The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-05-27
HOSES b. SCOTT ALIVE
o. s Supreme Cs1rt Restores
Hin T. Legal Existence


orruurA. May 0-fspseial l-Inssllt
esnco rsaehsd this city today that ne %.
prsms cours II the Unitsd States has de-
eided tie celebrated case Of Scott N No.
Men. srisd originally in the superior court
a. Thufs.on county, in favor of the former.
Moses 81. Scott. . merchant Of this city.
was tbs owner In To- simple a. some land
near Olympia ten years ago He left his
home 70 20 to California owing no debts
uhateysT and having an agent behind 70
nay HIS taxes fae him and taxi care Of his
property. q well - 70 attend to other mat
tsrs Of business. This agent continued 70
pay the taxes on the property until pro-
csedines we're commenced In the probate
csurt, Scott having bean absent moro than
seven years, to declare the owner Of the
property dead and appoint IN admins
Who iivsd at San jose. Cal. appeared upon
the scene and made afadavit 70 TIE eject
that Moses Scott who Was her stspson, was
. judgment creditor ot hsrs. However,.
no record Of the kind could b found in
any of the courts che alluded 70. Il ap-
pears, Too, that the agent 6cott len behind
to pay his taxes had disd and the agents
son VS. acting in his stead The son did
mot knew vhsrs to loeate Moses Scott,
consequently thero VS. no way OF COM
municating With him except 70 publish in
local nswspspsr the regular court an
nouncemsnt Of the commencement Of pro-
cssdings for the appointment Of IN admin
issrator. judgment vas rendered By the
probate court shat there va no evidence
that Moses H. Scott was living. and the
Judge therefore found him dead 10 all
legal intents and purposes. An admins.
traitor was appointed TO sall the land ~
public sale, realisine but mere pittance
for it, the purchases selling TO third per.
son. Mcneil, at . decided advances In the
price. Each OF the purchassrs knew oil
the facts in the CASE - 10 the petition a.
leging The abssncs Of Scott and that he
was probably dead.
Scott suddenly returned and commsncsd
proceedings in ejectment. The defendant,
il his ploa, admitsed the return Of Scott
and his unQuestioned title to the property
until The sale BY the administration. The
plaintiff (6cott) objected to the admission
in evidence Of the probate court proceed.
ings on which the cass came mp in the
higher courts. for the reason that the pro.
bate court had NO jurisdlcsion. He oon-
tended that the probate courts could only
act whsre the person was dead, and the
proceedings show him to b alive and
present in court. The Judge Of the su-
psrior court ]. W. Robinson. in his decis-
Ion said, strangely enough, that SCOTT had
absented himself solong that the probate
court presumed him dead. II thsrefora."
he said. lind that he Il, In fact dead.
Scots attornsysappsaled to the supreme
court Of the STATE q Warrington aud IL ~
firmsd the decision 1t the court bslow. the
opinion beinx rendered By Judge Elmon
Scott. SCOTS attorney then appealed to
tho supreme court Of the United States
upon The constitutional question that the
probate court usvsrha Jurisdiction In the
case and that Scott was deprived Of his
property without due process Of Law and
contrary TO the Fourteenth amendment Of
the constitution. The case was argued be-
fora thu suprAma court inst two yonr1 AGO.