The Washington times., 1904-07-14
History CT the Property.


History CT the Property.
The circumstances under which the
property passed TO the defendants, as
stated by Justice Gould in reviewing the
matter in his decision, are:
According 70 the win Of William
MOcabee. Emma +. RudderfOrth the
mother of the compliments, was given
life estate in the property, with a re-
maindcr in fee TO her legal heirs. She
years.
In May. 1898. she was approached by
John G. Slater, who said he had puT-
chased the property At a tax SALE and
that she would have TO vacate. The
amount OF overdue taxes, IL was claimed,
was about SSo1 1t is further stated that
Si-'ter offered her 500 for her interest
Relying on slater's representation.
Mrs. Rudderforth accepted the PROPOSE
ton. When she went TO Slatcr's Office
10 sign the deed, ii was cOntended. he
required her TO bring her four children.
the compliments, with her, to join her
in making the conveyance. It is also
said that NJ the time the deed was
minors.
Deed Not Read.
II is also said they did not read the
deed nor was it read to them. Bv rea-
son of the representation made them by
Slater they say they were induced 20
part with the property.
The defendants filed a joint answer to
complaint, in which Justice Gould, I'm
his review says. that John G. Slater.
as his wife's agent. called upon Mrs
Rudderforth 20 purchase the property in
controversy. u is denied that any false
representation were made 90 Mrs. RCd-
derIorth and that she accepted the offer
of 500 for Interest of herself and chill
dren in the property.
1t was also conteuded by the defend
ants that each of the complainants UNI
derstood they We're selling their in
terests in the property.
At the hearing, Daisy 3. Palmer,
complainant. said she was present at
the interview between Slater and her
mother and that he told her the prop
erty was eaten up with taxes, and un-
less she took the 500 he offered. the
house would be taken from her. She
also said that neither she nor the other
children knew they had an interest in
the property.
She further said that her sister. Mrs.
Mullen, asked Slater TO let her see the
paper, anE he answered that their sign
ing was q mere formal matter Three
other compliments cOrrObOrated This
last statement.
Saw Deed Signed.
Mr. Slater's son. present when the
deed was signed, says it was read 70
the cOmplainants. He however. says he
did not hear his father tell what in
interest the compliments had in the
property. Slater. in his testimony said.
Il told Mrs Rudderforth had
bought il in for taxes and there was
twenty years taxes on IL.
In speaking Of the signing Of the deed,
he said:
Il read them the deed and told them
the contents of the deed and told them
Of their heirship, and they stated they
knew II. / asked them If they We're will
ing Tor the transaction, and they said
they We're. They wanted their mother
10 get the money"
IN summing up the case Justice Gould
said:
The defendant. Slater. a man expert
enced in dealing in tax titles and secur-
ing cancellation OF back taxes, asceT-
taiHed that the property In question was
subject 10 taxes from 1850 TO 1896 In
the latter year he bought K for the
taxes or the previous year. For this
purchase he paid between 50 and SO
Next. Slater learned that a grocer
named Skidmore had a Judgment of $50
against Mrs. RudderfOrth' 3 lie estate
IN the property. This ne purchased
several weeks before visiting her. Thus
equipped he visits Mrs. Rudderforth,
widow, illiteratc fshe signed the deed by
making her mark with five children,
three Of whom were infants, and in
needy circumstance.
A Question of Veracity.
Just what transpired at that inter
view may admit OF debate Mrs. Rud-
derforths daughter says Slater told her
the property was eaten up with taxes.
that Skidmore was pushing 70 collect
his judgment. and that unless she took
the $50 the house would be taken from
her Slater says he told Mrs Rudder-
forth that he had bought the property
for taxes and that there We're twenty
years taxes due on it,
He said he did not know then what
the back taxes amounted 70. II he did
not know the amount OF such back
taxes. II is reasOna BILE 10 presume that
he represented 20 Mrs RudderfOrth that
such taxes together with the SkidmOre
judgment and 500 represented the full
value OF the property, which was pal
pably untrue, as the back taxes did not
exceed $40 and the property. according
10 the weight Of the testimony was
worth at least s. 900.
1t does not appear that he had any
negotiations with the plaintiffs as 20
the price at which they would sell. In
deed, the only testimony that they knew
they had any Interest In the property Is
Skaters statement that al the time the
their heirship and In this he IS not
supported by his son. who was pres
ent, and IS fatty cOntradicted by four
OF the complainants.
No Money Paid Complainants.
There IS no dispute that no one Of
the complainants received cent Of
the consideration or that any agree
nnent was made whereby they or any
Of them We're 70 get any part Of il. In
fact three Of them were incapable in
law Of making q valid deed or contract
or Of authorizing one TO be made for
them
Should d court Of equity" Justice
Gould asks. put its seal OF approval
on a deed obtained under such clrcum-
stances"
After discussing the law governing
the case, Justice Gould said:
For the reasons given ] will sign a
decree setting aside the deeds and vest
ing the title In these plainuGs. Inas-
much as the cOmplainants tender IN
their bill willingness 20 repay the
amount which Slater paid for the prop
erty ! will make that a condition Of
their relief. and the case IS referred 10
the Auditor 70 state an account between
the parties.
The compliments were represented by
Greed NJ Fulton and W. Walton Ed