The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-06-08
NOTED CASE ENDED.
A Fauily Real Estate Deal In which
y. r. Day, c. @. Heffner and Wife
and Others " ere Interested Nay
He Taken to the Supreme Court
General Court News.

II granting the motion Of the plaintiff 8
attorney Il the trial OF The action OF Day
against Day 81 al. Judge Benson yests--
day ended rather celshrated case. the
parties 20 which are widely known II this
city. Tire motion was made by ]. 7.
Ronald. o. counsel for the defense, after
q ter minutes consultation with Mrs 3.
r. Day, one OF the defendants. The
PLAINTIFF had rested. John g. Hart. attor-
ney for I'd Day, the plaintiff. made Wig
orous protest against granting the motion
70 dismiss. but the court ended the matter
II simple verbal order after the attor-
nevs had consumed nearly an hour IN
their arguments.
The casa has attracted considerable
notice ewing 20 the prominence Of the
parties interested. 3. r. Day, the chief
defendant. is a resident OF Seattle OF
nearly fifteen years standing and has
laid out a number of additions to the city.
Z. G.. Hstfner. another OF the defendants
but whose interests lay rather with the
plaintiff. was member OF the kid COM
fzlittes during a municipal campaign and Is
now deputy insurance commissioner IN the
Office Of Secretary Of State w. d. Jen-
kfns- The story brought cut IN the trial
and pIsadings, which has been told al
ready in the newspapers. is out OF the or
binary in matters Of civil litigation, the
=.
Their disputes arose over the parcnas Sc
OF a home for Lydia Day Heifner. Gaugh-
ter of Ed Day, the plaintiff. and niece OF
3. Z. Day.
II was In November. 1883, that 3 F. Day,
OF this city. entered into an agreement
with his brother. Ed Day, of Shena ..3oah
Ia. which was to result in the purchase
for Mrs Hesfner OF the Gilbert s. Meem
property on Tenth street Ed Day agreed
price 3. f. Day was TO deed. and did
deed. iot in the La Granda addition TO
Seattle, which was To be counted as worth
500, and further bound himself to pay of
a mortgage on the property for & GO. The
consideration for these transactions was
merely lore and affection
Faithful TO his bond Ed Day paid the
81, 100 instaliment on the purchase price,
but when the mortgage fell due. October
l. ISIS, his brother found himself unable to
carry a1lt the contract. In order to save
the property from the sheriff. the Iowa
man came TO the assistance OF the Helf-
ners with the requisite cash, amounting 20
& 80. Then he brought suit TO recover on
some real estate which B. r. Day had
decided in trust TO Heifaer to secure the
fuiellment OF his engagement with his
brother
The testimony Of the witnesses yester-
Uay Ut1 HOT ltslAlo LEe MAIN features or
this story. which was set forth in the
pIeadings as above related Mrs DAYS
defense 10 the suit brought by her brother-
in-law lay In the fact, as she alleged that
the lot given in part payment OF the Meem
property was her own individual property,
and that her husband. in signing his name
as her attorney IN fact TO the papers IN
the contract. exceeded his authority. She
also claimed 20 be the owner in fee OF a
portion OF the property which was decided
in trust TO Heifner.
Judge Benson. in deciding the case held
against the plaintiff on J. theory which
came as a surprise TO the attorneys for
the Iowa man. The court suggested that
Mr.. lays advance OF the mortgage on the
place was purely voluntary on his part.
and that his brothers refusal to nav of
the mortgage was no hardship on him.
Following out this theory. the court held
that the plaintiff. Ed Day. had no rigf,
10 sue. The conclusion reached was that
II any one IN the transaction had griey-
ance against Mr.. Day II was Mr.. He!fner
or his wife.
Mr.. Hart asked an exception to the rIl-
Ing OF the court OF the motion presurn-
ably FOR the purpose OF moving for new
trial. II this IL refused. II is probable that
the question, which Is an interesting one
TO the lawyers. will be taken For review
before the supreme court