Hatch v. Ferguson

57 F. 972, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2841
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington
DecidedOctober 6, 1893
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F. 972 (Hatch v. Ferguson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 F. 972, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2841 (circtdwa 1893).

Opinion

HANFORD, District Judge.

A general statement of the case, sufficient for the purpose of this decision, is contained in my opinion in the case of Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. Rep. .959. The complainant herein is the daughter of Josephine Hatch. In her complaint she charges that a deed to the defendant Hewitt of her interest in the lands referred to in said opinion was signed by her at the request of the defendant Ferguson, who at the time falsely and fraudulently represented the same to be merely a paper to show that she Was of age, and not under his guardianship, and that, believing said instrument to be such a paper as he represented, she signed it without intending to convey her interest in said land. The testimony proves conclusively that she knowingly received and used the money paid as consideration for said deed, without making any protest against the sale, and the case might be disposed of in accordance with my opinion in her mother’s case. There is, however, additional ground for pronouncing against this complainant. She is able to speak, and understand the English language; and the rule in the case of Jackson v. Tatebo, (Wash.) 28 Pac. Rep. 916, therefore, does not apply in this case; and, even were the onus pfobandi upon the defendants, the suit, in my opinion, must be a failure, for the reason that by a decided preponderance of the evidence it is shown that the complainant was not [973]*973deceived, as she alleges, hut, on the contrary, the deed was executed by her freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.

Let a decree he entered dismissing the suit, with costs to the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Tatebo
28 P. 916 (Washington Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F. 972, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-ferguson-circtdwa-1893.