The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-04-15
|PURPORT OF A DEED.
i Mother Desires to Revoke 3
Gift to Her Daughter.
,lalLucIhAT,ons or A WOMAN.
ns4sJing Dsiinqu.ns Grade Csses-ks-
eeiver for Blaine Electric Light
sad Power Company.

The suIt Of Sarah r. s.eves, nice-look-
fng osd woman. agains: her daughter,
Bessie D. Morgan. and her HUSBAND,
Jacob K. Morgan. to declare mil and void
deed for valuable improved propsrty
in North Seattle. given BY the piains' q to
the defendan. in 1851. was heard yester-
day i'm the superior court by Special
judge ]. p. Howe After the evidences WAS
All In and the arguments had been made
the judse dism Issed the case. holding that
there vas TO undue influence used and
that Mrs. Stoves knew what she vas about
when she decided away the property. The
euit was of special interest becau - IL In.
volved much that did not appear on the
surface. but the testimony did not bring IL
out The defendant. who IL very i'll from
consumption. only reached the court
through he assistance Of her husband and
friends.
In the complaint. which was fled last
July By Mrs. Stoves, IL was claimed that in
December. isyi, che was the owner in fee
simple Of lots 8 and 8, block IL, Of the re-
rlai Of blocks !. 2. 9. I. 10. IL and @, North
festtls. and the buildings thereon. At
tha, time the property was valued at $40. 600
or $1,000 For o long time Mrs. Stoves
end her daughter occupied the same house,
and the former Gains that by reason Of
their relations she depended upon the "a :
vice o! her daughter in all her affairs. The
daughter. il vas claimed. took advantage
OF the situation and by means Of urgent
opportunities. misrepresentation and in
auence controlled and 80 DESTROYED her
free action that on Dsceiaoer Is. 1891. Mrs.
eteyes executed and, delivered 20 her
daughter what purported to be Q warra nty
mentioned. The deed Was recorded and
Mr.. and Mrs. Morgan took possession. and
are still in possession.
Mrs. Stoves contended in court yss,er-
day that she thought she was signing will
instead Of deed ard that she Was TO have
the benefit OF the property while she lived.
On the other hand the defense denied not
only oil! the allegations concerning undue
Influence. bat also contended that the
Plaintiff knew what she was about. % she
bad been supported by them from the
rents of the property and that since her
Sslstlves had taken her away her daughter
hsd contributed $50 each month.
Before Attorney Fairfield had reached
the place in his argument relating to the
use OF undue influence. Judge Howe said
he was convinced that there was no undue
influence used. and tie only point vas
the knowledge OF Mrs. Stoves as to the
nature OF the instrument she had signed.
Mr. Fairfield then showed that BY the
signing OF the deed, the recording OF the
sarne and the receiving Of money for
her support from her daughter and hus-
band she knew what she Was about. He
also said that after the transaction Mrs.
6ieves went to Denver and that she W as
probably doubtful at that time il she would
ever come back to Seattle, hence she
transferred the property.
Tbs judge dismissed the case, the evil
dence having failed TO establish the allie
cations Of the complaint Before Mrs.
Etevss left the court room her SON. in-law.
who is iine-looking gentleman. told her
that she would still receive monsy from
She property for her support