The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-09
TO FORCE THE CONTEST,
Executor GOodfeIIoW'S Move in
the Fair Will Liti-
CATION.
AN ANSWER FOR THE TRUST.
The Executor Contends That the
Validity of the Wills Is the
First Question.

| Attorney Carrot w. McEnerney fled
an answer for Executor w. S. Goodfellow
yesterday to Charles l.. Fairs suit regard
| ing the validity of the trust clause in the
| Fair will. Attached to the answer are
copies of both of the wills, and a ruling as
to the validity of each will, the attorney
maintains, must be obtained before the
test suit, which is IN regard to the control
of the Lick House, can be determined.
This is an important move in the liti-
CATION, for if Mr.. McEnerney's point is
maintained, the heirs cannot defeat the
will by the test case regarding the rights
of the trustees to the specified portion of
the property.
The general allegations of the complaint
are denied in the answer, and the will of
September "a, 1894, is declared to be valid.
Then the answer continues:
And for another, further and separate
answer to plaintiffs complaint, the defendant
alleges that the plaintiff claims that the docu-
ment dated September 81, 1894, referred to in
plaintiffs complaint, copy whereof is hereto
attached and marked exhibit A." and made
part hereof, is not the last any will of said
deceased, but that the same was executed by
the said deceased under and solely by reason
OF undue influence, and that the same was
after the execution thereof, and on the Oath
day OF September, 1894, revoked by the execu-
ton by the said James G. Fair of q certain
document purporting to be the Photographic
will of the said deceased, q copy of which is
hereto annexed, marked exhibit B." and
made part hereof. That it is claimed by the
plaintiff that said document is the last VIII OF
said James G. Fair, deceased.
That both documents, copies whereof marked
respectively exhibits A and B, are hereto an
nexed and made part hereof, have been filed
for probate in this court, and petitions for
their probate are now pending and undeter-
mined, and no will of said deceased has ever
been admitted to probate. That there is also
pending and undetermined written grounds of
opposition, filed by the plaintiff in this case, to
the probate of the will of September 81, 1894,
in which written grounds of opposition it is
alleged and claimed by the plaintiff that said
will was revoked by the document dated Sep
TENDER "a, 1894. and that said document of
date September 81, 1894, was procured to be
executed by undue influence.
And there is now pending and undetermined
in this court written grounds of opposition to
dated September "a, 1894, which written
grounds of opposition had been filed by the
legatees and oeyisees under the will of Septem-
Der q, 1894, in which written grounds of op-
position claimed that said document dated
September %, 1894, was never written, dated
or signed by said James G. Fair, nor ever ac-
knowledged or declared by him to be his or
any will. At the time of his death said James
G. Fair, deceased, was a resident of the City
and County of San Francisco, and died the
owner in fee absolute OF the real property de-
scribed in the complaint, and OF the whole
thereof.
OF the right of the trustees to control the
property the answer says:
The title of said James G. Fair transmitted
| by the terms of the aforesaid last will to the
defendant, Goodfellow, and his three co-trus-
| tees, has never in any manner been trans
ferred, alienated or otherwise affected, and the
title thereto in fee simple, as transmitted,
| now vests in four trustees for the uses and pur-
poses in said will stated.
With the answer is cross-complaint
alleging that Charles L. Fair, Mrs. Theresa
Oelrichs and Virginia Fair claim title to
the Lick House property, and that their
claim is not valid. "The said claims,' the
cross-complaint recites, are without any
right whatever, and neither Charles l.. Fair
nor Mrs. Theresa Oelrichs nor Virginia Fair
has any estate or interest of any nature,
kind or description whatever in or to said
real property or any part thereof" Fur
Their it is stated that although the plaintiff
Der u, the claims supported by that will
are alone valid.