Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-09-15
~ I.voLxEp EsTATE.

A singular Point 81 Law Arising from
t1,. Df.frfbutI0m Of the HaerteI Prop
.rty-EhIeh 81 the victims vac 4 ur-
dersd Fir.tg-The Opinion Of Medical
Erpert.-Eeoords Of Similar Ca@e--
Mr. Myer MsnQel and Mr. Nelson ad-
mInIstrat1r- u the estate % the late
Henry Haertel and wife. FEW days ago
slld. under lhe direction 4 the Court "
Or1.nary. all The personal e.
flo+- If ne deceased. and
- ,,-.-z.s~.. -zaeraer 8lr. Hendel " Hr.
Tllz1- sbau have t1e Distribution u TIE
-.-~lle5z n said esra1e j. az ait.EE hear
.ng oefore the colrf.
n Ee1deI represents the creditors and
-ef---s--la7r Z Er. Haertel- and Nj Eel-
~ Inc heirs n Mrs. Hasrtsl. who = the
deceased daughter u Mr. Nelson.
IL determine TIE question u appears
r1ce==aT- y ascertain llcl q the de-
ceased persons died first. The records 81
the c0urts generally contain but few
cases that can Je said n present similar
circumstance from which q decision can
" predlcated in support n the claims u
either contestant IN TINS case, while
the reports " Proceedings u me
Ge9rgia c9urf- make no mention ~
a case where a deceased wife and husband
are supposed ~ nave died ~ the same
time " within g." minute " each
gtgar. Tn I--s SIR. and Mrs. Fanlsterer
died rs this cIfg ~ yellow fever. and ln
DISPUTE which followed BOO fne courts a. ~
whom the title ~ the Aelr5hlp " the
property should vest. ~ vs. A. proved that
one died i1 nearly an hour after the
other. and hence It was not difficult ~ de-
eide vino were legally entitled o. inc
estate. But The death " Mr. and Nr..
HaerteI was "a ti9ient one. Both were
discovered dead. and there arc only trining
circumstance connected with their
decrease which 20 ~ show which one
died first. Even the authors 81 their
death are necessarily assumed %
be unknown. IL j.. however. said
that the body " Mrs. Haertel
vas warm when discovered but ID is not
reported whether that u the husband
was also warm. IL Dr. assumed that d hi7
remains were cold then the wife must
have died last and hence her heirs are
entitled ~ the proceeds " the estate ms
3 a matter % be- determined by "a jury
when ali the facts shall have been adj
duced. and when tho courts shall have
presented the law applicable % the case.
4 feH months ago lady 900 Mary land
was fatally shot HF her husband, VINO
Immediately after committed suicide.
The courts were subsequently called up
ou o. determine who Wcre the heirs Of the
estate. u was shown that though
urst. the husband died lir.t,
from the effects 81 bis wound, and
the jury decided that the title IN the es-
tate was in the heirs " the deceased
wife.
Bowler observes that questions Of
grcat doubt and difficulty have arisen
where several persons respectively en-
titled ~ inherit from one another perish
all together by the same means, such a.
"a, fsf.F fh.. fs.ff If.rf
without any possibility Of a-cerlalnlng
who died first. Ia such cases the French
Civil Code and the civil Code Of LOuisl-
ana laF down rules the latter copying
from the former which are dcducedl from
the pr0babilitic. resulting from the
strength, aye, and difference Of sex Of the
parties. m those pcrl-hiug together were
under fifteen year. Of age, the eldest shall
Boz presumed the survivor. II they were
All above sixty, the youngest shall De pre-
stunned the survivor. II some were under
fifteen and others above sixty, the former
arc tho survivors. When the ages are
equal and the parties are over fifteen and
under sixty the males are presumed 10
Doc the survivors, il the difference 10 age
between the males and females does not
exceed one year.
The English common law, however,
requires the -uryiy0rship Of two or more
D. be- proved by facts and not boy any set
tied legal rule Or prescribed presumption.
Greculcai 100 his volume on evidence re-
marks that the question Of -urVlyOrshlp
first arose ln the common law courts
upon motion for "A uandamu5 100
the case ~ Gen. -tanwiX, who
persisted, together with his second wife
and hI- daughter bE Il former marriage,
On their passage from Dublin 70 Eng
land, the vessel in which they sailed hay-
ing never been heard from. HereupOn.
his nephew applied for letters Of admin
istratiJu az next Df Kin. the granting Of
which was resisted by the maternal uncle
1f thc daughter, who claimed the effects
upon the presumption Of the Roman law
that she was the survivor. But the point
was not decided. the court dccreeing for
the nephew upon another ground, name
u.s.. THAT the question could properly
De- raised only upon the statute Of distri-
button. and not upon an application for
administration by one clearly entitled
~ administration bv consanguinIty. The
point was afterwards raised in Chanccry.
when The case was. that the father had
begueathed legacics % such Of ms child
ron IA. should bee living At the time u bis
death. and be having peri5hed, together
with one ~ the lcgatec5 bT the iOundcTln2
IL "a vessel On voyage from India b.
England. tAc question was whether the
legacy lapscd by the death Of the son IN
TIE lifetime Dl the lAtileI. Inc Ma5ucI OF
the Rolls refused % decide the question
DIS presumption and directed an issue b.
try the fact by a jury. But the PrerO2a-
tive Court adopted tHc presumption thar
both persisted together and that there
upon neither could transmit rights
~ The other. Ia the absence
VI all evidence Of the particular
. circumstances Of the calamity 10 is be-
lieFed this rule i- said ~ be the most
convenient aud safest, but if the circum-
stances 81 the death Of either party can
Doe proved, DO b. held that there can be no
+ Inconvenience in submitting the question
I 10 a jury.
/ la another case, that Of Underwood VS..
/ Wing, cited iu 3lst Eng. Law and Equity,
il appeared that "A husband, wife and
/ children were swept from the deck Of
vessel l1 the same wave and went down
. together. u was held that IN absence Of
/ evidence the court would not presume
\ that the husband survived the wife.
/ Hence, 10 is inferred that when the
/ courts shall Doe called upon TO de-
] tcrminc who are the heirs OF
/ the ilacrtel estate, If IL may
! be- assumed that there are any heirs, the
/ question Of suryiyOrship will depend upon
I the evidence that may bee submitted To
/ show which Of the deceased died first.
The case b. AN interesting one, especially
as there has been none parallel 10 IT In our
courts, and because the decision upon the
questions which ID involves will likely be
regarded as precedent in the iurls-
prudence Of the State.