The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-02-14

OF James w. Oakford against Mrs.
Frances A. Hackley was yesterday
transmitted by Judge Burlington, OF
the United States district court. He
decides in favor of the plaintiff.
The bill was brought by Mr.. Oak
ford to enforce the specific perform
ance Of lease for the one hundred
and fifty acre Bell tract Of coal land
at Winton, which Mrs. Hackley agreed
TO make. and then after her attorney.
Judge Jessup, under power of attor-
ney. submitted it To her, she refused
to sign, alleging that she had been in
duced TO make the agreement by
fraud, deceit and the suppression Of
facts"
Her main charge is that her attor-
ney, Hor. w. II. Jessup, VAS untaith-
full to her interests and wrongfully ad-
vised her to accept the Oakford bid
when higher and better bids We're to
be secured.
She also gave as one of her reasons
for refusing to perform the lease that
DR.. j. N. Rice was interested with Mr.
Oakford in securing the land
DR.. Rice had made efforts to secure
the land from Mrs. Hackley's husband
during the latter's lifetime. but as he
was personally Objectionable to Mr..
Hackley he could not make bargain.
DR. Rice was objectionable to her. she
says, for the same reasons that he was
objectionable to her husband, and he
could not have the tract at any price,
with her consent. Judge Jessup and
Mr.. Oahford, she AYERS, both knew this,
but kept from her the fact that Dr.
Rice was Interested in the deal.
one Of the grounds on which she
! bases the charge that her attorney.
! Judge Jessup. was unduly interested in
! the Oakford bid. was that his son. w.
| II. Jessup. ir.. was to he associated
| with Mr.. OakfOrd i'm the control of the
/ land
CASE BEGUN HEEE.
The case was begun in the local
| courts and transferred at Mrs. Hack
! ley's behcst TO the United States court
! 1t was heard last fan by Judge Buff
tington. S. b. Price appearing for the
plaintiff and James Il. Burr and COL
onel Bob" Ingersoll for Mrs. Hackley,
| The hearing developed some lively oX-
! changes between the opposing counsel
and almost precipirated a serious clash
between Nh Price and Colonel Inger'
soil, the latter losing his temper and
making a threatening advance whel
! Mr. Price censurcd him for wantonlN
abusing Judge Jessup and added
But then, what is to be expected from
Colonel Ingersoll. whose whole life has
been devoted To raZlng rather thar
raising"
Judge burlington finds that Mrs
Hackley's charges are not only untrue
hut unreasonable, ana directs a specifi,
| performance Of the contract. Below il
given the meat of the opinion;
An examination Of the proofs in this
case shows Il specific offer 20 lease bod!
ot asCertain"d coal upun dclmlt" terlni
The acceptance OF that offer in writin.
hy the defendant and an authorization
by her Ia her counsel IL prrpar" a prop'H
lease. notification OF the tasc by the Ie
! spOndcnt'S counsel and execution th"reo
10y the plaintiff and refusal ON ,h" part -
he respondent to execute the lease. y,
/ specific objections are made to the form
of the lease, but the refusal to execute /
on the ground that the agreement Wa
| made under IA great MISUNDERSTANDING
of the facts The conditions and essen
2 tiars prc-r"quisita To jurisdiction and tn
+ entry of IA decree fOl specific pc'iorman
are al here found. unless the allegation
, of misunderstanding of facts Is cstah
, lished. Such misunderstanding must
il existed. have arisen in the case by rea
son of acts Of Oakford, the lessee; MIS-
HaCkley the lessor. or judge Jcssup, hc
: attorney. Misconduct on the part of Oak
4 ford, the purchaser, is urged in three par
= ticulur5:
PARTICULARS OF CHARGE.
: First-That he, secured the lease by mn
due influence exercised and miSconduC
on the part Of Judge JesSup by associ A
ton with himself in the lease or ofern
: to associate Judge Jcssup's son. W. J.
> Jessup. ana thereby procured Il lease les
t favorable to Mrs. Hackloy than othe
I bidders would have entered into if the
. had been fairly treated.
: Sccond--rhat he concealed from Nh!
= Hackley the fact that one j, y. Rice.
person Objectionable to Mrs. llackleS
e was associated with him In the lease.
/ Third-That he represented to MIR,
e Tackley that her relative Jos. lS. DickSo
!, was associated in the lease and thercb
4 procured her consent.
The first contention is not sustained b
. | the proofs While it t. true that Mr.. O3t
/ ford, who was personal friend Of you l
d Mr. JcSsup, did during the p.ylminar
s stages Of the negotiations suggest Ia hin
:, ! that there might he an opportunity
/ a
- this offer or suggestion was, as 1t pro-
!. | crly should have been, declined by J 30,
i SUP As 10 the second contention, IL
= fact that Mr.. OakfOrd did not disclose d
| Rice's connection with or interest in I'll
proposed lease, cannot .airlN be q
| tributed to amy motive on his part TO do
0 ceiye Mrs. HaCkloY. There is no evidanC
whatever that he knew Or, Rice va
dstasteful to Mrs. HaCkley. Dr. Ri,
testites that he had no knowledge Of ch
= fact that he was Objectionable 70 Mr.
| Hackley or her deceased husband. If
testimony shows that he ana Judge Je.
sup had had some controversy or Jrou2
and that he feared if he made the appl
cation for the lease Ia Judge Jessup i
would not receive as fair treatment q
other bidders and knowing that NJ
Oakford was friendly with Judge Jessu
he procured him 70 negotiate the lCaS
We are therefore convinced that n
facts proven IN reference TO this seC01
contention, show no imprOprinty or mi
conduct on the part Of Mr.. Oakfurd.
NO PROOF OF IT.
As to the third contention Of Dickson
alleged interest in the lease the proo
fail 10 show that any allegations in 7,
gard to such interest induced any actiO
by Mrs Hackley. They show that no {,
legged or supposed interest of his in Il
lease was known to Mrs. HaCkley on n,
vember \, when hy endorsement on Oal
ford's offer she agreed 10 the giving
the lease. II therefore could have bee
and was of no effect in leading her to a
agreement TO give the lease.
Turning now to the conduct of Judi
Jessup. the allegation Is made that
making of the lease he was unfati
ful to the interest of his client and III,
he misre presented the facts 10 her an
either wilfully or CarelesSly failed 10 81