Evening star., 1901-04-08
ENTITLED TO THE HOUSE
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDs CLAIM OF
e. II. HAY.

The Supreme Court Of the United States
today affirmed the decision Of the Court OF
Appeals of the District of Columbia in the
case of Anna Y. Whitney. appellant, against
Edwin B. Hay. This was brought to OBJ
tain a decree declaring that the defendant
Whitney held in trust for the plaintiff Hay
the title to certain property on Corcoran
st ~eet, in this city.
By Il final decree in the Supreme Court of
the District the relief asked for was given.
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals Of the
District the decree Of the Supreme Court
was affirmed. The principal facts upon
which the plaintiff relied in support Of his
suit. detailed in the decision rendered
To-Day. follow:
The Piper-Hay Agreement.
Circumstances brought Piper and Hay
into each others society while the latter
was in the west, with the result that Dr.
and Mrs. Piper conceived and expressed
the warmest affection for Mr.. and Mrs
Hay, and in many ways indicated that
they wished Mr.. Hay and his wife to stand
in the relation to them of son and daugh-
ter. In 1886 Hay secured a letter written
by Mrs. Piper, stating that she and DIR.
Piper had made a will leaving their prop
erty to him. Various letters were received
by Mr. and Mrs Hay from DR. and Mrs
Piper referring to them as their children.
In 1887 DR.. and Mrs. Piper came to this
city and made their home with Mr.. and
Mrs. Hay, Mr.. Hay testifying that this ar
rangement was conditioned on Mr. Piper
building home in which they should live,
which with all their other property, they
were to leave to Mr.. and Mrs. Hay at their
death
While with them they had never Maid
any board. At first they lived in Mr.. HAYS
house, which was remodeled in some re.
spects for their use. In 1855 the new
house, 1912 Corcoran street, was built, Mr.
Hay paying for certain fixtures and for ad-
ditional furniture needed. In It's decision
the court, speaking of the agreement be-
tween Piper and Hay, said In part:
The Courts Decision.
There can be no reasonable doubt as to
its subject matter or it's terms. There was
no element of fraud or Misrepresentation
on the part Of Hay. The terms of the
agreement between him and Piper were
clear and definite; it's provisions fair, just
and reasonable: the consideration mutual
and entirely adequate What Hay asks is
not in any sense harsh or inequitable.
That which he undertook to do in exc
cution of it's provisions was done by him
promptly and in such way as to give no
cause for complaint or objection by Piper
'".' But he failed to do that which was
vital to Hay, namely, to put the absolute
title to the property in him Under all the
circumstances, the failure Of Piper to in
vest Hay with the legal title and the con-
veyance to the defendant was a fraud upon
Hay, who asks such protection as will be
given by decree specifically declaring
that the defendant holds the title to this
property in trust for him. We are of opin-
ion that under the established principles of
equity, the relief asked may be
given.
1.-The alleged agreement being one which
court of equity, would specifically enforce
If it had been in writinge and it having
been partly performed by tHayain reliance
upon performance by Piper. and Hay being
ready and willing to do what under the
agreement, remained to be done by him
during the lives of DIR. and Mrs. Piper.
he was entitled to the decree rendered In
his favor, and it is affirmed"