The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-09
'hlY SELL WOODLAND PARK.
court i5oids That "Lsst Nesessity"
Clnuss was Advssory, Rather
rA&n An Associate IAmitatio.--
would Not sacrifce Entire Estate

Mrs.. Nellie Phinney has legal right
"a eejt woodland park to the city OF Sc
attic, Judge William Hickman Moore
decided this question yesterday AFTERNOON
N connection with proceedings COM
menced last week to get an Interpretation
-Uf the clause In the late Guy G. Phin-
ney's will, which said that Mrs. Phinney
could sell any and all real estate, reserv-
ang to the last necessity" Woodland
ssif the court had control of this estate
under the WILL said Judge Moore. Il
certainly would grant petition for the
sale OF Woodland park, believing that It
would be for the best interests OF the
6strs. 1 do not believe that Mr.. Phinney
intended that his widow should sacrifce
che entire estate to save Woodland park.
look upon the provision ~ advisory
gather than an absolute limitation"
The matter was brought before the
court on q demurrer to the affirmative
defense Of Mrs. Phinney In the answer
BY John II. Powell. as guardian OF Mrs.
Phinney's children, seeking to. prevent
the sale
wording Of the WIN.
It was claimed In the complaint that
under the terms Of the will Mrs. Phin-
ney had no right to sell the property to
tho city, because the last necessity"
the Gaze Mr.. Powell took the position
that, while there was no Question as to
thb correctness OF the indebtedness OF
the .eBtate as given by Mrs. Phinney, the
fact remained that there was other prop
srty. than Woodland park which could
The peculiar wording of the WIN made
n incumbent on Mrs. Phinney to reserve
the park until other parcels Of land had
been disposed OF. He then enumerated
some Of the income real estate. which
BE NH over as s
In showing that there was necessity
for the sale John P. Howe, Mrs. Phin-
t s ay sss estate e the wa soqrs ss
the use OF her own money she saved It,
sna sssss9y ssaon &c ass the
debtednees there are back taxes amount
t :, ,1 f $50 and fioatins indebtedness
The net income each year from the
Carlton block, Is q 100, but the property
e subject to 9 $1,000 mortgage. The net
PROM Fourth avenue property there Is
small monthly income. 1t was shown that
the the MT e. income OF the estate was less
sale an Advantage.
woodland park is among the unproduc-
tive parcels Of real estate, Mrs. Phinney
expanding sac annually to keep 1t up.
There are large number Of lots, which,
Il they could be sold, would bring about
MI. Howe said that Mr.. Phinney UNI
doqbtedly intended to pay. his Just debts
and meant to give his widow discretion
as to when the necessity appeared for
srsusa e carry out s 81 e
the Will, that the productive property be
4 preserved, for, IL the productive property
q passed out of the control of the estate
then the remainder would have to be sac
/ rfhced. 1t was necessary for the sup
port and education of the children that
the income be increased and there was
no way to do It but by selling the UNI
productive property.
Woodland park was the only asset OF
this description which could be sold.
Mrs. Phinney had reserved the park up
TO the present. time by expending her
own funds and IL she could not sell 1t
now the final result would be that the
estate would lose 1t altogether.
IT do not think" said Judge Moore
that Mr.. Phinney intended to dispose OF
all the rest of his property without care
as to the result, but that he meant Mrs
Phinney should not sell 1t until, in her
estimation, II became necessary in order
to preserve the estate. Mr.. Phinney
would not have sacrificed his entire esq
tate to save Woodland park hold the
provision In the will advisory rather than
an absolute Limitation"
Judge Moore gave Mr.. Powell an oppor-
tunity to appeal, but he says he will not
take advantage Of It.