The Divorce of a Capitalist
A bitter court battle over community property in 1893 Seattle reveals the fragility of marital assets and the legal weight of the 'community property' distinction.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The divorce case of Mary Steele against David H. Steele, the capitalist and mining man, was tried by Judge Humes. A decree of divorce was granted to the plaintiff in spite of her sensational story on the witness stand as to the treatment she had received at her husband's hands. The real estate owned by the couple, valued at about $45,000 and unincumbered, was declared by Judge Humes to be community property, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs. Mrs. Steele, a determined woman, testified that they were married in 1865 in Canada and had lived happily for many years, but since moving to Seattle, her husband had lived in Montana. She claimed he tricked her into deeding him their $30,000 property by promising to use it as collateral for a $75,000 mining loan. Instead, she alleged, he returned to their home, threatened her with a pistol, and told tenants not to pay her rent. Mr. Steele denied the fraud, claiming his wife overvalued the property and that he was suspicious of her infidelity. Judge Humes ultimately refused to grant the wife sole ownership, ruling the land belonged to the community.
“He woke her up, cursed and swore at her, drew a pistol and threatened to shoot her and ended by declaring that he had her just where he wanted her since now he had all the land in his own name.”
This case highlights the long history of property disputes in Seattle, a city where skyrocketing real estate values continue to turn domestic separations into high-stakes financial wars. The struggle over 'community property' in 1893 still echoes in modern Washington State law, which maintains a community property regime that can feel similarly rigid for separating couples.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.