The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-06-03
AN ANCIENT LAW.
ford's Tax Title Case Taken
4 the Q. s. Supreme Court :
SHADES SUR ON TRIAL.
m.vsness clssns He Wa Calico .
..rsesk 1Assf"-Hsv ssiss rneA
-The BIotees.

s ..I uenfoed Yesterday took On So
-, - - sepeeme court Of the United
Is.s.- - ~ decision rendered against
s.- r. Ifrited States Circuit Judge Gil
- ises september in his suit against
Z 49,. nay,ss. Thomas w. Prosch, John
r rc8ssw. A. B. Stewart. +. W. Wsid,
- ~ ~ IN important one and in
-. ~ sit:s 20 twenty acres Of land in
S ~. usnlord donation claim In the south
s - - q the city, worth about $500 st
~. tfsne the suit Was begun two years
-. The facts Of the case are that prior
r. fF1a6uhos n, 1878, the tract belonged TO
- Icy Franklin. and on that date it
- s1i1 70 Thaddeus Hanford for taxes,
~ sAnrwards sold it to Frank Hanford,
- plaIntiG At the tine Of the tai sale
- l.sss 81 the territory prohibited the
ss1srS1ne q any suit for the recovery Of
z11I1 ~ ~ taxes after thFse years from
~ rucerding Of the tax deed. and they
20. seuvfded that tai deed should be
i SiI6nettSo evidence Of the regularity Of
~ fmnee proceedings. However. on
IT. Il 1Bg7, w. Finley Hail asked
- lr61s q standardization on the estate
sIseok1iu. who had died in Victoria,
- ~ - appointed ~ such, and Ia
mtm6wy Of the estate reported the
- - alluded 70 - belonging to II.
q lfu13 isss, tho King county pro-
- go )oered the property 70 be sold
nU060D1y taxes. and 1t the sale pur-
enaane r. ekis order Il was bought by
/ cfsn(h Deyies and others. Hanfosd
& lroarst suit In lss3 in the superior court
~ - aoide the sale 70 Dsviea He was
61DolDd and. on an appeal TO the state
aseome eouft the decision Of the lower
eesfs ~ sfIirmed. He then brought suit
r ~ Unitsd States circuit court TO have
~ sols ~ aside, on the ground that the
o6lien Of the probate court was the en-
funnsnt Of law impairing the obiiga-
- q the contract entered into between
~ tository and his grantor, and there
- 6uatfazy TO the United States con-
nfolIee.
Id Gilbert dismissed the suit on the
ns1nd that the bill ret forth no ground
- FEDERAL Jurisdiction in the case. He
~ hat the prohibition in the United
49, constitution against the enactment
= snts laws impairing the Obligation Of
eon1u1ets applies only to the adoption Of
eeonstitution or the enactment or en-.
tGoonent OF . statute or the exercise Of
oome form Of legislative power subsequent
i 1ime 70 tho date of the contract.
Attorney james B. Howe, for the com.
plaiaant, states In his appeal among other
ding that the circuit court erred In not
boldiag that the statute Of Limitations Of
- territory In force at tho time Of the
~ sale. having been taken from the state
= Wisconsin aitsr Il had bssn interpreted
~ the supreme court Of that state and by
the supreme court Of the United States,
said Interpretations of the law by said
courts became part Of The Law OF the ter
sitofy Of Washington. and that the com.
plainsnt's grantor. having purchased the
Md opon the faith Of said contract under
~ NV, the subsequent decision Of the
Dsooale court Of King county conflicting
VIII and practically everything said de.
&1tohs vas Law of the territory impair.
~ the obligation Of the contract. He
- oays that the court erred In not held
~ that the ordinance Of July IL, 1851. en-.
l1llod m ordinance for the government OF
- territory Of tho United States north
vest Of the Ohio river, being Law of the
lerritory OF Washington. . decision Of the
pfohatc court annuiling tho contract b.
wesn the territory and the complainant
rns law OF the territory impairing the
litigation of the contract.