Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-08-14
HOPKINS PLANS CHANGED.
He May Not Contest Mrs. Searles' Will in
Massachusetts.


When Timothy Hopkins arrived in San Fran
cisco on Tuesday night it was his purpose to
proceed at once to Methuen, Mass, to contest
the probate of his foster mothers will But
his attorney got his ear and he looked over
his mail disappointment awaited him there.
Only GOODNESS characterized the letters, both
of Searles and of Butler, Stillman & Hubbard,
blu. Hopkins did not start east.
The question with Timothy Hopkins now is
whether he will 60 fishing for whale. with the
chance of losing everything, or be satisfied
| with creel of fine trout which he stands an
| excellent chance of catching. If he contests
| the will in Massachusetts he may lose the en-
tire estate. his chances in Massac husetts are
not as good as in California: but if he is con-
| tent to test its probate in California his
chances of winning his suit much better
than they would be in the bay state. Besides,
| his advisers believe they may reckon on the
support of public opinion.
| Hopkins and his counsel are wrestling with
| the law of the case, and from a legal point of
| view it will be pretty case. hopkins will
certainly contest the probate of the will. That
| is beyond question, and the only thing to be
considered is where that contest will be made.
Had Hopkins proceeded directly to Massachu-
| sets, as was his original intention. he would
have been within the jurisdiction OF
the MASSACHUSETTS court. Then that
| court would have had jurisdiction over
| the entire estate and no contest could have
been made in California court because what
ever decision might be rendered by the Mass.l-
chusetts tribunal the California court would be
| bound by the federal Constitution. which Or
dams that full faith and credit shall be given in
| every state to the judicial proceedings in other
states. The principle of estoppel. that a mat
| ter once adjudged is forever settled, would bar
| Hopkins out of the California tribunal.
This explained, without the legal phrase
ology, means this: Ii two residents of Massa-
chusetts were opposing parties in q suit, in
which transaction was alleged to be fraudu-
lent, and the court should decide that the trans
| action was binding and not fraudulent then, if
both parties became subsequently residents of
California a new suit could not be begun again
| in this state in regard to that action.
That is why Hopkins hesitates about leaving
what he assumes to be friendly state for one
| in which he is not known.
When Mrs. Searles will is probated and q
| copy filed at San Francisco Hopkins will pr otest
Then il Searles maintains that the Massachusetts
court decided it to be a valid will Hopkins can
retort that the Massachusetts decree does not
bind him, for it has Jurisdiction over him only
to the extent of affecting the property in Mas
sachusetts. Hence he will maintain the validity
OF the will as an open question to him in the
| state, as he is uncontrolled and unfettered by
any Massachusetts, decree. This will give him
chance at a proportion of the estate estimated
to be as one to seven. This amount may be
So 600 600.