The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-27
HIS TITLE CLEARED.
Complete Victory for Squire in
king-Osgood Suits.
HE HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY
Remiugton.s Partners Decided to Him
as He Paid for 1t and He sold l6
20 Squire at a Loss.

The opinion of the New York state court
in the case involving the Squire property
in Seattle mas been received in the city.
II has attracted considerable attention on
account of the large amount or property
involved and the prominence of the parties
concerned. 1t sets az rest the title or
Senator Squire 10 all the real estate called
into question.
The court decided that the evidence
proved that Remington. Osgood. Shepard,
King and Goodwin. in ISL, entered into a
partnership to buy and sell lands in the
vicinity OF Seattle; that. pursuant TO the
partnership arrangement Remington and
Osgood came out here and purchased the
property in question, in July. lSu, and
took the title in their own names: that $50
0d0 was raised in New York upon the note
of Shepard. Endorsed by Remington and
Osgood, and that from this money the
purchase price of the property was paid,
amounting in all to s52.5l0 in gold. and
that the remainder of the $4,000 was used
in the purchase of other property else
where in the territory, and in the pay
ment of expenses, that is 10 say, travelling
expenses, attorneys fees. and examina-
tons of title. etc; that the note for S60,-
0o9 was thereafter paid by Remington
alone, out of his own money. That In
March, 1876 Goodwin quit-claimed his in
terest 10 Remington. and in April of the
same year. Osgood decided his interest
TO Remington. That in July, 1876,
Remington and wife decided the property
10 Squire for the consideration of $4,000:
that Squire took immediate possession of
the property and held Ii as his own, and
expended large sums of money in its inl-
provement, and that no claim to the prop
erty or of any interest therein was ever
made by any of the plaintiffs in this case
until the year 1898, when King. Osgood and
Shepard advanced the claim which cul-
minated in this action.
Remington Paid for 1t.
The court also decided that at the time
of the sale by Remington to Squire in 1876
Remington had put into the property $780,
900 Ohe money with which he had paid
the note) and the interest thereon, amount
ing then to $4,000, and that Remington's
total investment at that time was about
SSl 900. That none OF the other parties
had put any money whatever into the
property. or had paid Remington any
money; that Remington sold the property
10 Squire for $4,000, and applied that sum
upon his, Remingtons, investment; and
though ii left him 10 bear the loss of the
difference between $4,000 and ISL 600, that
is to say, about s26. 0o0 he called on none
of the other parties for any portion there
OF, nor did they ever offer to pay him any
part of ii. The court also decided as a
fact that in the purchase Squire acted in
the most perfect good faith, and that he
paid Remington the full value of the
property; that Osgood, Shepard. King, all
of them, knew of the sale made by Rem
ington to Squire in 1876: knew that Squire
had taken possession of the property, and
that he was improving it at his own ex-
pense. and that neither of them objected
or claimed that any fraud or wrong had
been perpetrated upon them.
They Did Not Offer TO share Loss.
The court, in its opinion, says: when
this property was purchased in 1871 it was
supposed that Seattle would be the ter
minus of the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company. and that the property
would therefore be of great value
in the immediate future. But prior
to 1876, Tacoma had been made
such terminus instead, and there
was little appreciable increase in the pop
ulation OF Seattle, and real estate had ad-
vanced but little in market value. The
future prospects of Seattle and of real cs-
tate values there were very uncertain and
speculative. For some years Squire held
the property without any material advan-
tage to himself, but by and by, Seattle and
its real estate values began TO improve.
Squire took the property in hand and
from that time on he gave his time, his
ability. his energy and his means, to i'm
proving, caring for and selling the same.
During all the years down to 1898 he talked
with these three men about what he was
doing with reference to the property. and
they listened but made no objections. nor
claimed any interest in the property them
selves. Not until 1893, when Seattle had
grown 10 be a large. populous. wealthy
city, and its real estate, including that
| conveyed by Remington to Squire had
come TO be of great value. did these men
first come forward with their claims TO
some interest in the property and their
objections TO the sale and conveyance by
Remington TO Squire. The conclusion
from these circumstances seems irresisti-
ms understood
they had no interest in the property az the
time IL was conveyed to Squire, or else
that they believed the sale 10 be fair and
honest and without any fraud as TO them.
IL is very significant that they said
nothing when the property was apparent
" worth less than the amount Remington
had invested in il. and only came forward
To complain and make claims when in
the hands OF Squire the property had come
10 be of great value"
King Had Renowned His Claim.
The court also finds that in 1884 in his
famous Minneapolis suit with Remington,
King made and fled an affidavit stating
that 1t had been agreed between Remington
and King that Remington should accept
the interest OF King, Osgood and Shepard
in the Seattle property. and release them
from all liability on account OF moneys
advanced by Remington. Also that King.
in 1877 went into bankruptcy and the
schedules OF his property flied by him as
required by law and verified by mis- oath
contained no mention of any interest In
the Seattle real estate. although i'm his pc
tition for discharge from his debts he
stated he had not concealed any portion
| Of his estate. or property belonging to him
| at the commencement OF the proceedings.
In the opinion, the court decides as a
matter Of law that the arrangement be-
tween King. Osgood, Shepard. Goodwin
and Remington, was a partnership for the
purpose OF buying and selling lands: that
| one partner had the right 20 sell the lands
| in the interests of the partnership. and he
could sell and convey the lands for this
3 purpose II the title was in him that Rem
/ ington had the title in him for the express
purpose Of selling and disposng of the
i lands in the interests Of the partnership.
and that Remington, pursuant 10 this
right. did sell and dispose OF the lands
FOR she best possible price, 20 Squire. and
that both Remington and Squire acted In
good faith without any attempt or desire
TO wrong The other members OF the part
nership in any way. and that therefore
the conveyance - Squire was perfect and
could not be attacked. Accordingly the
court rendered judgment. dismissing 7ha
case and awarding costs Of the action 70
Senator Squire.
VICTORIA MAMA TO THE SEA