Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1885-03-04
GOTERSOR M,ARrRUR'S WILL.

Decision In United states supreme Court
Sustaining 1t, Thus Disturbing Land
Titles in Several Ohio Counties-Proba-
bility That Clark County Parties are Not
Iujuriously Affected.
Like flash of lightning from q clear sky
came the announcement yesterday that de-
cision had been rendered in the United States
Supreme Court, in the Macarthur will case,
sustaining the claim OF the grandchildren of
the late Governor Macarthur, under bis will,
to immense tracts of land in Ross, Pickawsy,
Highland, Scioto, Madison and Franklin
counties and practically invalidsting the titles
by which they are now held and have
been for years, by purchase under
partition sale, originally. This denouement
has caused tremendous sensation in parts
of the counties named, and only little less
in this county, where some of the Macarthur
heirs reside and in which tracts of land
amounting to 1000 acres in round numbers,
were disposed OF under the Governors will
and are held by purchase from the heirs.
The suit upon which this decision is rem
dered, and which was made test case, is in
the name OF Allen Campbell Macarthur and
others against Willism Allen ct. al, and in
wolves the ownership of Ex-Governor Aliens
famous Fruit Hill Farm, in Ross county, snd
is brought by the grandchildren OF Governor
Macarthur.
Governor Macarthur left a will devisipg all
his real estate, amounting 10 several thou
sands Of acres, to three trustees 10 be held by
hem for the beoefI OF bis children and grand
children, until all OF his children should die,
and thereafter until his youngest grandchlld
should arrive at the age of twenty-one years,
and then to be divided among his grandchil-
dren.
Soon after his death his children instituted
proceedings in the court OF common pleas in
Ross county, 10 set aside his will on the
ground t9at he was not competent TO make q
will; verdict of jury was had against the
will, and judgment entered, declaring it
null and void, in the tall of 1889.
The lands were sold to various parties. A
part of the land in question is the famous
Fruit Hill farm, occupied by Governor Wm.
Allen, who married the widow Coons, a
daughter of Governor Macarthur.
In 1876 the youngest grandchild became of
age, and suit was Immediately entered by the
complainants 10 recover their interest in the
land. Their claim was that the proceedings
to set aside the will was void as to them, be-
cause the trustees were not parties to the suit,
having resigned, and because the complain
ants themselves were not in being at tina,
time
The case vas tried before Mr. Justice
Swsyne in the Circuit Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and decided by him in favor
of the defendants, on the ground that the
Ross County judgment was bar to the COM
plainants' suit. 1t was then taken to the
Supreme Court at Washington and was argued
and submitted in January, 1884. The Court
ordered a re-srgument, and second argu-
ment took place in April, 1884. The decision
of the Court is, that the will was valid, and
that the proceeding in Ross County to set it
aside was not binding upon these complain
ants; and the cause is remanded to the Cir
cult Court with instructions to enter decree
for the complainants.
So far as can be learned by consultation
with parties here conversant with the facts in
the case, the holders of the Clark county
lands. substantial farmers and others in Har-
mony township, are in much better position
than those similarly situated with regard TO
The lands, involved in the other counties
named. Ii appears that special provision was
made in the will disposing of the Clark
county land, and that in the distribution
under the partition sale after the decision
in the Ross county court setting aside the
will, these lands were set apart to the same
parties who held them under the special pro-
visions OF the will itself, putting il as briefly
and plainly as possible. 1t would appear
further that, while Clark county holders may
be put 10 more or less trouble and expense in
perfecting their titles because of this decision,
they will retain ownership of the lands.
Ejectment suits were brought against them,
however, years ago and have since been
pending in court, awaiting this fual decision,
uOne having been pushed. Some action will
now be taken in the premises however and
in view OF it there is naturally some unessi-
ness on the part OF those concerned as de-
eniunts. These are, in substance, the facts
~ at present advised. Should further deyel-
opments show them to be otherwise further
statement will be made.