Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-22

power, something as appurtenant TO her
one third in the Touring mills, under the
laws of Minnesota, and sometimes as
part of her distributive share under the
laws of Wisconsin, which claim if allowed
will lead to conflict of interest in the
water power and use of the mills, thereby
preventing the execution of the will of the
festator and the trusts of said will.
Because of said conflicting claim arising
under the will, and because they are I'M
able to carry the trust of said will into ex-
ecution without direction of a court of
competent jurisdiction, and for the purpose
OF obtaining true construction OF the
VIII, they have commenced an action IN
equity III the circuit court in the county of
La Crosse, in the state OF wisconsin, against
Jeannette Washburn and George h. Chase,
and all the benefciaries under the will, by
which action they ask intructions OF the
court.
First-Whether the widow, being insane,
shall take under the provisions of the will,
or against the will.
Second-Whether she is entitled to one
third of the lands of which her husband
was seized during coverture, in the state of
Minnesota, without an election.
Third-If the widow must elect, she be-
ing insane, by whom or how shall the cleo
lion be made; if by the court, what shall
the election be?
Fourth-Whether she, being insane, can
elect in Wisconsin; and if she cannot elect,
can the guardian elect for her; and if not,
VIII the court elect for her; and if SO, what
81 ali the election be? Shall she take the
provisions of the will, or one third OF all
Inc personally and dover?
Fifth-Whether the statute of Minneso-
a., passed after the marriage of the de-
visee with Jeannette Washburn, and after
IL had acquired the lands of which he was
seized in Minnesota, that the widow is en-
Titled to one-third of said land IN fee and
AGAINST the provisions Of the will, Is valid.
They also ask the court, in this connection,
10 direct them in the execution of their
trusts, and to define the rights Of the in
sane widow and of the guardian, and for
other relief. That court has full jUrisdic
hon. and the action is still pending and
undetermined.
Notwithstanding this action and its pen
dency, Mr.. Chase, as guardian, Is still de- |
handing the immediate possession of an
undivided one-third of the aforesaid real
estate in Minnesota, and of the rents and
profits thereof since the executors came |
into possession, and, in furtherance of such !
demand. he did, on or about Dec. II,
1882, present and cause to be filed in the |
probate court of Hennspin county writ |
ing purporting to Do an election for the |
widow to take under the provisions of law, |
and a remuneration of the provisions Of |
the Will.
On the 18th of December, 1882, he |
filed in said court petition by him, as
guardian, for the assignment to him, as |
guardian, by the court of an undivided |
one third of such real estate, and that the |
court adjudge that the widow has elected |
to take against the will, or that said pro-
bate court make such election for
her, or authorize her said guardian
to make the same, and for other relief, on
which a citation has been issued, Mr.. Chase
is a nonresident of Minnesota. That the |
probate court has no power or jurisdiction
to adjudicate upon the question raised up
on said petition; especially as to the ques
ton of election, and has no jurisdiction to |
make the election for the insane widow, or
to authorize Mr.. Chase, as guardian, to do |
go.
That the court is about to proceed to ad |
|
ly embarrass and delay the executors in
the execution of their trusts and duties, |
causing the interests of all persons con-
cerned in the estate to suffer great loss
and injury.
A writ of prohibition is prayed, restraining
Hon. A. LELAND, as judge, and Mr.. Chase,
as guardian, from proceeding further in
the matters specified in the affidavit, and
in the petition filed by Mr.. Chase
in the probate court.
The motion to quash the writ of pro-
hibition was argued all day yesterday by |
Hon. C. K. Davis and Attorney Gen !
eral Hahn for the widow and by ar. |
Gilfllan, of Minneapolis, and Judge Lynde |
of Milwaukee, on behalf of the execu-
tors. The argument of all the parties |
was purely legal one and was confined |
strictly to the single point of whether or
not the probate court of Hennepin county |
had jurisdiction of the matter. The |
were closed about 5 o'clock !
last night when the court took the !
matter under advisement.