The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-25

:
Purchase Now-Text Of Message
The mayor has vetoed the councils
measure to consummate the purchase OF
woodland park at the meeting last night
returning without his approval the or
dinance providing for the acceptance OF q
deed from Mrs. Phinney as an individual
and executrix { the estate of Guy G
Phinney, payi $1,000 ON the contract
and directing the mayor and comptroller
to execute a mortgage of $4,000 for the
balance Of the purchase price.
The veto message was laid before the
council last night, and was received With
out comment, President Rinehart ordered
that 1t lie over under the rules, ana be
published in the city official paper for fve
isecutive days. after which action car
he taken upon it, 1t will probably come
IN for consideration next Monday night
The mayors objections to the passage OF
this ordinance are that under the law the
minor heirs have ninety days to appeal
from the decision of the superior court
legalizing 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
5000 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-Gentlemen: l
return herewith council bill No. loo,
entitled. IAN ordinance accepting ~
deed from Nellie Phinney, individual
IL. and Nellie Phinney. as executrix \
81 the estate OF Guy {. Phinney. de-
ceased. to Woodland park and certain
other real estate In section z, township
d north, range 4 east. west meridian.
and directing the payment OF the sum
III OF 5000 on the purchase price OF said
* property, and directing the mayor and
comptroller to execute q mortgage for
the balance of the unpaid purchase
price, as provided in ordinance No
s 5,62G. without my approval.
Briefly stated, this ordinance by It's
terms Is intended to consummate the
deal between the city and Nellie Phin-
ney, individually, and Nellie Phinney,
husband, as disclosed by the title. by
accepting a deed to woodland park
paying 5000 of the purchase price up
on 1t, and executing a mortgage for
$4,000. payable In ten years for the
balance
4 serious question has been raised
ney, under the viii of her late hus-
band. to convey to the city the title
OF the minor heirs in said real estate
press Of the city, has been presented
Item for the heirs to the superior
which court held that Mrs. Phinney
had such right or power. That no APP
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 a minor. Since this ordi-
nance was presented to me for ap-.
ton had been raised by the law de-
partment of the city as TO the right
Or power Of Mrs. Phinney to convey
the title of the minor heirs, / adj
dressed to the corporation counsel cer-
tain questions relating to the same,
which questions and answers are as
"Question 1a-Is there, in your judg-.
ment, any doubt regarding, the right
Of Mrs. Phinney, under the will Of
Woodland pArk TO the city, and would
you be willing to take title by deed
from her without an adjudication of 4
court of competent Jurisdiction of her
right to convey?
"Answer--I have expressed my doubt
on this question, and it was because :
was brought in the superior court by
the heirs to test Mrs. Phinney's power
under the will, and have also clearly
expressed myself to the effect that that
without such adjudication.
Question 2-Il you would not be
willing, to take title by conveyance
from Mrs. Phinney, except upon q
final decree of a court of competent
jurisdiction, would 1t be safe for the
city to take a deed from Mrs. Phin-
new until the expiration of the period
allowed by law to the minor children
70 appeal from the decree of the SUI
psrior court 81 81 King county to the SUI
"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 take 1t that in the opinion
OF the corporation counsel the right
or power of Mrs. Phinney to convey is
In doubt; that the title viii not be per-
feet, under decision of superior court,
at 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.
1t is the duty of any officer acting on
behalf of the city, before accepting a
conveyance of property to the city, to
submit such title to the corporation
counsel for his, opinion, even though
the value of the same be small. If
n the value of the property TO be con-
yeyed and paid for is large, as in this
case much more is 1t the duty of the
omcers OF the city to submit the mat
TER TO the corporation counsel for his
legal opinion as to the title to be con
Neyed. II you or | were making such
purchase on our own account. or as the
agent or representative of an indi-
Eidnal, 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 tight of the party
70 convey was in doubt it is not likely
that we would accept such deed until
stch doubt was removed and in the
opinion of cur counsel that title was
made perfect before we would con-
summatc the deal. 1t is our duty, In
acting as the agents and representa-
yves of the city. to exercise that de-
sree of caution that we would exer-
else II doing business for ourselves, or
as the agent or representative of an
individual
no one can say that these heirs will
NOT ANIMAL from no annir oil a. In