IL legal contests,
we argument, on this molten De not
NsS.ea epoa false premises, We May reason
II - setSissS That Ia this state. uncer rules of
IcfsH formulated Ia tire degisions OF lis su-
i he eeaFs, the estate ~ persons dying intes-
i L.s-a>e a.so descend g 1ae PROBATE court and
80 II X : practical a. this tine 10 COM
i 81 Experimentation upon the estates OF per
4 - snese deaths aniedats the judicial
/ 800 a.iesi Titles 81 seldses. of tie
/ e~seasets tAefeat ty subiecilng the land 10
II $50 :" PSI expenses OF satCB aiff4Ni--
SAseas, land title. ia tafs state ne ia rengrsi
l s.asese- For wit0lR the psst forty wears
l ,ts,seRs hEvc died iutessAIe who owned
i 49,, s'aln The state, Rai because they LETT no
i 49, OF anen II r.eted business transactions,
I Asis nave enecesdeI 10 taels holdings
49,. Being aware ~ any necessity fer pro
/ hcEsFvrdings. Property worth ma lion. oi dol
1 49, un~er operation az such a rue, exposed
\ $3.50 from sehemcrs " 90 may reasonably
Il arch reward gog industry ia the busi-
i psooa0as the eststes OF The sorgo. ten
srsss OF ibe STATE, even II IS represented.
/ pl<sate - bridge The Jurisdiction OF
i sfss1fi by virtue oi Is power 10 a court of
/ D.. u ass coseurrcntly with TIE courts q!
a.,ss jurisdiction over tie estates OF de.
IA sssSss93ls sAea tie requisite citizenship