The Biographical Dictionary and Portrait Gallery of Representative Men of Chicago, Milwaukee and the World's Columbian Exposition

              484
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY AND PORTRAIT GALLERY.
tember, 1848, his brother-in-law, Geo. W. Noble, a carpenter, came to Chicago and went to work for Mr. Price as a day laborer. When the gold excitement in California broke out, in 1849, •'^^• Price made arrangements with Noble to hold his property in trust until his return, and started out to seek his fortune in California, having arranged with Noble to maintain his family, and to receive therefor one thousand dollars per year. Mr. Price died on the isthmus before reaching the golden shores, in December of that year. Noble re¬ ceived and suppressed the news of Mr. Price's death from Mrs. Price. He procured books, deeds and private papers belonging to Mr. Price from the widow, and never returned them, and declined to support the family after the first year. Mrs. Price was obliged to sew for a living, and the children were thrown upon the world to shift for themselves. To further carry out his scheme. Noble had Mrs. Price sent east, and immediately had the property placed in his own name, and circulated a story that Price was still alive ; that he had eloped with a woman to Texas, thus seek¬ ing to show that he obtained the property hon¬ estly. Mrs. Margaret Price died in the State of New York, in 1867, still under the false belief that her husband was alive. She left as heirs her son, Henry W. Price, and Charles H. Fox, the complainants. It was not until Noble's death, in 1886, that they learned of the fraud and com¬ menced this suit.
Noble left no will, and the property being in his name, ciescended to the defendants. As a defense, counsel set up laches, and introduced in evidence a receipt purporting to be signed by W. H. Price, October 20, 1849, which acknowledged the receipt of three hundred and fifty dollars In settlement in full to that date. Mr. Noyes took the evidence of several experts to show that the signature was a forgery. A number of witnesses swore that in conversations with Noble the latter admitted that he was simply taking care of Price's property and business. Mrs. Hopkins testified that Noble, after obtaining the papers from Mrs. Price, told her that he had " the deadwood on Bill Price " and intended to keep it. Summing up the entire testimony, the court came to the conclusion that Noble held the property only in trust. Considering the time that had elapsed and the necessary confidential nature  of  that  trust.
the disappearance of Price, the infancy of the children, their absence from Chicago, the poverty of the family, and other circumstances in evi¬ dence, the court said the case was proven by as much positive testimony as could be expected under the circumstances; as to the defense of the lapse of time—something near forty years—it is sufficient to say there is no statute of limitations which will run against a trust. The case was referred to a master in chancery for an account¬ ing, and decree was entered charging the trust with all of the rents received from the property, and allowing the trustee one thousand dollars for the first year's services, and establishing the title to property of the present value of one hundred and ten thousand dollars in favor of the com¬ plainants, and an accounting for rents for forty years, which amounted to sixty thousand more.
The following case illustrates, to some degree, the shrewdness of Mr. Noyes in the management of his cases in court. It was the case of James H. Keeler against R. S. Reynolds, of Utica, N. Y. The plaintiff made a contract with the de¬ fendant by which he was to sell the latter's fee in the property at the southwest corner of Lake street and Fifth avenue, and the lien of an ad¬ joining lot. The contract provided that Keeler should keep for his commission all that the prop¬ erty brought over one hundred and ten thou¬ sand dollars. He found an intending purchaser in the late Conrad Seipp, who was to pay one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. When the negotiations were about closing, Mr. Seipp backed down. Mr. Keeler claimed that the sale was defeated by Reynolds, who came to the con¬ clusion that he could get more than one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, or that he could deal directly with Mr. Seipp and save the com¬ mission. Reynolds claimed that he had nothing to do with stopping the negotiations, but that one Mr. Lanz, of Lanz, Owen & Co., went to Mr. Seipp and told him that Keeler was making fifteen thousand dollars out of him. Seipp there¬ upon refused to carry out the contract.
The evidence was very close on the point of Reynold's agency in breaking off the negotia¬ tions. Judge Gresham, before whom the case was being tried, required Mr. Noyes to show that Reynolds knew of the action of Lanz in going to Seipp.    At this point in the trial. Mr. Noyes re-