The San Francisco call., 1896-12-29
A LIT TIE HITCH
IN WILL IAMS CASE
Final Distribution Inter
rupted by a Forgot
ten Claim.
Joseph L. Moody Demands Re.
payment OF $1,000, With
Legal Interest.
Peculiar Position of a Man Whe
Could Neither Get His Land
Nor His Money.

There was a surprise in the T. III. VIII
liams estate when the matter of the final
distribution of the property came up for
consideration before Judge Coffey in the
Probate Court. 1t was expected that the
decree of distribution would be signed, the
executor of the will discharged, and that
the probate proceedings that have lasted
for more than ten years would be closed.
This result would have been reached,
and Thomas H. Williams Jr. would now
be in sole and undisputed possession of
his patrimony had not an obstacle been
placed in the way by Thomas Magee,
agent for Joseph L. Moody. who has a
claim of 200 against the Thomes Fl.
Williams estate. with accruing interest
from September 10. 1890.
The manner in which this obligation on
the part of the estate arose is an exempli-
are possible when lot of eminent attor-
neys are engaged in important litigation.
In 1896 George Z. Williams, executor of
the will of Thomas II. Williams made
contract to sell certain tract TO Gustave
Niebaum for $40 900. and in due course of
time filed return OF the sale IN the Pro-
bate Court asking for confirmation OF
the sale. the purchase price having been
paid and deed given.
A DAY was appointed for hearing the
application of the executor for a confrma-
ton of his act, and on that date Mr..
Moody appeared and offered $11, 900 for the
property. The executor OF the will ac-
copied the money, it being understood
that he would hold it until the matter was
settled by the courts as to whether Me
baum or Moody had right to buy the
land.
The Probate Court took the view that,
as the executor had asked for contirma-
ton OF his sale, he had recognized the
jurisdiction OF the court to make such all
order, and if the court had power to ap-
prove such acIlon of course it had power
10 refuse approval. The sale to Niebaum
was therefore ordered set aside and the
executor was directed to deed the prop
erty to Moody.
On this an appeal was made to the
Supreme Court, George E. Williams,
executor OF the I. ID. Williams estate,
Joining in the demand that the decree OF
the Probate Court be set aside and that
Niebaum be not disturbed in his title to
the land. In support OF this view the pro,
visions of the will were cited wherein it Is
stated that the executor shall have full
power to do with the property exactly as
the testator might have done if living:
that he snOulQ nave authority 10 lease or
sell any part OF the real or personal prop.
erty without order OF any court or tribu-
nal, and that his acts in this regard
should not b. subject to review by any
G urt. In order TO more fully provide for
the carrying out of this design the prop
erty was by the will devised to the execu-
tor, in trust, for the benefit of the legatees.
On this showing the Supreme Court re-
versed the decision of the Probate Court
and left Niebaum in possession of the
land, holding that as the ownership of the
property passed directly to the executor
by the provisions of the will the Probate
Court had no jurisdiction of his acts in
disposing Of the real estate, and therefore
had no authority to make the order ap-
pealed from.
Moody then demanded that his $l1, ,OO0
be returned, and applied to the Probate
Court for an order requiring the executor
to reimburse him. Judge Coffey, before
whom the petition was presented, said
mat according to the decision of the SUI
preme Court the Probate Court could not
have Jurisdiction of the matter in any
phase, and therefore the application for a
mandate on the executor was refused.
This ruling was subsequently sustained
by the Supreme Court.
Moody then brought suit in the Su-