A Missing Section 25: How a Clerk's Slip Could Cost the Collins Heirs $500,000
Grandchildren of John Collins's first wife want a one-sixth share of the Seattle hotel property. The whole case turns on whether a territorial statute took effect on December 2, 1869 — or 42 days too late.
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.
SEATTLE, Nov. 21. — The claim of the heirs of John Collins's first wife to an interest in the Seattle hotel property may hinge upon the date when the community property statute went into effect. The claimants are descendants of the children of Mr. Collins and his first wife, and they seek to recover an interest in the big hotel property under the statute which makes all property purchased during wedlock the joint property of husband and wife.
The ground now occupied by the Seattle hotel was purchased by Mr. Collins December 20, 1869. The community property statute was enacted by the legislature of the territory of Washington December 2, 1869.
In the session laws of the territory compiled by Frank Pierce in 1895, which is in general use, this law concludes with section 25, which provides that it shall go into effect upon its passage. Without that clause it would not have gone into effect for 60 days.
But the Law is Different.
In the hearing of the case yesterday before Judge Joiner in the superior court, William Martin, attorney for the Collins estate, sprung a surprise upon the attorneys for the claimants by offering a certified copy of the law from the office of the secretary of state, which omits section 25. If that record is correct, the law did not go into effect until 42 days after the property in question was purchased by Mr. Collins, and the heirs of Mrs. Collins could not claim under it.
The compilation of the session laws by Mr. Pierce contains upon its title page the statement that it is "compiled from the original rolls."
May Be in Error.
In making a transcript for the secretary of state's office a clerk may have inadvertently omitted section 25. To determine whether the law as passed really contained section 25, which would have put it in effect immediately, will be the object of an immediate and exhaustive research.
Several heirs figure as plaintiffs in the case, all grandchildren of the first Mrs. Collins. They are represented by John W. Roberts, John H. Powell and Harold Preston, and a determined battle is in progress. They claim altogether a one-sixth interest in property valued at $500,000.
“In making a transcript for the secretary of state's office a clerk may have inadvertently omitted section 25.”
Washington is still a community property state, and the rule that property acquired during a marriage belongs to both spouses still decides divorces and estates today. But the 1903 fight is startlingly modern in a different way: it asks whether an official transcription or the original roll is the authoritative text. Then as now, one omitted line can be worth half a million dollars.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.