The morning call., 1894-12-05

Charley. this deed will take effect, and if
Mrs. Hunter dies, then the other deed will
take effect"
Respecting this Judge Seawel remarks :
1.-The whole matter of the delivery of the
deeds had been settled upon prior to Janu-
airy 9. 1889, and it is manifest that when
The Hunters appeared at Mr. Tilden's Of
fee on that day it was their purpose TO
deliver the deeds. When the witnesses
were called ia to attest the delivery of the
deeds nothing was said by either Mr.. or
Mrs. Hunter to indicate that the delivery
was not absolute. If there was to be any
qualification attached to the delivery the
time TO declare it was while the witnesses
were present. so that when afterward
called to testify it might be established by
their evidence.
1.-THE defendants witnesses concur in
the statement that DO such qualification
was made by either Mr.. or Mrs. Hunter
There can be no doubt that when the
Hunters left Mr.. Tilden's Office they were
under the impression that they had made
valid delivery OF their respective deeds.
For that purpose they had gone there. No
reason was stated why they had not ac-
complshed their purpose, and Mr.. TIlden
told them that it was ironclad and as
strong as he could make it,
II have reached the conclusion that the
testimony of Messrs. Tilden and Whtcomb
is not of such character as would justify
me in holding that a transaction entered
upon with the greatest solemnity and de-
liberation was an idle ceremony and an
empty form. When l speak of the char
acter of the testimony do not wish to be
understood as rejecting upon the wit
nesses themselves, who are we'll known TO
the court as gentlemen OF high charac-
ter"
Judge Seawell also overrules the claim
of the defendants, that inasmuch as at the
same instant Of time Mr.. Hunter conveyed
all his property to his wife and she hers to
him, neither deed had any effect in passing
title; and that the property conveyed by
each grantor Immediately returned to him
or her from his or her grantee by reason of
the deed executed by such grantee.
With regard to a claim for personal
property put in by Mrs. Hunter the court
remarks: THE only personal property
owned by Mr.. Hunter at the date of The
deeds, as to which any relief is sought by
claim arising out of the widening of Du-
pont street by the city authorities, upon
which judgment was recovered and The
sum of $4,000 collected by the Messrs
Tilden as executors of the will of Mr..
Hunter.
From this amount should be deducted
the fees agreed upon for collection,
amounting to the sum Of $1,000. For the
balance, $4,000. the plaintiff is entitled to
judgment. In my opinion the judgment
in the former action brought by her against
the executors to recover the moneys on de-
posit in the savings bank does not operate
as an estoppal."
This conclusion having been reached by
the court, and presumably sound, it is
difficult TO see what is TO become of the
pending will contest. For, even if the will
is allowed to stand, there will be hardly
any property to be distributed under it.
The deed now upheld by Judge Seawell
covers all the property Hunter was pos
sessed of at the time of its execution; and,
although some little extra property may
have accumulated since then, the amount
thereof can be but small.