“In Provision for the Lawful Heirs”: The Lawsuit of Akley vs. Bassett for the Joseph M. Workman Ranch, Rancho La Puente, 1918-1924, Part Four

by Paul R. Spitzzeri

Josephine M. (Workman) Akley, previously a popular film star using the stage name of Princess Mona Darkfeather, launched a lawsuit in spring 1918 against Charles N. Bassett concerning her asserted interest in the 814-acre ranch as part of the larger Rancho La Puente granted to her father, Joseph, by his father, William Workman in 1870, but lost to Bassett’s father, El Paso, Texas capitalist Oscar, a quarter-century later. The basis for Akley’s suit was that, as a minor, she was not properly noticed by the elder Bassett when, after acquiring the ranch in 1895, he file a quit claim action against the Workman children, but hers not done through her parents, as her guardians, as specified by statute.

While Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lewis R. Works ruled against her in 1920, a rehearing the following year before his colleague, Charles S. Burnell, yielded a reversal, as pointed out in part three of this post. Headlines in local papers noted that Akley’s windfall comprised nearly $210,000 of the value of her 1/9 share in the surviving acreage of the ranch, well under 300 acres, and proceeds from rents received by Bassett since 1901. In the aftermath of her win, it was reported that Akley would pursue more income generated since filing her case, involving some three years.

Alas, victory was short and fleeting. Moreover, by November 1920, Akley’s siblings, perhaps seeing her triumph and deciding to leap into the fray to make their own claims, Mary Knight, Agnes Stoll, Lucille Buehler and William J. Workman became plaintiffs, as well, as all of them filed, on the last day of the month, exceptions to Works’ original ruling. Not only that, but Ida L. Kelso, the widow of their late brother, George, who died in 1903, was added as a defendant, for reasons that are unclear, other than the likelihood that she was claiming an interest in the ranch and they disputed her assertion.

The San Francisco Recorder of 14 June 1921, covering the Supreme Court’s calendar of the prior day, observed that, with a new miscellaneous case of Akley et. al. v. Bassett et. al., the high court “ordered that the three appeals” in a prior stipulation “be heard upon a single and common printed transcript.” Five months later, that paper noted that Bassett and Kelso had until the end of the year to file a brief in answer to the latest arguments by the Workman heirs and this was extended at year’s end to the last day of January 1922.

In its 29 November edition, the Recorder recorded that Judge Works, apparently assigned to hear the new litigation of the five Workman siblings “refuses to settle any bills of exceptions in said cause,” probably because his view had not changed about the legitimacy of Akley’s claim, much less those of her brother and sisters. The high court, therefore, ordered that the matter be heard by Burnell and this looks to have been in preparation for an appeal to the state courts.

In April 1922, a hearing was held before the Supreme Court, with attorneys for both sides presenting their arguments. the Los Angeles Times of 23 September 1922 reported that

The Supreme Court at San Francisco yesterday reversed the decision of Judge Burnell’s court here in awarding Mrs. Josephine M. Ackley [sic] a ninth share of the original El Puente [sic] ranch . . .

The Supreme Court held that the lapse of seventeen years nullified any claim she might have had to the property by reason of the failure to serve her with the quiet title papers.

Actually, it was earlier stated in accounts dealing with the lower court proceedings that Akley was served with notice, but not through her parents as California law mandated. The Los Angeles Express briefly covered the high court’s ruling but also erred in its reporting, stating that the suit was processed in the courts over 17 years, though this was the time between Joseph Workman’s death and the presumed inheritance of his daughter and the filing of her case. It also she said that she filed against Oscar, not his son. Then the paper stated that she learned of the lack of proper service 17 years after the transfer of the ranch, but it was actually 23 years.

The Recorder of 27 September provided the text of the high court’s ruling, reviewing the facts of the case and the main thrust of its decision was that “the fact that the respondent did not become of age until January 13, 1901 [based on her assertion that she was born on that date in 1883, though there is evidence that she was actually a year older], does not make any difference in the consideration of the question before us.”

Noting that “an infant can be ousted from his possession either by a stranger or a co-tenant,” such a removal brought the issue of a five-year statute of limitations—essentially, if Josephine had filed her suit prior to mid-January 1906, she would have had solid legal grounds to do so. The Court added that the Workman heirs “permitted the years to slip by at the peril of being caught in the exact position in which they are now placed” and, consequently, Judge Works was correct in his original finding.

Akley “failed to establish a sufficient equitable reason why she waited so long before asserting a claim to an interest in the land” and such a delay, the justices held, “was prejudicial to the appellant” Bassett. Additionally, Burnell “was in error” when he “granted the motion of the respondent to vacate and set” the Works ruling aside “and to substitute the judgment finally entered in its place and stead.” The high court ruling was unanimous among all seven of the justices, who heard the matter “in bank,” that is, together, as some decisions were made by a portion of the court. The heirs sought a rehearing with the Supreme Court, but this was rejected on 20 October and the 13 January 1923 edition of the Recorder followed up on the September ruling by noting that the appeal was dismissed.

Though it would appear the matter was finished, there was yet another attempt to claim rights to the Bassett land. This involved another filing before the state appeals court for which the Recorder of 7 April 1924 noted meant that “Justice Lewis R. Works being disqualified to act in the hearing” by virtue of his serving as a prior trial court judge, “that Honorable John W. Shenk, one of the judges of the Superior Court . . . in hereby appointed to act pro tempore as a justice of this court.” Just a week later, though, Shenk was named by Governor Friend W. Richardson to a vacancy on the Supreme Court, a position he held until his death 35 years later.

On 30 July 1924, there was yet another affirmation of the prior ruling in this case by the appellate court, but an appeal was again made to the Supreme Court, with the Los Angeles Record of 4 September 1924, under the heading of “Family Battles For Big Estate,” reporting that,

A dramatic episode from the history of Southern California, in which a family, deprived of their heritage through the extravagance of their father, are now appealing to law for restitution of their property, will go before the California supreme court Thursday when Attorney Leon Yankwich presents the case of Akley vs. Basset [sic].

Notably, the account continued that “the Workman heirs have lost their case in superior and appellate courts on the grounds of a lapse of time, or what lawyers call sleeping on their rights.” Yet, it went on, “the supreme court will pass final decision” as “the Workman heirs demand they be named joint owners with Basset” based on the proportions of 7/18 for the latter, 1/18 for Kelso and 2/18 for the five siblings.

The Workman heirs seem to have insisted that their rights were still valid in that their grandfather gave their father only a “life estate” and that any alienation of the property did not affect their rights after Joseph’s 1901 death. Remarkably, the article included some of the testimony from the most recent trial such as the summarization that “Joseph Workman . . . had during his life seriously displeased his father, who held him in low opinion and would never grant him any property.”

It was only through “the intercession of friends,” the article went on, that Joseph obtained a deed, this based on statements in court by William R. Rowland, whose father obtained the original Rancho La Puente grant in 1842. Lola (Belt) McNish, said in the piece to be a domestic servant for the Workmans when she was actually the sister of Joseph’s wife, Josephine, also commented on how William gave the grant to Joseph with the caveat that it was for the children. She also testified as to how Joseph finally obtained the deed and hurried to get it recorded before his father changed his mind about turning it over to him. Another witness attested to the pride Joseph took about how quickly he rushed to Los Angeles for that proceeding.

We’ll go into more detail about the testimony through trial transcripts published in Supreme Court reports, but a new attorney, Leon Yankwich, represented the heirs in this latest effort. Yankwich, who became a Superior Court judge in 1927 and then went on to be a federal court jurist for nearly forty years before his death in 1975 at age 86, commented on the case to the Record, stating,

It is to be regretted that the case was not [originally] kept in the supreme court. Its decision would have been final. The case is of such a nature that we will not rest until a final decision is reached. Principles of great importance are involved. Some of them call for a reconsideration of decisions heretofore made by the supreme court. The appellate could not do that. But the supreme can.

It would be regrettable indeed if mere lapse of time were permitted to deprive rightful owners of what by right belongs to them.

Obviously, Yankwich took aim at the previous supreme court ruling of the lower court decision concerning the five-year window of the statute of limitations for Josephine Akley’s ability to press a claim. The lawyer seems to have agreed that, because she was unaware of her rights due to her young age and lack of familiarity with the circumstances of the loss of her father’s ranch, the high court should have upheld Burnell’s decision.

Despite Yankwich’s views on the matter, the Supreme Court actually denied a rehearing of the matter, after some delays, on 25 September 1924. With that finality, the six-year battle over the Joseph Workman ranch was, at last, over. Because, however, some of the testimony, alluded to briefly above, is so interesting and gives us a rare window into some of the Workman family dynamics, otherwise generally lacking, we’ll conclude with a part five tomorrow. Please check back in for the conclusion of this remarkable legal tangle!