Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-11-06
THE CASE SETTLED.
Opinion On the BlOdgctt Claims by
the Court of Appeals.


For several years owners of and dealers
in real estate in the District have expert
enced no little trouble and anxiety in deal
ing with land embrs ced in what is known
as the Jamaica Tract" tract which, as
originally laid out, embraced numerous
squares of land in the northwestern section
of the city, containing several hundred
acres. The trouble arose from the efforts
of the heirs of the late Samuel Blodgett to
establish claim to the land in question.
Their claim rested on title to the land
which, they asserted. was vested in Mr..
Blodgett by purchase from the original pro-
prletors of the District. Several months
ago, as stated in The Star at the time the
Blodgett claimants were thrown out or
court by decision rendered by Chief JUS
tice Bingham, the case of j. ]. Johnson
against Kate VanWycke. In that case Mr..
Johnson sued for possession of a certain lot
owned by Mrs VanWycixe, situated near
Dupont Circle, and embraced in the old
Jamaica Tract" In the course of the trial
H. was shown that the claim to the tract
was owned by the Union Trust Company of
Philadelphia, organized by Lorin Blodgett.
a relative, but not an HEAR, of the original
claimant, Samuel Blodgett. That company
was formed for the purpose of prosecuting
the claim, having a capital stock or SZfo,-
900, the holders of which were to receive
one-half of whatever might be obtained. the
company to pay all expenses. Mr.. Johnson
sued the assignee of the Blodgett heirs.
During the trial before Chief Justice Bing-
ham the point was made on behalf of the
defendant, Mrs. VanWycke, that the suit
disclosed champerty. and was therefore
against public policy. The court sustained
the point whereupon Mr.. johnson noted an
appeal to the Court of Appeals. That APP
peal was decided by the appellate tribunal
yesterday afternoon in a lengthy opinion
written by Mr.. Justice Shepard, in which
the judgment of the lower court is sus-
tanned. The suit, the Court of Appeals
holds is champertous, and to allow Ii to be
prosecuted would be against public policy.
The terms of the organization of the Union
Trust Company, the court holds, are such
as to make the suit one of champerty and
maintenance, and though circumstances
have greatly changed since that legal doc
trine was first promulgated and many
suits which would once have been consider
now limit beyond which combination OF
client and attorney cannot go, which limit
the case in point has passed. Respecting
the plea of Mr.. Johnson that, Independent
of the Union Trust Company, the title de-
rived by him from the Blodgett heirs Is
valid, the court holds that 1t Is so Joined
. with the other that both must fall together;
but that II the heirs elect to revive their
claim separately from Lorin Blcdgett and
the Union Trust Company they would then
be entitled to a hearing.
The title of the Blodgett heirs has never
been seriously considered by the members
of the local bar. 1t is said, and 1T Is now be-
lieved that although there may be an APP
peal to the United States Supreme Court
noted, the decision of the Court of Appeals
is really an end of the whole matter.