The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-04-10
When Rauseh Married Her He
Claimed That His Other
Wife Was Dead.
And Wife Number One Has no
Dover Right In His
Property
An Interesting s1ory - Told In an I'm
PsrtaHt Decision bY the state
Supreme Court.

hpiellhhts versus LIZA haunch, defeuuhnt
and rsspondsnti appeal ON Lewis and
Clarke. Tns case involves claim BY
plaintiff TO do ser ia certain properly In
Helena, Ia the possession Of defendant. who
claims 10 be the sole and exclusive owner.
Ia the dis.rict court findings Of fact we're
made, and judgment entered in favor OF
defendant In effect sdjudginE tina, plain
tih bad made out no right OF dover In the
premises in question, and quieting defend
ants titls Plaintiff appssled. insisting
that according TO the findings Of fact the
judgment should have been rsnds ed in
favor Of plsintih. establishing her claim Of
dover.
The facts as presented by the fadings
are AZ follows Plaintiff ami GsoTRe Raaseh
we're ina Fisd in Austria, Aug %. ls47;
about 1--WE years thereafter George inmi.
e. atod TO America, where be was Joined
later by his wifei they lived together in
Milwaukee some time. snd afterwards in
Lenver. where. in 1861 they separated.
each apparently going his and her own way,
as subsequent events seem to imply 20
seek their fortunes ndspsndent Of one an
other. and never met thereafter. George
hauscn came TO Montana, aud about 1868
msrried Eliza RAusoh, Yep fesentinR to her
that his former wife was dead. and that
there va, no legal impedimsnt 10 the mar
TiaRe. The latter marriage was solemniz ID
4 BY Catholic priest In Helena. Az the
time Of this marriage, as the findings show,
! Elisa hausch was possessed of 81 250 OF
her own earnings, aud George HAusoh had
| nothing. not even sufficient means for his
/ own maintenance, aud Was Afterwards sup
8 O tel entirely by the property and earn
/ inRs OF Eliza, uatil his death. which oo-
CURED Ia september, 1887. On certain
| occasion after the last ma TinRe, Eliza haV-
ing concluded 10 buy Abe property in quss-
tion, delive ed 10 George ksusch, out Of
her own funds. money sufficient 20 pur-
| chase u, with directions 10 have tue title
conveyed 70 her name, which he promised
TO do. R4usch pu chased the property
7 but caused the title TO be- con-
yeyed to him instead OF 20 Eliza. contrary
20 tho exp ess agreement between them
when the money was given him 20 buy
with. some time afterward, when Eliza
discovered that she title had been placed in
she name of George RAusoh, she was
sured b. him that 10 was all right. She
was unable TO read or write, aud was iq-
no ant no to hsr legal rights in the prem
! ises; and the title remained in the name Of
George Rausch until he died, In 1887
/ Upon bis death the properly In question
was SET apart to Eliza as her homestead,
she then being the supposed widow Of
George Rausch.
/ While these events we're EanspiTing in
reference to the history of George Rauach,
the plaintiff, Johannah Catherine Rausoh,
as appears from the bindings. souRht also
10 carve out her fortune In the great west
ern hemisphere Independently OF Geo ge.
her husband, and, among other events, at
Laramie City. Wyo., entered into the mar
fiaRe bonds with one Patrick q. Murphy,
and lived with him in that relation about
seven years when she obtained . divorce
from him there on the 9round Of deseTtion
ana failure 20 support her.
After all these events. aud after the death
OF Rausoh, JohannAh asserted her claim TO
dover right in she property purchased with
Elias money. Eliza, in opposition 10 the
claim, set up not only ths proceedings set
ting the property apart TO her - her home.
stead by order of the probate court but
also alleging her equitable right TO IL by
reason Of its having been purchased With
her money. oil Of which facts we're ad-
mitted so be true aa the case nov stands.
But Johannah's counsel insisted that z liza.
having ADM niste ed on the estate OF q orga
Rausch. aud returned the p operty on tie
lists as belonging 20 his estate. and having
allowed 10 10 be set apart as her homestead.
under her supposed right as wife. was
sstoppsd from asserting that the prope tT
was not in fact or in EQUITY ahat of George
Rauso1. but that she was the equitable
owner - H.
The supreme court ssys: The estoppel
ants equitable right 20 the property cannot
lie maintained. The position taken By
plaintiffs counsel throughout abe q 90
msnt of this case IL, that defendant was
never the lawful wife OF RauscL; that her
marriage with him vas void in law. Bus
that she was deceived and acted inn recently,
and without knowledge OF any legal impsdi-
ment 20 such marriage, is not disputed.
such appears 10 havs been the view held by
sue ial court. and IL not oontrovortsd by
laintih's counsel, and there seems 20 be
no ground upon which 30 question It's co
Iectnoss. Then admitting that Eliza was
nsVer the lawful wife of Rausch. the VTo-
Feelings In efeIenoe TO his estate In her
favor, based upon the Assum Ltion that she
was his lawful widow, must have been void.
But those void proceedings we're brought
about By deception and imposition
and injured psrtT. That she nominal MAJ
tiage Of George Rausch, and the proceed
inRs based upon that false assumption be-
ing void, what Was their relation In re-
spset 10 the PROPERTY IL would seem 10 be
that one person receiving money as agent
for another. with direction aud under
standing that with sueh funds certain prop
efty shall be purchased 70. and she title
thereto conveyed TO the tarty fu nishing
the uTchasing price; but contra y 10 such
nnde standing, and ths right Of the party
furnishing she money, the agent causes the
title of said property 10 be conveyed 10 his
own name. Under such conditions tho
legal title 10 held by the after a. trustee for
the former. and that trust will be enforced
10 the en- that the equitable owner be in
vested with his or her own estate.
There 10 no principle OF estoppsl 20
bar defendant under the conditions shown
In this case from asserting her right 10
said property. IL 80. then sue ~ estoppei
by having suffered wsongs and imposition
through the misconduct OF others in mat
te . wherein ste was innocent aud de-
eeived: aud the law Of rstoppel 80 opsrAt-
ing would augment her injury. ? uch IL
not the oihoe 81 estoppel. 10 10 interposed
against guilty conduct 10 prevent imposi-
tion, deception aud iniu 20 others acting /
IN good atb in references To- the same sub
iect. No does 10 Rppoar that any disad- /
vantage resulted 90 p.Rintid from tue I!
events recitod. Nor IL her conduct ne fee /
from question - that OF defendant /
against whom NJ suspicion of bad faith o. /
guilty knowledge IL suggasted. For. /
as appeGrs from thr findings OF
fact. plaintiff not on'y entered into /
formal mar 3Ag8 relations with Murphy. /
after she and Rausch spa atei. (although /
tt Il found THAI she believed Rsusch dead I
when size married Mn phl }. uut tnarsa tier, I
aa th- findings cote, long efore the death F.
o. kEuecr, and pFior Go .i1latid's divorce I
from Murphy. she knew that George
kaufeh VS. alive, aud Was living With de. (
fen1ant - har husband. Bat there IL no
showing that defendant vas given auF in
formation ~ 20 the relation which existed /
between piaIntih and Rausch.
The Q ia no ground shown upon which
plnintth en- recover. Let the Judgment
arauI ufHruuaN ftn4pNaH ~. Iw.ss... H.