The record-union., 1895-03-05
suit OVER A VALUABLE ESTATE.
Mrs. Louisa Oppenheim's Charges
Against Her Son.
She Says Philip Got Control of the
Property by Misrepresentation
An Injunction Asked.


her sons and daughter-to restrain them
from disposing of certain property.
In her complaint she alleges that her
husband-the father of the defendants
left an estate valued at about Sl0O, 900, all
OF which was community property. He
left will, which was admitted to pro-
bate in 1890, and which, after making GER
tain bequests. provided that after the
death of his wife (though ne knew she
would do it while living the remainder
of his estate should be divided equally
among the three children.
The property thus set apart to the
plaintiff consisted of the south half of lot
s in the block bounded by II, 1. Eighth
aud Ninth streets, together with the i'm
provements thereon; also the west half of
the east half Of the northwest quarter of
section /, in township Z north, range >
east, Mount Dlablo base and meridian,
IN the county of Sacramento, together
with the improvements thereon, and cer-
tain real property in the City and County
of San Francisco.
Also S695 4S in coin; forty eight United
States Government bonds. maturing in
1907, for 81 900 each, with interest coupons
attached; four United States Government
bonds, maturing in 1907, tor $500 each,
with interest coupons attached; prom
issory note executed by G. II. Langrehr,
dated June 80, 1890, payable on or before
three years after date, with interest at the
rate OF per cent. per annum, and which
was for S3, I5O, secured by mortgage upon
certain real property in Sacramento; also
promissory note by George W. Chesley
Il Co., dated December 2S, 1889, for $1,000,
payable in two months, with interest at
the rate of per cent. per annum.
vember 26, 1880, by G. c. Robertson and
r. s. Carey, for $500. with interest at L
per cent. per month: also one gold watch,
one chain, one gold ring, with Masonic
emblem attached, and the household,
table and kitchen furniture, upholstery,
appliances, fixtures, decorations and
bric-a-brac contained in the family resi-
dence, all of which property was Of the
value of SO, 900 and upward.
Plaintiff then goes on to state in her
complaint that while she was in poor
health, annoyed and troubled, her son
Philip represented to her that according
to the provisions of the will she was en-
titled to a life estate only in the whole of
the property, and that during her life
time she could receive only the net in
come therefrom, and that Immediately
upon her death the whole of the property
would become the property of her chill
dren, In equal shares, and that such was
He represented that it was her duty to
accept for herself only a life estate in the
said property, with the right merely to
enjoy the use and income thereof during
her lifetime, and to arrange the matter of
its disposition, not only in the probate
proceedings, but also outside of the same
by agreement between herself and him.
in such way as to carry out what he rep
resented to ner to be the proper cOnstruc-
ton of the will respecting the distribu
ton of the property.
Plaintiff further alleges that she was at
that time ignorant Of her rights and be-
lieving the presentations OF her son to
be correct, she did not know she was en-
titled to an undivided one-half of the
estate, and her children 10 the other hall;
that she was led to believe her husband
had intended to divide the estate equally
between the children, at her death, re-
gardless OF her rights.
The complaint further recites that in
July, 1891, the defendant Philip Open
helm, represented to her that it was nee
essary, as soon as the estate should be
distrl rlbuted, to convey the whole OF the
property to him, and that by so doing
she would the better protect her own
right to its income and use, which he
represented to her were all that she was
entitled to under the will or under the
law, and would also enable her children
to enjoy the property upon her DEATH as
contemplated by the Will. And he further
represented and promised that If she
would convey the whole of the property
to him he would manage the same in her
behalf, and pay over to her, from time to
time, suOb sums as she might require
not only for her support and mainte-
nance, but for any other legitimate pur-
poses, and that he would merely handle
the property for her, and in her interest,
in order to relieve her from the burden
OF the care and management there eof; and
that whenever so requested by her he
would reconvey it TO her. He further
promised that. out of his affection for her
as her son, he would control the property
for her and would act as her agent for the
benefit of herself and the protection of
the property.
The complaint also alleges that on the
30th of July, 1891, the defendant Philip re-
quested her to sign an instrument and
represented to her that it was a mere for
NAL paper authorizing the court 10 dis
tribute unto her the property for the
benefit of herself and her children, and
empowering him to manage and control
the same for the benefit and use OF the
plaintiff in the manner stated By him.
and that it was absolutely necessary for
her Immediately to sign the same, and
that at any time that she might desire to
revoke the same ne would permit her to
do so and assume the control of the prop
erty herself, aad that the execution of
such instrument was a mere safeguard
designed to facilitate the handling and
management of the property. and to pro-
tect the same for the benefit OF herself and
children.
Believing these representations all to
be true. she signed the instrument re-
quested by her son, and conveyed TO him
all of her right and claim TO the estate 10
be held by him and managed and con-
trolled during her natural life. and there
after to be divided among heirs in equal
shares.
The instrument was witnessed by C.. I.
Wheeler and John A. Mcintyre on July
80, 1891. indorsed by the plaintiff and ac-
knowledged before =. d. Catlin, Notary
Public.
Mrs. Oppenheim says she was advised
to this course by c. t. Wheeler, but that
she is satisfied his advice was given un-
der a misapprehension of the situation
and with no intent to mislead her. She
now declares that defendant Philip
Oppenheim was actuated by desire to
obtain more than his rightful share of
the estate.
Since that time, she says, he has en-
joyed the control and use of the prop
erJy and denied her right to any part
thereof, except the net income and pro-
ceeds, which are insufficient for her
proper maintenance; that she has iu-
Cured Indebtedness which be refuses TO
pay; that he has refused to permit her to
use In her own way the dwelling house in
this city, and warned tradesmen not to
allow her credit; that because of her in
ability to pay just debt judgment for
81, 100 has been rendered against her.
Mrs. Oppenhein also alleges that her
sou has no property other than his right