Evening journal., 1915-11-13
KILLEA PROPERTY
transfer IS upheld
Chancellor Holds That Deed
Was Not Obtained
Through Fraud
LITIGATION OVER
FELTON, LANDS

Chancellor Charles NJ. Curtis today
entered a decree in the case OF John
w. Killen and Mary Evelyn Killen
against William b. Purdy and Francis
A. Purdy, pending in the Court of
Chancery in Kent county. On March
1. 1913, John W. Killen leased TO Will
liam b. Purdy all of the water rights
and the exclusive right TO fish in a
pond located on the farm of killen,
near FELTON,, and at the same time
Purdy leased to Killen all the water
required to run a mill owned by Kill
len. On March S. 1913, by another
writing. Killen agreed to sell, and
Purdy TO buy, about forty acres of
land along the edge Of the pond for
Sl.4OO, of which S25 was payable on
the signing of the agreement and the
balance within sixty days thereafter.
On May Is. 1913, the mill dam was
swept away and the pond nearly
emptied of water Purdy agreed to
rebuild the dam of concrete. provided
Killen would pay a portiont Of the
cost thereof, not exceeding $l,2OO
from the purchase money OF the land
sold 10 Purdy. Il was alleged that
on July u, 1913. Purdy produced
such an agreement and it was signed
by Killen and his wife, and several
days thereafter James E. Melvin, a
notary public. produced to Killen and
his wife a folded paper disclosing TO
them only their signatures TO some
instrument, and they thereupon ac-
knowledged the signatures TO be their
own. without looking at the rest Of
the paper.
About October 26. 1913. the Killens
learned that a deed dated August II,
1913. and purporting to have been ac-
knowledged by them, was on record,
whereby a tract OF land containing
twenty acres. with the mill, mill dam
and other property. had been con-
veyed to William Z. Purdy and
Francis A. Purdy for ST. The COM
plainants denied that H. was their
deed, and that they had ever made
one to the defendants. and that the
deed was a scheme TO deceive and de-
fraud them, and was a cloud on their
title.
In their answer, William B. Purdy
and Francis A. Purdy. the defendants
set up a. deed dated July u. 1913 be-
tween the complainants and defend
ants, whereby the twenty acres and
/ the mill. etc. were conveyed TO the
defendants. subject to two mortgages
/ of 50 600 each. There was also showI
/ an agreement in writing, dated Jul.
u, 1913, signed by the complainant
and defendants. whereby, after recit
} inc he 1nf NJ
to the defendants on the same da
of the twenty acres Of land. mill, etc
and reciting that the defendants ha
agreed to repair the mill dam With
six months, and in default thereof {
lreconvey the premises TO the com
plainants. the complainants agreein
TO pay the taxes, interest on the mort
cages and all the costs of the repair
10 the dam. etc. within q certain pc
riod and in certain installments. l
was also agreed that If the defendant,
should expend 1880 on the dam. the
would pay $500 on account thereof
and in any event pay $500 if thu
amount expended exceeded S1700. /
was further claimed by the defendant
that after they had expended upward.
of $4,000 on the dam Il broke an,
washed out. and that the complainant
contributed TO the disaster by know
ingly permitting too large a head O
water to accumulate in the pond. 1hi
defendants also declared a willingness
to carry out the agreements. includin,
a reconveyance of the property il
compliance Herewith, and deniel
fraud or undue advantage.
The complainants denied making IN
agreement contained in the write
papers produced by the defendants. an
stated that if their genuine signature
appear TO such an agreement as tina
produced by the defendants. that sheet
of papers had been fraudulentlv inserte
in the agreement with different provi,
ions, and when they signed the paper
laid before them they thought the
were signing papers containing 9th,
provisions not in them. They also d,
MED signing the deed, and said that
their genuine signatures appeared ther,
to. they thought they were signing nc
deed, but duplicate copy of an agre,
ment.
The defendants further deniel the il
sertion of different sheets in the cor
tract. and stated that both of the cor
tracts produced by them are in exactl
the same condition as when signed an
delivered TO the defendants.
The bill sought cancellation of til
deed and a perpetual injunction to r,
strain the enforcement of the contract
John II. Nicholson and Alexander n
DAILY appeared for the complainant
and Robert II. Richards and W. Watso
Harrington appeared for the defendant
The testimony taken before an exam
iner was voluminous, contradictory an
conflicting. and after reviewing at lengt
the testimony and facts in the case, n
Chancellor decided that the relief souel
by the bill should denied and the bi
dismissed.
]