The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-23

and the other half shall be payable TO
and received by each roper second
party without further order in his favor
from the first"
After the execution OF this agree
ment, a paper purporting to be the Will
of Andrew ]. Davis was discovered. and
was propounded for probate in the
proper court in the state of Montana
by John A. Davis. one of the parties To
the foregoing agreement. By the terms
of this alleged will the entire estate
of Andrew ]. Davis. with the exception
of three minor legacies. was given and
bequeathed to said John A. Davis. Aft
er the commencement of the proceed
ings to prove this will. John A. Davis
executed a power of attorney,
izing the complainant to represent him
in any proceeding IN the courts OF
Massachusetts, relating to the estate of
Andrew J. Davis The instrument con-
ferring this power contained the fol-
lowing recitals in relation to the for
mer contract entered into in the month
of May, 1890. between the complainant
n the other heirs at law of Andrew
]. Davis:
Whereas, since the making of aid
agreement. an instrument ~purporting
to be the will of said Andrew j. Davis,
has been found and has been presented
by said Joh A. Davis for probate in
the courts of Montana. and the pro-
ceedings therein are now pending. and
Whereas, it may be necessary 10
procure special administration of the
estate of ndrew j. Davis in Massa-
chusetts, and also in the event of the
probate of said will in Montana to OBJ
tain ancillary letters of administration
in Massachusetts, on the estate of said
Andrew ]. Davis there situated for the
material benefit of said John A. Davis
and Erwin Davis as provided for by
said agreement of May, 1890, which
agreement, by the understanding of the
parties hereto, is applicable to the
estate coming to the said John A. Da-
Wis under said will and the interests
of Erwin Davis therein and to the un-
dertaking of said Erwin Davis to as
sist in the enforcement of the rights Of
aid John A. Davis. under said will,
the same. as If said will were specifical-
ly named in aid agreement"
The bill alleges that the complain
ant has fully performed all the prom
Uses and ~stipulations on his part con-
tanned in each of the two agreements
~hereinbefore referred to. On Jan. q,
1898, John A. Davis died intestate,
leaving him surviving as his only heirs
at law the defendants Thea Jane Da-
Wis, Andrew j. Davis, jr., John T.. Da-
Wis and Morris A. Davis and three other
sons not citizens of the state of Mon
tana, m who are not made parties to
this action. The defendant John T.. Da-
Wis was on March II, 1898, duly appoint
ed administrator of the estate of John
A. Davis, and as such administrator
was thereafter substituted in the place
of his deceased father, John A. Davis,
as p%roponent of the alleged will of
Andrew j. Davis. The probate of this
will was contested by Sarah NJ. Cum
mings, a sister, and by Henry A. Root
and Harriet Sheffield and Henry A.
Davis, children of a deceased brother
and sister of Andrew j. Davis. Dur
ing the tendency of this contest the
defendant Thea lane Davis, widow of
John A. Davis, deceased, and the de-
PENDANTS Andrew j. Davis, jr., John
f. Davis, Morris A. Davis and other
sons of said John A. Davis, who are
not made parties to this action, en-
tered into a compromise agreement
with the contestants of said will and
with Ellen S. 'Cornue, Mary Louise
Dunbar, Elizabeth S. Ladd. heirs oi
Andrew j. Davis, and with Joshua G.
Cornue, husband of Elizabeth S. Cor
nue., and with Charles S. Ladd, husban.
of Elizabeth S. Ladd, by the terms o.
which it was agreed that the objec'
tons to the probate of the alleged wi!
of andrew ]. Davis should be with
drawn, and that one-twenty-ffth .
his estate should be given to Harrie
Sheffield and Henry A. Davis and nine
teen-forty-fourths of the remainder y
said estate should be distributed to tn
widow and heirs at law of John y
Davis, and the remaining twenty-five
fo~rty-fourths of said estate should b
distributed to the other parties name,
in the compromise agreement.
The bill alleges that this compromis
agreement was entered into by all tn
parties thereto with notice of the com
%plainant's rights under the contract
l hereinbefore referred to. and with tn
, corrupt and fraudulent intention of di
s viding the estate of Andrew j. Davi
! among themselves and defrauding tn
| complainant of his rights under tn
l contract of May, 1890, and his subse
quent contract with John A. Davis.
= The alleged will of Andrew j. Davi
was admitted to probate on the 27t
day of March. 1895, the decree recitin
/, the compromise agreement above re
] ferred to and setting forth that 1t wa
, based upon that agreement as well a
1 upon proofs submitted to the coul
6 showing that the will was properly ez
I ecuated and was the last will of sal
: Andrew ]. Davis: and in the same dt
l cree it was further ordered and ac
: judged that in pursuance or SUCH con
: promise agreement the parties there
4 to should upon the distribution of II
> estate have and receive the respectiN
: shares thereof provided for by sue
4 agreement. The bill alleges that a
u that part of the decree which assume
? to adjudge that the estate should J
u distributed in accordance with ii
II compromise agreement is absolute
void by reason of a want of jurisdi
ton in the court to so ~adjudge.
The bill also alleges that the CLAIM
u against the estate of Andrew j. Dav
= do not exceed $4,000. n that no re
u son exists why the legacy given by Il
- will of Andrew j. Davis should not
u Immediately distributed to h admi
y istrator of the estate of John A. Dav
and il is further shown that the d
a PENDANTS threaten to divide the esta
&c in accordance with the compromi
10 aqraement and decree of the court al