The Seattle Bond That Broke the Rules
A legal dispute over a $15,000 appeal bond reveals the messy, high-stakes nature of early Seattle commerce and the scrutiny of contract law.
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.
In the case of H.L. Yesler vs. Cyrus Walker, W.H. Renton, Jas. McNaught et al., which is a suit brought to recover $15,000 on the Colman appeal bond, the District Court on Monday rendered the following decision on defendant's demurrer and motion to strike from the complaint. The plaintiff, suing on an appeal bond, pleads the bond, setting it out according to its words and setting out its delivery fully executed to a custodian, with bare authority to deliver it only to the Clerk of the District Court. He then proceeds to narrate the fact of the addition of a marginal note by the custodian with the assent of only one of the sureties, and opposite the name of that surety, purporting to limit that surety’s liability. He further says that the marginal addition was made without the plaintiff or any other surety's privity or assent, and that the making of it after signing was unknown to the plaintiff until August 1, 1880. Defendant Colman further moves to strike out all that speaks of the marginal note. My impression is that the matter is redundant. If the marginal note under the circumstances operated to reduce Walker’s liability, the bond against his co-sureties was avoided by the addition. If it did not, then it added nothing to the bond and varied nothing from it, and is as irrelevant as if made on another piece of paper. I think that under the circumstances pleaded, it ought not to be held to have affected the relations of the obligors among themselves, and accordingly hold that it did not. All the complaint that treats of it will therefore be stricken out.
“If the marginal note under the circumstances operated to reduce Walker’s liability, the bond against his co-sureties was avoided by the addition.”
This 1880 legal spat over contract nuances and liability limits echoes the complex, often litigious nature of real estate and development contracts in modern Seattle. Even 144 years ago, the city was defined by high-stakes financial battles involving the same families and entities—like the Yeslers and Colmans—that built the town's foundation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.