The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-18
THE DEBT HAS GROWN
i. Old Claim for $4,000 In
creased to $4,000.
e.vwaRD AND MEIos LOSE IT.
- 4ee Been I'm Court for Fifteen Years
Prisoners Set Free Through
Onicial Disagreement.

,saxe Langley handed down his deci-
- Yesterday IN the famous suit OF
.--sur scriven@r. trustee, against the
Ns,rr Lumber and Ship Building Com
..ry and w. p. Sayward. the millionaire
-, owner, involving notes Of 50. S02. bur
- actual amount at present OF about
exsc. Mortgages In the case cover a
s.rrs amount OF timber land in Kitsa D
smnfy commonly called the Port Madi-
sss nil holdings The decision Is IN IA
a. OF the plaintiff and reverses the hold
asss OF Judge Greene In territorial days.
prior 20 February s. 1878, the Meigs Lun-
hsr and Ship Building Company, In which
p. sayward IS interested. executed
,,amissory notes TO ID. A. and J. McKin-
~. OF San Francisco. for S3s.s12 The
sstes were transferred 10 the London &
kan Francisco bank. limited After this
ne bank was secured by a mortgage on
rnber land in kitsap county owned by
EP sayward. who Is behind the Port
Madison MIil Company. AL OF the parties
res3ded in California.
Arthur Scriyener. as trustee OF the bank
eonmenced suit about fifteen years ago
arainsf the Meigs Lumber and Ship Build
~ Company. w +. Sayward and others
Sefore Judge Greene. who held that as
ne bank, a foreign corporation, had not
xed articles Of Incorporation in this state
TIE mortgage on the Kitsap lands was in
tslld. new suit was commenced. but
hy dormant until a few days before @
Norris Halter. one OF the attorneys for
he plaintiff. had IL transferred TO the
FEDERAL court, claiming that 10 was one
n the cases that should be transferred
snder the enabling act when Washington
.srTf.0ry became state. Judge Han
Ord sent the case back to the superior
ssBrs, where IL lay until last February,
shen the trial was had before Judge
langley.
In his decision handed down yesterday
ahe Judge disposes OF much OF he vol
smlnons matter In a few words. and then
says that the first contention worthy Of
netlce is the defendants plea OF former
sdjudication. '"There was no judgment on
demurrer" he says. mo trial on merits
no dismissal for want OF equity, no final
order or any other essential TO an ad-
.ailcation. I do not think the record
shows a former adjudication"
Judge Langley then speaks Of the de-
murrsr az 20 the validity OF the mortgage
ewing 70 the failure OF the bank 10 sie its
articles OF Incorporation in Washington
territory. and then says that the law re-
iates only to transactions done "in this
territory" whereas the negotiations IN
the present case were carried on in Cali
fornla, and the mortgage was valid. The
defenses OF want OF consideration. OF
fraudulent representations were not well
sustained by proof. The bank accepted
the notes as sound commercial paper.
Continuing Judge Langley says:
"If any doubt were ever cast upon the
validity and good faith OF the original
transaction by the evidence, still the sub
seauent execution OF the mortgage by
The express direction OF the Meigs Lum-
Der and Ship Building Company based
upon the consideration OF an extension OF
time for the payment OF the notes. OPP
Grated as complete ratification
a. the notes and waiver OF
all prNexis,ing defenses thereto
ny the only parties who could urge
them. and not only they. but all claiming
BY through or under them, are alike
bound by that transaction.
ITO my mind the defense Of waiver be-
cause Of the California judgments -
urged In the wrong court. even IL IL vera
otherwise good This action was begun
long before the court in California was
asked to enter judgment on these notes,
and has been pending ever since.
Upon tho whole case ! ind The plain
III is entitled 20 the relief sought by his
original complaint. In so holding prae-
ucally ignore al supplemental pleadings
relating 20 the California judgments as
having no bearing by way OF reinforcing
plaintiff's original cause Of action or az
arording the defendants or either or them
proper defeuxe-though they are set
forth by the parties respectively for these
purposes. To my mind II the mortgage
could not be foreclosed 10 pay the notes,
I, could not 10 pay the judgments, and II
valid as 10 the notes there r. no necessity
for pleading these supplemental proceed
,ngs."