Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-07-01
RUMNEY HEIRS WIN
RIGHT To SUE FOR
LOSS Of PROPERTY
Case Against Skinner for $685..
600 Must Stand Trial,
Courts Ruling.
(Tribune's Helena Bureau.)

~ - SAD
Helena, June 3O.-The case of Sarah
F. Rumney and other heirs of the late
Benjamin Rumney, who died in Gas
cade county. April IA, 1914, against
H. J. Skinner, a banker of Cascade
county, for damages of $65,OOO in con
nection with a transfer of the lands
and other property of the Rumney es-
tate. must go to trial, under a decision
of the Montana supreme court, handed
down Friday, in which the district
court of Cascade county. Judge H. Fl.
Ewing, is reversed. The opinion was
delivered by Associate Justice C. H..
Cooper.
This was an action to recover dam
ages for alleged fraud and deceit. The
allegations of the complainant were
that Benjamin Rumney, husband of
Sarah H. Rumney, and father of the
other five plaintiffs. died t~estate, the
owner of the ranch which is the sub
ject of this action. At the time of
Mr.. Rumney's death a mortgage stood
against the property in the sum of
$4,000. Mrs. Rumney qualified as
executor and remained in charge of the
property until November Is, 1916.
Religion Played Part
1t was charged that in October, 1915,
Mrs. Rumney and the defendant.
Skinner. were both believers and ardent
followers Of Christian Science, and
that by reason of this belief and of
the high standing in the church and
in the business world Of the defendant,
and Of Mrs. Rumney's lack of business
knowledge and experience, the defend
Il with intent to cheat, defraud, de-
>:uo - -:z1~~l 11t;eSc; -.4~oc1l
to loan them $4,000 with which to
ment that they should sell one-half of
the property and apply the proceeds
upon the mortgage and to divide with
him equally the profits from the sale
of the one-half and the profits of the
operation of the remaining half of the
property. 1t was further provided
that, to facilitate the deal. the heirs
should sign over to one of their mum
Der, John r. Rumney, and that Skin
ner would organize a corporation and
divide the stock among them.
1t was alleged that they all, with
the exception of Benjamin NJ. Rumney,
signed what purported to be an assign
ment of their interests. but which, they
allege, they found was really a deed
conveying all the ranch and personal
property to the Rumney Ranch COM
pany, a fact which was not discovered
by them until June %, 1920. They
further charge that the design of Skin
ner was to defraud the plaintiffs of the
ranch and personal property and that
the defendant 'either forged or pro-
cured the forgery Of the acknowledge
ment'' to the deed. 1t was further
charged that the defendant has since
conveyed a portion of the property to
his wife. has evicted the plaintiffs from
their old home and in his own name
contracted to sell the remaining por-
ton to individuals composing a Nor
mon colony.
Demurrer Upheld
To this complaint a demurrer was
filed. upon the grounds that it did not
state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action and that plaintiffs did
not have the legal capacity to sue be-
cause it fails to charge that the estate
was closed and the property distrib-
uted so as to entitle the plaintiffs to
seek redress in their own names and
of their own right. The lower court
sustained the demurrer and judgment
was rendered for the defendant, where
upon the plaintiff appealed to the su-
preme court.
The decision Of the supreme court
holds there is no merit to the conten-
ton of the defense that an action
cannot be maintained by the devisees
until after a distribution is decreed in
the due course of law.
As to the demurrer regarding the
sufficiency of the complaint to charge
fraud. the decision reads:
Without indulging in a minute anal
ysis of its averments. the complaint
raises substantial issues upon the facts
it essays to plead, and they are of
substance enough to call Upon the de-
PENDANT to clear the transaction of the
faint of fraud and deceit it imputes to
him. Judgment reversed"