The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-06-25
HILL CASE SETTLED.
Judge Hanford Renders = De-
cision i'm Estates Favor.
LAST OF A LONG LITIGATION.
Started I'm 1857, u Went Through the
state Courts. u. .. Supreme Court,
and Finally the Circuit Court.

The litigation with references to tae
large piece OF acreage known as me dAAA
tract. living near Yesler way. vas given
nnal Knockout blow yesterday snen
Judge Haufora rendered his decision and
fled his opinion In the case or AscAieer vs.
Hill.
Tha eroperty Is very valuable and weaaa
probably, by this time. have been "ei
built up. as IL is close TO the city anu
easily accessible by several car lines ba1
thu continual litigation. and later Ine
death OF Mr.. Hill. and the fact tnst the
estate va. in the hands OF the probate
court has prevented any disposition OF the
property
The litigation was started IN lSS by
Patrick McAIeer ct al, who claimed the
property BY the purchase OF II as por-
tion OF the Maynard donation claim. ana
also by reason Of having homestesded the
land. Mr. Hill. who had secured title
from the United States government oy nj
Ing Porter.ield land warrants on the land
vas made defendant in a suit by AcAiser
and Others 90 have HIN declared trustees
for them The salt was tried IN the SUI
perior court for King county and created
considerable interest at the time. being
nnally decided In favor Of Mr.. Hi. Upon
the appeal 20 the state supreme court the
decision of the King county court was
affirmed. and the result was the same
when the case was carried TO the United
States supreme court
Upon the final decision Of the case IN
the United States supreme court new
snit was brought by the McAieer heirs
against William II. Lewis, as admins
traitor OF the nm estate. In the United
States circuit court, and II was In this
case. entitled Patrick McAieer et al vs..
william Fl. Lewis Ell al, that Judge Han
ford rendered his opinion yesterday. Ii
reads as follows:
by this suit the compliments seek TO
iitigate again the very same questions and
claim TO property, which were fully tried
upon the merits and adJudieated, In the
cases of McSorley et al. VS.. T.il. n Pac.
Rep. So. and McAieer ct al. vs.. Hin, III.
5S7. The defendant Lewo as administra-
tor with the viii annexed OF the estate
Of w G Hili deceased. Is the successor
IN interest OF the w. c. Hill. who was
originally q party to the several cases
above mentioned. so that the parties are
identical. the property In controversy IS
the same, and the complainants in this
suit are claiming said property in the
same right: the superior court OF the
state which tried the cases had complete
Jurisdiction OF the subject matter and OF
the parties. and after a full hearing II
rendered q final Judgment on the merits,
6GNeTso 10 the SO02FAatldnts anu the su-
preme court OF the state has affirmed the
judgments, and appeals to the supreme
court Of the United States have been dis
missed. and the litigation IN the courts
OF the state and the supreme court of the
United States has ended. and complete
nnal record has been made. The defend
ants. by a plea IN bar. have set forth the
former adjudication and the record. Said
plea, and other defenses interposed. have
been met by a general replication. and the
case has been submitted upon the plead
lngs and pSoofs. BY the evidence IL is
fully established that the plea is true in
every particular. and the only way in
which counsel for the compiainants. upon
the hearing. have sought 10 avoid the
plea. Is by questioning its suffieiency. and
by claiming that In their bin OF complaint
fled In this court, and the evidence sub
mitted. the right and interest of the COM
plainants is shown with greater fullness