The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-06-20
THE JOHN 4. CLICK ESTATE.
An Important Decision Rendered by
Judge barnard

against Leon Tobriner and John II. F.
Click, executor of the estate of the late
Iohn H Click. In the original proceed
Ings the complainant asked that the de
PENDANTS be enjoined from prosecuting a
certain suit to recover the value OF two
pronissory notes given by White to John
Il Click during his life time. as part of
deferred payments on the sale Of real es-
tate
The matter came up for hearing on
demurrer to the complaint by the defend
ants. After hearing argument Justice
Barnard overruled the demurrer
It is explained in the opinion that John
H Click was the owner of u tract of
ground on Brightwood Avenue, which he
offered for sale, and agreed TO sell for
$4,000 G9e10 cash, and So, 900 deferred
payments to be secured by deed Of trusO.
The parties with whom this contract was
made, Robert E L White and Philip NJ
Snowden, were subsequently authorized
by Click to organize q syndicate to buy
said property on the terms stated. They
| organized the Hardwood PARK Land Syn
dicate,' which made the cash payment Of
5000
There was some difference of opinion as
to the method in which the property was
to be conveyed. for the benefit of the
members Of the syndicate and as to who
should sign the notes for the deferred
payments, and execute the trust to Sc
cure them.
At the request of John II. Click. Snow
den and White, the complainant consented
to receive the title to said real estate
from Click and to give his notes for the
deferred payments and deed of trust to
Leon Tobriner ana Charles w Click, trus-
tees, and at the same time. January J.
1883, to execute a deed in fee, subject 10
| the trust. to Henke and White. as trus-
| tees, for the syndicate. he acting in the
| premises without any consideration what
ever, and as q mere conduit of title, for
the accommodation of Click and the syn
dicate- 1t is also said that John H Click
agreed at the time of the execution Of the
notes that he would not look TO the com
plainant for payment of them, but to the
syndicate, to whose trustees George W.
White conveyed the title
Click died October Il. 1895 and defend
ants are the executors Of his Will
The court further says:
About April y, 1897. Tobriner and
Charles W Click pretended 10 sell the
property under the deed Of trust made by
| this complainant, to one Solomon Sugen-
hsimeT, for 81, 900 gross or SIS, 64l19 after
paying expenses Aftervard Sugenhei-ne-.
/ for a nominal consideration conveyed the
! property TO the defendants, in trust for
/ the estate of John H Click, and defend
/ ants stated in an answer fled by them in
! the office OF the Register OF Wills, TO
| rule TO show cause why they failed to file
/ their accounts as such executors, that
! they had been unable to sell the said real
/ estate and, therefore, unable TO realize
on the notes.
John H Click had received from the
/ syndicate during his lifetime about IS, 500
! on account of the sale, and that his es'-
tate now has the title to ali the land
! sold and that it would be inequitabie
| under the circumstances to allow the de-
PENDANTS to retain title. and at the same
time to obtain judgment or the notes
/ against the complainant"
1t is also alleged that John H. Click
/ never demanded payment Of the notes, OF
! the interest thereon from George w.
| White but only looked 10 the syndicate
| to pay the notes and interest. He had
! no dealings whatever with complainant
| but dealt with the syndicate in regard
| TO the notes, and made contracts for ex-
tension Of time with the syndicate as to
/ some of them. George ". White asked
| for decree to have the notes sued on.
| Cancelled, and delivered up to him, and
the suit at law perpetuaIy enjoined-"
| a temporary injunction was granted.
| which was afterward modified so as TO
permit the suit at law to proceed TO
judgment, and judgment was entered
In disposing of the matter Justice Barn
ard said:
! DO the facts stated make a case
wherein a court Of equity can grant the
! relief prayed?
And if SO, are there any facts and cir
|
| the defendants. in equity and good con-
science, from enforcing their judgment
/ against the complainant?
Assuming the facts stated to be true,
why should the defendants. representing
the estate Of John H Click, hold the
complainant personally responsible on
said notes which We're given by him with
out consideration IN fact, but only as q
| convenience and accoIn..-~------. = lie
said Click and the actual purchasers Of
| said ground?
| is there any reason, save the rule Of
law, that parole evidence shall not be adj
mitted to vary or contradict d written
contract?
| Is il not always within the power Of a
court of equity to enquire into the real
/ consideration Of d written contract, and
the circumstances surrounding its execu-
ton and the construction put upon II by
the parties to It. and their acts and say
Ings and conduct relating to it. suisse
fQuently 10 its execution And il in max
ing such enquiry it should appear that
the conduct Of the party seeking go en-
force such contract had been SUCH IS TO
estCp him, or make il iuequitable Ger him
tC have the benefit Of his legal contract,
/ what is there TO stay the chancellor in
passing a decree to permaut ItIy eujOin
the enforcement Of such contract
If the notes signed by the complainant
had been negotiated by the payee. before
( their maturity, and were in fact hCll. by
the innocent party when the land vas
3 sold, and judgment obtained against ne
could have no standing IN Il court OF
equity, because as to such bona Gde hold
er he could not set UP the equities as DC.
tween himself and the original payCe
but in this case the controversy IS in cf-
feet between the original parties. and il
there was any mistake Of omission il
failing 70 put into the writing the whole
terms Of the contract as understood anC
acted upon by both parties. and by thai
omission ole party has gained an ad
vantage over the other which il would b.
! of equity can by injunction restrain hin
without violating any rule Of evidence o.
raising any question as 10 the validity 81
:fe judgment at law
''In the present case If John II. Click
could be allowed TO enforce a judgment
against the complainant on said notes. q:
if the complainant had been the actua
purchaser Of the property. or had beer
paid, or il some way had received ii SOo<
and valuable consideration for the ust
OF his name in the transaction 1t woulc
IL aF.vraHg4 Ffarar j