The San Francisco call., 1895-12-01
THE BLYTHE MILLIONS,
All the Litigation Which Has
Surrounded Them Is Prac-
tically Over.
FLORENCE GETS THE ESTATE.
Sarah Davis Appeal Will Be Taken
Before the Federal Supreme
Court.
FLORENCE GETS THE ESTATE.

The Blythe case has been settled by the
Supreme Court, and before many weeks
are past Florence Blythe Hinckley will
receive the inheritance for which she has
waited SO long and for which she has
fought so hard. The decisions of the
higher court upon the appeals of Sarah
Davis, Henry T. Blythe and in the case of
Florence Blythe against Abbie Ayers and
others all affirm the rulings of the lower
court, and as these rulings were all in
| favor of the single claimant, it leaves little
more to do than to give her possession of
| her estate.
In proceeding with the opinion in the
Sarah Davis appeal, the Supreme Court
reviews the history of the case from the
beginning. The basis of the Sarah Davis
claim was that when the decree of distri-
button had been entered she had never
been given chance in court, and
appealed from that decree as against
her alleging, as she had never been heard
in court the decree could not therefore
apply to her.
In commenting upon her position the
Supreme Court calls attention to the fact
tn at she gave testimony by deposition in
the litigation OF her brothers, William and
claimant until long after. The question
raised was under the construction of sec
ton 1864 of the Code of Civil Procedure
This section allows a claimant to come
into the Probate Court and summon every
one, known and unknown, to come in and
defend his claims, if claims he has. This
| section, the Supreme Court holds, is de-
signed for the purpose of constructing
wider, better and more just and effective
method OF determining heirship to one
| dying intestate, where there are many
conflicting claimants. 1t gives a longer
time and allows claimants better chance
to prepare their cases, and the court has
no doubt that the Legislature intended
10 make the decree conclusive against all
persons and the basis for the decree of
distribution which was to follow. In COM
| mentlng upon the answer of the appellant
to the summons of the court just before
| the decree of distribution was entered, the
decision says:
The English language seems to have been
tortured in the answer through apparent fear
| that the denials might not ,be comprehensive
! and complete. She denies that any proceeding
was taken under section 1864, or that any
| person appeared and filed an answer therein,
or that any judgment was rendered, or that
any appeal was taken by any one. The follow
ing are some OF the specimens OF said denias
1.-The said Sarsh Davis denies that said or any
decision so duly or otherwise given or made or
as aforesaid or otherwise or at all, was in the
words or figures following to wit as set forth
| in the said petition, or otherwise or at ALL"
| ''The said Sarah Davis denies that said or any
judgment so or otherwise duly or otherwise
given or made. or entered or other
all was or is in words or figures
following to wit, as set forth in said petition,
or otherwise, or at all" "The said Sarah Davis
denies that the said or any judgment still re-
mains in full any force or effect or other
wise or at all. or has not been in any wise re-
versed, vacated or annulled or that certain or
] nf fla fnrnCo oi6 VII
| appears as above stated or otherwise IN said
cause or any cause or at all or who appeared
upon the or any trial in said cause or any
| cause, as above or otherwise stated or at all
| appealed from said or any judgment to the
| supreme any court, of said or any State of
| California or otherwise or at all,' etc. And it
| is denied III similar verbiage that the Supreme
! Court or any court or otherwise or at all, rem
dered judgments on said appeals.
In spite of these denials, however. judg-
ment was entered against Sarah Davis
The Supreme Court affirms the decision of
| the lower court, where it states that she
was not of kin to the dead Thomas Blythe,
as, it is stated, there is no warrant for de-
NAL of that Judgment.
The appeal of Henry T. Blythe and
others was from the decree of distribution
entered by Judge Coffey, which ordered
the estate to be turned over to Florence
Blythe. The appeal was based upon the
ground that the decree had never been
properly recorded. The Supreme Court
held that the entering of the order on the
minute-booE was sufficient record to en-
able the decree to stand. The appellants
assigned as error the fact that they were
not allowed to prove that the decree was
not entered in any action-book. AS this
could not have advantaged them. the Su-
preme Court said, the lower court did no
harm in refusing to allow them to make
such proof.
The third decision is in the appeal of
certain defendants in the case of Florence
Blythe against Abbie Ayers and others.
They moved to dismiss the whole proceed
ing on the ground that the party entitled
to judgment had neglected to demand and
have the same entered within the statu-
| tory six months. This motion was de-
MED, and in the appeal from it, it has been
affirmed. Here again it was determined
that the entry maGe in the mlnute-book