The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-23
BEFORE JUDGE LINDSAY
An Important Decision in the
Davis Estate Case.
HE DENIED THE PETITION
The Parties in Interest Are Not in q
Position to Demand New Decree
Of Distribution-Estate Of
Thomas Rogers.

| tions of a number of the heirs and their
assignees for a new decree of distri-
button. In passing on the matter the
| court said:
'"The petitions of Joseph A. Coram
and others for a supplemental and
amended decree which shall specifically
set out and designate the respective in
terests of Henry A. Root, Ellen S. Cor
nue. and others in and to that part of
the property, assets and effects of the
estate of Andrew j. Davis, deceased,
distributed by order Of this court on
February s, 1898, are denied.
"The parties in interest having seen
fit and they having consented when the
\ original decree was entered that dstri-
i button be made to them in the manner
4 in which it was, are not in position to
now demand that the order made on
February s, 1898, be, upon an applica-
i ton of this character modified. The in
terests of the respective parties might
have been segregated at the time the
decree in question was ordered had such
desire been made manifest
/ H A. Root and others cannot be
1 considered but as tenants in COM
| mon of the interests set apart to them,
and being tenants in common, their re-
spective rights should be adjudcated
/ legally. An application such as this
l will not accomplish that purpose
| Again, there is no showing by the pc
tition that a mistake was made when
i the decree was ordered and no mistake
/ being charged the court has no author
ity to grant the amendment prayed
Any other determination would, in eff
Fact haNr 49,
passing upon that which was not pre-
scented at the time it was made. The
I petitioners are asking not an amend
ment. but that new decree be made
and entered in the particular referred
to-"
question concerning the distribu-
ton of the estate of Thomas Rogers,
deceased, which has been puZzling the
heirs was determined by Judge Lind
say yesterday. .%
1t appeared by the amended agreed
statement of facts submitted. to the
court that Thomas Rogers at the time
of his marriage to Eliza Jane Rogers,
was the father of two children, John
Rogers and Mamie Rogers. the issue
of former marriage. The issue of the
marriage was daughter named AL
freda Rogers, who was born after the
death of Thomas Rogers, which occur
red about February 90, 1892. He left a
will, which was duly admitted to pros
bate. By the will Rogers bequeathed
to his wife, Eliza Jane Rogers, a life
estate in and ITO all real property pos
sessed by him, provided she did not
again marry; in that event, the will
provided that the real property and all
interest therein should belong solely to
his children. All money belonging to
the decedent was bequeathed to his son,
John Rogers, and to his daughter. Ma
mic Rogers. The widow, it seems did not
elect whether she would take such de-
wise, or whether she would renounce
the benefit thereof and take her dover
in the lands and her share of the per-
sonal estate, within one year after the
probate of the will. and was therefore
considered as having taken such de-
wise.
1t also appeared that John Rogers,
the son, issue of former marriage,
died on December %, 1894 leaving no
issue; and that Alfredo Rogers. the is
sue of the marriage between Thomas
Rogers and Eliza Jane Rogers. died on
July l, 1895, leaving no issue On or
about. January I. 1896. Eliza Jane Rog-
ers, the surviving wife, married che
Henry kltto, and is now his wife. The
| court was asked to determine what
! portion, if any, of the real property and
what portion, if any, of the personal
property (Which it is agreed consists
|
Kitto and what portion thereof be-
longs to Mamie Rogers, the only surviv-
ing child, the court finds that Alfredo
Rogers having died, leaving no issue,
that part of the estate to which she was
entitled, to-wit., one-third, goes to her
mother, Eliza Jane Kitto.
And the court further finds that John
Rogers having died, leaving no ISSUE
that part of the estate to which he was
entitled, to-wit., one-third goes to his
sister, Mamie Rogers by right of rep
resentation So that of the entire as
sets of the estate, Eliza Jane Kitto
the mother of Alfredo Rogers decea sd,
is entitled ITO onethird and Mamie Rog-
ers to two-thirds thereof, one-third by
virtue of her own right and the other
one-third by right of representation of
her deceased brother, John Rogers. The
state was ordered distributed accord
ingly.
The petition of Michael Regain, ad-
ministrator of the estate of Patrick l..
Regain, for authority to erect $500
monument a the grave of the muir
dered brother was heard by Judge
Lindsay yesterday, also objections
made to it by Mrs, Kate Ryan, a sister
of both the administrator and the dead
man. The estate is worth about 81 900,
but Mrs. Ryan did not wish to have
$500 of it spent for a monument. She
has so far opposed every action of her
brother as administrator and had also
bitterly fought his appointment. She
said she opposed the expenditure of any
money for a monument over which
Michael Regain had any control or with
l which he had anything to do She also
l objected because the grave was an I'M
suitable location for such a costly
monument and further because the ad-
mnistrator had also buried child of
his own there. After listening to the
arguments of the attorneys, the judge
1 observed that he much regretted that
such an unseemly contest existed in a
matter of that kind. He took the case
under adVisement.
James Fl. Lynch yesterday filed in
court his final account as administrator
of the Hannah Waller estate. showing
that he has received Il total of $1,000 in
cash and piece of real estate valued
at $1,000. His expenditures were $l,6SS,