The times., 1899-06-29
THE FAYERwEArHER ESTATE
Reopening the Cnsc-EarIier VIII
Held to He the Tru. One

heiu 10 he inc True One.
| New York. June 2s.-when. on July 4,
1897, Judge Roger A. Pryor. obeying a
mandate of the Court of Appeals, signed
an order requiring the executors of the
estate OF the late Daniel B. Fayerweather
to distribute 1t in accordance with the
terms of the will executed by the deceased
| in 1854, the famous case was closed so
far as the courts of this State were con-
cerned. and i; had been a victory for the
executors and residuary legatees. Thomas
G. Ritch, Justus l.. BuIkley. and Henry B.
Vaughan, in so far as the will in which
they were interested was upheld, although
an emphatic negative was laid upon their
contention that they possessed discretion
in the disposition of more than $4,000 900
which they held as the legatees of the
residue
But at law there is endless recourse
State powers but circle within Federal
powers; State courts within Federal
courts; and the citizen denied satisfaction
by home judicature is at least not defeat
ed until the paternal voice of the national
Judiciary has pronounced against him. Two
of the litigants who stood defeated before
the final decree of the Court of Appeals
in this State in the first half of 1897 were
Emma S. Fayerweather and Mary W.
Achter, Dieces of Mr. Fayerweather. For
tunately for the continuance of their liti-
CATION, they were not residents of this
State. They resided in Iowa, and q consti-
tutlonal provision gives to the citizens of
one State the right to sue in another
through the Federal courts: and the fact
that litigant might bring de novo in a
Federal court the precise action which had
just been decided adversely to him in the
highest court of the State in no way limits
the right.
Hence in September following the de-
cision of the Court of Appeals in this State
Miss Fayerweather and Mrs. Achter,
through their counsel, Roger NJ. Sherman,
brought an action in the United States
Circuit Court for the Southern District of
New York to recover their share of the es-
tate of between six and seven million dol
lars left by Mr.. Fayerweather. alleging
that they had sought justice in the State
courts and that the latter had erred This
suit necessarily made defendant to the ac-
tlon all who had benefited under the will
as sustained by the Court of Appeals. IL.
therefore. included John B. Reynolds as
sole executor of the will of Lucy Fayer-
weather, widow of the testator: but al
though nominally defendant. his actual in
terest lay with the complainant. whose
cause he further Joined by filing through
his counsel. William Blaikie, cross-bill
OF complaint against the executors and all
who had profited under the WILL thereby
placing Miss Fayerweather and Mrs. Ach-
ter technically in the position of defend
ants. In this bill Mr.. Reynolds attacked
the validity of the Will executed October G.
lSS4-the will sustained by the State
eourts--contending that the DEGREES of the
Surrogate's Court, admitting that will and
h.
undue influence and fraud and are null
and void, together with all proceedings
under them; that the will and its codiciIs
were against public policy and uncertain.
and were obtained by undue influence and
fraud, and are null and void; and held that
the will executed October 2. 1880. was the
true last will and testament of Daniel B.
Fayerweather.
Mr.. Sherman, for Miss Fayerweather and
Mrs Achter, thereupon moved to amend
his original bill of complaint, so as to
make their attack upon the will as COM
plete as Mr.. Reynolds and the granting
OF this motion by Judge Lacombe in the
United States Circuit Court yesterday
practically" as the judge said, '.reopened
the whole case
1t is estimated by Mr.. Blaikie that only
s6Il. 600 of the more than $4,000 estate
remains undistributed. The sum of 81. 195. :
900 has gone in specific bequests to twenty
colleges and five hospitals, while the TWEEN
ty colleges have also received large sums
from the residue. Should the probated will
be declared null and void the dissipated
estate would have to be recollected by due
process of law; and if the will of 1880
should be established in it's place nine of
the college benefciaries would be cut off
from all participation in the estate. while
Union College. Trinity College, and RAN
dolph- Macon College, which are unnamed
in the probated will, would receive $780,
600 each. Eleven of the present bene-
ficiary colleges would still receive S1O0. 600
each. but would lose the large bequests
derived from the residue.
1t is expected that the case will go to the
Supreme Court of the United States. and
Mr., Blaikie calculates that it should reach
that court in the latter part of 1900 or
early in 1901