The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-01
rHr rEKRr DIvoEcE CASE.


Duke Of Tacoma
.OLYxPrA. June 2--FollowIng is sum-
mary of the supreme court decision in the
case OF Evelyn Ferry vs.. Clinton p. Ferry,
rendered yesterday:
lin September, 1880. respondent CON-
menced action for divorce in Pierce
county. Appellant had previously COM
nlenced 8 like action in California.
put saw 1T TO appear in the suit
brought by her husband Negotiations
were eIsered into between the parties be-
fore her appearance relating to division OF
the property and further. that mlider
cross complaint should oe substituted OF
the defendan; for the one already nled-
According 10 the terms of the agreement
the wife was to take property valued Al
<S4. GO, SO GO IN money and 5000 IN IN
stailmenfs for the support OF minor
child, and the husband was 10 take the re-
mainder. The stIpulations were carried
out and appellant was granted decree OF
divorce. This action was brought TO au-
nui the decree and cancel the deeds exc
cuted by appellant on the following
grounds: First. because neither party TO
the divorce was resident of Washington !;
second, because appellant was deceived by
respondent by false statements concerning
the amount and value of the estate
cognizabie under the divorce proceeding
into believing that the entire estate was
worth no more IMAM flJJsOtJs "ASAA All
truth il was worth $4,000. The ohJec-
ton that no cause of action was stated
and the bar of the statute. OF limitations
were urged by demurrer. which the court
sustained.
1t will be observed that the decree COM
planned of was obtained by appellant on
her cross-complaint- In resting upon the
non-residenee of the husband the appei.
liant experiences a difficulty. Piaintir
alleged residence and defendant did not
ailege otherwise. She claims no evidence
was taken On this point, and II Is not TO be
wondered at, since the atmosphere OF the
case is that of one facilitated by both par
ties 70 get divorce on the easiest plan
possible, and now the court Is asked TO set
aside the judgment at the suit OF one re-
sponsibie for the imposition. The courts
cannot be used In that way. So far as these
parties are concerned. within this state
they are no longer husband and wife. But
the real relief sought BY this action Is q
readjussment of the property arrange
ment. Ii is charged that the respondent.
while in France subjected appellant TO
cruel treatment intended to place her in
position 10 desire divorce upon any
terms, but when the scene of the trouble
was transferred to Tacoma there was not
much difference in the position of the par
ties relative TO the property. Although
appellant affixed her signature to deeds
alleges ignorance of the value of the estate
and charges that her ignorance was I'M
posed upon. There was nothing IN the
decree or IN the fact of her having executed
the deeds and placed them in escrow
which would have prevented the court
upon showing from going into the whole
matter OF the property and making just
division. The entry OF the decree could
have been postponed until q valua-
ton was made. since it was her
decree and she had control of It. Three
years and more were allowed TO eiapse
and then, after the whole of the property
decreed TO her had been sold or mortgaged
and the proceeds spent, this proceeding is
commenced. The supreme court is of the
opinion that the statute as we'll as equity
does not sanction the disturbance of the
decree and the consequent conyeyances
after so long delay. Judgment affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Stiles. all justices con-
curing.
THE amended complaint in the Ferry
case states that the couple were married at
Stockton, Cal. July Is, 1879 and lived in
Oregon and California up 10 lsso. One
son was the issue OF the union. In July,
1883, they went 10 Europe, and from No
vsmber, 1855, to April Ii. 1889, lived in
Paris. There. the plaintiff alleges, the
defendant conceived the idea of dissolying
the marriage relations between them and
depriylng plaintiff of her marital rights.
On the last date mentioned she claims he
obtained from her $1,000. all the money
she had. on the pretense that he
needed ii urgently 70 pay the family
expenses. Immediately afterward he
drove her from the house in which they
were living, caused her to be arrested and
had articles published in the newspapers
charging her with assaulting him and Bit
ing If his nose and claiming she was an
unchaste woman. After that, she alleges,
he oppressed and Inundated her by hay-
ing her followed by private detectives. de
took their child away from her and then
offered 10 return il If she would acknowi-
edge, in writing, that she had committed
adultery. She attempted 10 secure the
child by legal means, but the defendant
fled from the jurisdiction of the court.
Afterwards, she claims, knowing that she
was without means OF support, he renewed
his offers. She therefore, upon coercion.
as she claims, made the acknowledgment,
hut she denies the truth of the charges.
She and the child then came TO San
Francisco, where she began SUIT Tor
divorce against him, which she never pros
ecnted. September 5, 1850. the defendant
began al action for divorce at Tacoma, IA
the court of the second judicial district OF
Washington territory In his complaint
he alleged that both he and defendant
we're residents of the territory. Ihis she
now denies. aud on that ground bases her
claim TO have the decree set aside. holding
that the eourt was without jurisdiction.
October 6. lss9. she agreed 10 accept prop
erty 10 the value OF $4,000 from him, on
his representations tina. he vas worth bat
$ll0.0o0 the property 10 be used for the
maintenance of herself and child. The
decree OF divorce was dated October :, lsS9.
and the So, 600 worth Of property awarded
her them