Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1916-06-24
ACCOUNT IS
ORDERED BY COURT
IN THE HUBBARD CASE
Judge Galloway Outlines
Facts and Orders All
Claims Itemized

The suit Of the Alliance Trust com.
pany, ct al, vs.. Fannie Z. Hubbard to
toreclose three mortgages, were up BE.
fore Judge Galloway again yesterday.
The history of the case is stated by him
as follows:
Beginning in May, 1912. the Alliance
Trust company loaned the defendant at
different times in all $4,000 taking as
security a mortgage upon all her real
property valued at $4,000. Later on
she sold her residence property for $30,.
900 of which amount she applied $l5,.
600 upon a mortgage note, of the trust
company, leaving a balance due of $70,-
900 to run five years,
Upon failure to meet the payment of
interest as it became due the trust com.
pany brings this suit to foreelose the
mortgage and asks in addition to the
usual costs of the suit $4,000 attorney 3
fees.
AS to the claim of the Alliance Trust
company there is no controversy other
than the item of excessive insurance
charges and attorneys fees.
In April, 1914, to meet interest and
taxes past due the deefndant borrow.
ed of the United States National bank
$4, ,775, hypOthecating a part of the rent.
al Of the Hubbard building to secure
the bank. There is now due on this
note about $1,000 and there is no con
trOversy between the defendant and the
United States National bank.
The Contract Changed.
W. NJ. and c. R. Welch, contractors
under the name of Welch Bros, in
May, 1912, entered into a flat contract
with the defendant to erect two story
building with basement for 500, 1926. Ii
September thereafter and before the
completion of the building under the
first contract supplemental contract
was entered into to erect two addition
al stories. The contractors to furnish
all materials at actual cost All labol
and material to be secured to the best
advantage of the defendant. The Welcl
Bros, under this last contract to re
ceive as their compensation eight PEI
cent of $4,000 which seems to have
been the estimated cost of the complet
ed building, and there is testimony Il
that effect. Welch Bros. allege set
tlement upon completion of the building
claiming there was due them So, ,l4S.6i
for which a mortgage was given upol
the Hubbard building and the defend
ant s farm of 302 acres near this city
ants farm of 202 acres near this city
terest payments elects to declare thu
whole amount due and bring suit Il
foreclose their mortgage, asking $75l
as attorneys fees with attendan
/ costs.
The defendant answering, alleges sh
was overcome and that there was n,
consideration given for this claim, ant
that through fraud and misrcpresenta
tion she was induced to sign this sec
ond mortgage.
The defendant now aske for an item
lied accounting that this claim may d
adjusted or cancelled as the evidenc
may justify.
No Itemized Statement.
The court regrets to state that up t
this stage of the proceedings there ha
not been a single itemized statemen
furnished, nor an attempt to enlighte
the court, other than general and of
repeated declaration that a settlemen
sometime and somewhere had been ent
cred into.
! In view Of the Importance of thi
case and the publicity It has attracte
and for the further fact based upo
the evidence so far given that Mr.,
! Hubbard has already paid out in thi
transaction over $4,000 for a $4,000
building, it is therefore the opinion O
the court that full and intelligen
accounting Of all material and labo
furnished should be made and it is s
ordered.
The third mortgage to Mr.. Bayne 70
$500, being the balance due for al
toney's fees charged the defendan
during the construction of the Hubbar
building, is being foreclosed upon a
| the property above described, with cost
aud $3.50 attorneys fees. The defend
ant in this case alleges that there ha
been no adequate services rendered an
asks for an itemized statement tina
this claim may be adjusted or cancelled
which the. court thinks reasonable an
should be furnished.
Must Itemize All Accounts.
The record shows that Nr. Bayne ha
been Mrs. Hubbard's attorney and az
wiser since early in 1908, receiving a
compensation, prior to the erection G
this building $40 per month, which a
the court understands was reglarl
paid. After commencing the erection q
| the. building in controversy Mrs Hui
bard paid her attorney by check $50
| for legal services, in all q charge q
$4,000 as attorneys fees In the con
= structiop Of one building.
The court is further Of the opinio
that it is a matter Of simple justice {
the Welch Bros. 10 clear up and explai
! what at present seems, 10 have been
shady transaction in Juggling with an
changing the contracts from o flat TO
commission basis after the building va
partly completed.
As to Mr. Bayne, an attorney Of Nh
city, and officer Of this court and VIII
has been attorney and counsellor Of III
defendant FOR many years, who wroi
/ all contracts, and practically all III
checks for the disbursement Of n
large sum expended in the construotio
Of this building by the defendant, an
for the further fact that he is now q
torney for the party who-is seeking
close out the last of this aged woman
worldly possessions, II is but simple iu
tiec that he, too should have the o.
portunity to make an itemized stat
mont OF serNleea renlare1. lhnI nnn