The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-23

kUkCn9UG NV"-AGAe 70 HASe~~s
ii RE mayor has vetoed the councils
nsisure to consummate the purchase OF
] woodland park at the meeting last night
! veturning without his approval the or
!. Ainance providing for the acceptance OF q
I deed from Mrs. Phinney as an individual
and executrix of the estate of Guy G,
Phinney, paying 5000 on the contract
/ snd directing the mayor and comptroller
e execute a mortgage of $4,000 for the
ha,snce Of the purchase price.
The veto message was laid before the
council last night. and was received with
. mt comment. President Rinehart ordered
I that II lie over under the rules. and be
rubiiehed in the city official paper for five
consecutive days, after which action can
IS taken upon 1t. 1t win probably come
10 for consideration next Monday night
The mayors objections to the passage OF
the ordinance are that under the law the
minor heirs have ninety days to appeal
nom the decision of the superior court
lagalixing the sale Of the property to the
city. and that there Is a possibility OF this
appeal being taken. in which event the
city could scarcely hope to recover the
300 paid on contract. The mayors veto
message in full Is given as follows:
Seattle, Jan. 10, 1900
To the Honorable the City Council
Of the City of Seattle-G Gentlemen:
return herewith council bill No. 1910,
entitled, AN ordinance accepting q
Geo sn ION NeIIi e Phinney yey as executrix
81 the estate Of Guy 9. Phinney. de-
\ ceased, to Woodland park and certain
other real estate In section z, township
8 north. range east, west meridian.
and directing the payment of the sum
81 5000 on the purchase price OF said
property, and directing the mayor and
comptroller to execute q mortgage Tor
the balance of the unpaid purchase
price, as provided in ordinance No.
kS2s" without my approval.
Briefly stated, this ordinance by its
Z deal between the city and Nellie Phin-
ney, individually. and Nellie Phinney.
as executrix Of the estate of her late
husband, as disclosed by the title. by
paying 5000 Of the purchase price up
on II, and executing mortgage for
$4,000, payable in ten years for the
A serious question has been raised
as to the right or power of Mrs. Phin-
ney. under the will Of her late hus-
band, to convey to the city the title
Of the minor heirs in said real estate.
This question, 1 see by the public
press OF the city, has been presented
by Mrs. Phinney and a guardian ad
a sT for the The n canty to ns s ssRsr9r
which court held that Mrs. Phinney
had such right or power. That no ap-
peal has been yet taken from such
decision.
Time Given to Appeal.
A party feeling himself aggrieved
by the decision of the superior court
has ninety days In which to appeal to
the supreme court. This right is
given him by law. and no guardian
has power to waive this right when
representing minor. Since this ordi-
nance was presented to me for ap-
PEova gn Ssss that ,h such cues ss
partment of the city as to the right
or power of Mrs. Phinney to convey
the title of the minor heirs. l adj
tain questions relating to the same.
which questions and answers are as
follows:
ment, any doubt regarding. the right
Of Mrs. Phinney. under the will Of
Guy c. Phinney. deceased, to convey
Woodland park to the city. and would
you be, willing to take title by deed
from her without an adjudication of a
court of competent jurisdiction Of her
right to convey?"
"Answer-I have expressed my doubt
on this. question. and It was because
Of my having done SO that the action
was brought in the superior court by
the heirs to test Mrs. Phinney's power
under the will. and l have also clearly
expressed myself to the effect that
she could not convey a perfect title
without such adjudication"
Question 2-II you would not be
from Mrs. Phinney. except upon q
fnal decree of court of competent
jurisdiction, would 1t be safe for the
city to take deed from Mrs. Phin-
ney until the expiration of the period
allowed by law to the minor children
to appeal from the decree of the SUI
perior court Of King county to the SUI
preme court ?"
"Answer--I have expressed myself to
the effect that the title will not be
perfect until the time for appeal to
the supreme court has expired
From the foregoing questions and
answers l take it that in the opinion
OF the corporation counsel the right
or power of Mrs. Phinney to convey is
IN doubt: that the title. will not be per-
fect, under decision of superior court,
az least, until the time for appeal has
expired.
The Corporation Counsel.
The corporation counsel is the law
officer and legal adviser In all matters
pertaining to the welfare of the city.
II Is the duty of any officer acting on
behalf of the city, before accepting a
conveyance of property to the city, to
counsel for his opinion, even though
tne value Of the same be small. IT
the value of the property to be con-
veyed and paid for Is large, as In this
case much more is it the duty of the
onicers Of the city to submit the mat
Yer to the corpora tion counsel for his
legal opinion as to the title to be con-
veyed. Ii you or were making such
purchase on our own account. or as the
agent or representative of an indi-
vioual. We certainly would submit an
ABSTRACT of the title to the property to
pc conveyed to our lawyer. If our
lawyer should inform us that the title
was In doubt, or the right of the party
20 convey was in doubt, II is not likely
tnat We would accept such deed until
sucn doubt was removed. and in the
opinion of our counsel that title was
made perfect before we would con-
summate the deal. 1t Is our duty, in
acting as the agents and representa-
/, ives OF the city, to exercise that de-
eree or caution that we would exer-
cise u doing business for ourselves, or
rs tne agent or representative of an
NO one can say that these heirs will