Omaha daily bee., 1899-03-10
FAMILY TANCLE UNRAVELED
Chase Installs Brother in Hotel and Latter
Wife Clings to Property.
COURT DlSMISSES THE CLAIM OF THE WIDOW
DIsintcrcstcd Act IL Not Allowed to
Bring Financial Loss Upon the
Performer nnd lie Finds
Hotel ON His Hands.

CHEYENNE, wyo., March 9,--(special)--
An important decree and opinion by Judge
Hallett was handed down in the United
States court here this afternoon. The de-
cree dlsmisses the suit Of Mary f. Chase,
widow of John Chase against Edward Chase
OF Denver. The opinion, in part, being as
follows:
Mary f. Chase as the widow OF John
Chase, asserts a homestead right to the
Inter Ocean hotel property In the city OF
Cheyenne, and brings this bill to set aside
a deed for one-half interest in the properly
made by John Chase october -, 1880, 10
the respondent, Edward Chase.
The bill charges that John and Edward
Chase, brothers, bought the property IN
December, 1881, and paid for 1t $l6OOO'
each paying one-half of this amount Socn
after this date John and Mary Chase took
up their residence on the property. In the
fall of 1887 the residence of Mary Chase on
the property was interrupted by visit U"
the city OF New York. After she iett John
Chase brought suit against her for divorce
which was granted February s., 1883. Inc
parties were remarked November ~, 1888,
when Mrs. Chase returned to Cheyenne ana
resumed her residence on the property uh-
der her second marriage.
In reference to the interest or the broth-
ers in the property Edward Chase AYERS that
he negotiated the purchase of the property
from Charles and Erastus balleck OF Zen
yer with the view to set up his prother III
business. His brother Is said to nave Deeh
of pronigate habits and he desired 10 Lur
nish him u way of making living vi the
purchase money $1,000 was paid by Edward
Chase and notes signed by John and ED
ward Chase and secured on the property were
given for the remaining Sll,OOO Jonh Chas'
was to have the management OF the Dusi'
ness II all went we'll the notes were 10 be
paid out of the profits OF the hotei AM
when paid John Chase was to be entitieu u
one-half interest in the property ne
was to pay nothing to his brother fo1
the use of the property and in the end, i
John should be able to pay the llOOO IRON
the income, he would receive half interest
John GETS Into Difficulties.
On October 1s, 1885, when John conveyed
TO Edward his interest in the hotel, crlsl
had arisen in Johns affairs He was larger
in debt and his creditors threatened 10 COZ
iect their dues by process OF law 10 a'oi
closing the business 1t was necessary
transfer the hotel to Edward. The inten
ton to keep Johns interest from the credl
tors may have been in the minds OF Tn
parties when the transfer was maue, Jon
afterward told his wife that they hau INA
purpose in view. Edward says the deeu
October 10 was made in satisfaction OF TN
purchase money and because John Ma
failed to pay any part thereon. lne inIeL %
TO prefer Edward in respect TO the purcnas
money is not inconsistent with other II
tpntlOnS Ill lHS llllu Va wv o.
ever the fact may be as to the creditor
there is no reason to believe that Edwai
intended to deprive complainant ol az nv
homestead right and he was apparently uis
posed to treat her fairly at al! times.
homestead right arises only upon III
title in the claimant in equity as well as !
law. The circumstances disclosed III u
record do not show that Johh Cnase CIV
acouired an interest in the property in COZ
troversy The property was conveyed
him jointly with Edward, but he % did not p'
the vendors as he agreed to. The deed
Edward of October 10, 1885. was , maus
sntisfaction of the purchase money paid
the vendors by Edward and therefore 1t '"
valid and effectuaI without the signature
complainant. .,o h
The decree OF the court dismlsses 'ne
nav for the complainant gave notice OF
appeal from the decision OF Judge fiaiie'''