The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-02-22
1T WAS DIRTY BUSINESS
How ]. H. Bartlett DafFauded Thomas
Leonard.
ROASTED BY THE COURT
Judge Brantly Regrets That the
Law Does Not Give Him Power
to Clnch the Fellow Who
Benefited BY This Trick.

of Anaconda was plaintiff and j. III. Bart
lett ct al. defendants, and l.. II. Sinclair
of Helena an intervenor. is interesting
reading. The plaintiff sued the defend
ants to recover the sum of $500 loaned
to defendants and for the reforming and
correction of the mortgage so as to cover
lot 16 IN block 81 of the city of Anaconda.
This money had been loaned by Thomas
Leonard who assigned his right and inter-
est in the same, and in the mortgage, to
Hannah G. Baker, the plaintiff.
Suit was brought to foreclose on the
mortgage, but L. IL. Sinclair interviewed,
claiming that he was the owner of lot 10
in block 81, that when he bought it he had
no notice of any lein or claim against it.
The cause was tried by the court without
jury ON Nov. 80, 1894, and the court
made findings as follows of the facts in
the case, last month:
That on Oct. 10. 1892, the defendant,
Bartlett, was the owner of lot 16 in block
81, city of Anaconda, this being the only
property there owned by him. On that
date he borrowed from Thomas Leon
ard the sum of S1,500, executing his
promssory note therefor, conformity
with. Harriet A. Bartlett, his wife,
bearing interest at the rate
of IL per cent. per month from date, due
at the end of one year. That to secure
this note, defendant Bartlett and wife
executed mortgage upon the above de-
scribed property, but the said property
was described therein as lot 16 in block 81
30 instead of lot 16 i'll block 81. That this
mortgage, being properly authenticated,
was duly recorded in the office of the re-
corder at Deer Lodge on Jan. 4, 1898. That
all the parties to the contract of the mort
gage, including Charles Houck, the scriv-
ener, who drew the note and mortgage,
understood that the property to be encum-
bered by the mortgage was the property
occupied by Bartlett and his family, which
was lot 16, block 81.
But the scrivener wrote the descrip-
ton, as in the mortgage, from tho
statement of Defendant Bart
lett, who gave it to him
as lot 16, block 81, which Houck took as a
correct description without troubling
himself to examine plat of the city of
Anaconda which was hanging in his Of
flee.
This mortgage, with the note, was as
signed to the plaintiff on Oct. 10, 1898.
= Soon after the maturity of said note a
complaint for the foreclosure of the mort
gage was prepared by counsel for the
plaintiff. Then it was discovered for the
first time that there was an error in the
description of the property and this ac-
ton was begun.
That notice of lis pendens was filed
and recorded in the office of the county
recorder and that the complaint and lis
pendens were filed without any knowl-
edge of the deed by Bartlett and wife to
Sinclair. That defendants, Bartlett and
wife, have made no appearance in this
) suit and default has been entered against
thaut.
fhat L. H. Sinclair, defendant by
intervention, is brother-in-law to De-
PENDANT Bartlett, and resides at East
Helena, Montana. That after delibera-
ton he bought the property from Bartlett
who offered it for sale, making no men,
~ rs l,a nd rf.vfK ~
reason for selling that he needed the money
to prosecute litigation which he had on
hand. That he, Sinclair, went to Ana
conda, saw the property, and concluded it
was worth S, 500, the amount demanded.
That he secured the service of &. NJ.
Sawyer to examine the title for incum-
brences. That Sawyer examined the
title of lot 16 in block 81 and found it
clear, which ne reported to Sinclair.
Sinclair then purchased the property for
$500 and took deed from Bartlett and
wife, paying down $500 and later on paid
the balance before he knew of the mort
gage in favor of the plaintiff.
The court gives as conclusions of law
that the interest of the plaintiff under her
mortgage in the property in controversy
is inferior to the interest of the interven.
ing defendant. Sinclair.
That the plaintiff is not entitled to a
decree as prayed for and that the defend
ant is entitled to a judgment against the
plaintiff for the costs in the action.
Judge Brantly then gives his opinion,
which is long and bristling with authors
ties. He says that the facts in the case
do not sustain a charge of fraud on the
part of the intervenor.
s'It is true" he adds, shat Bartlett has
been guilty of the grossest dishonesty.
For there is no dispute that he sold to
Sinclair the property involved, knowing
that the mortgage had a prior claim; and
that he did this designedly there can be
no question. The conclusion also seems
unavoidable that he must have known at
the time the mortgage was executed that
1t did not contain correct de-
scription of the property to be
b encountered by it. He could have had no
other design i'll the matter than to de-
fraud the holder of the mortgage; conduct
showing depravIty worthy of the heartiest
condemnation. 1t is a very suspicious
circumstance. too. that Sinclair, the holder
of the deed, is Bartlett's brother-in-law.
But there Is nothing in the proof showing
that Sinclair had Any knowledge of tho
evil and dishonest design in Bartlett and
the transaction being otherwise fair SO far
as Sinclair Is concerned, the court cam
not presume from this relationship alone
that he was party to the fraud"
THE conclusions here arrived at" says
the court in closing, 'while they are sup
ported by authority and the plain provis-
ions of our statute nevertheless permit
the defendant, Bartlett, to reap the ben
etit of a gross fraud upon the plaintiff. The
court regrets that il is out of its power to
administer to him the punishment
he so we'll deserves. The rule adopted in
the decision of this case works a hardship
upon the plaintiff, but so far as the de-
PENDANT, Sinclair, is concerned, the proof
does not show that he has participated in
any manner in the evil designs of Bartlett
and the adoption of any other rule would
work even a greater hardship on him.
The defendant. Sinclair, is. in the opinion
of the court, the owner of the property ex-
elusive of any claim on the part of the
plaintiff, and judgment must be entered
accordingly
nan OF AN LNENTEu LEE