The San Francisco call., 1899-11-25
HALF OF EMER|C
ESTATE SHE SAYS
BELONGS TO HER
Late Millionaire Her
Adopted Father.
HE FORGOT HER IN HIS WILL
Grace D. Siegfried Brings Suit to Re
cover Valuable Properties In
This City and Contra
Costa County.
HE FORGOT HER IN HIS WILL

From uncertain fame behind the foot
lights Matilda Darling. as q girl Of 12 de-
serted the stage and was taken into the
home OF the late Henry F. Emeric, there
she alleges in a complaint filed yesterday
TO assume the duties OF a daughter and
receive an education befitting the child OF
a millionaire. That Millionaire Emeric
had an adopted daughter. or that any per-
son claimed such relationship was rot
generally known until yesterday, when
suit was fled TO recover possession OF one
half Of all the properties left by the de-
ceased.
Grace d. Siegfried. once known as Ma
tilda Darling" appears as plaintiff in this
unexpected suit On or about September
2S 1880. she alleges. when she was the
age Of u years, her mother. Mary Ann
Darling, and Henry +. Emeric. with the
consent OF the plaintiff. entered into an
agreement by which she became the To-
gally adopted daughter of the deceased.
Mr. Emeric agreed TO provide for her and
leave her the same portion OF his estate
as though she We're his legally begotten
child, and would in every way take the
responsibility for the moral and physical
welfare Of the plaintiff" In turn, she
says, she accepted Emeric as her father
and rendered unto him the love and affec-
ton and all the duties OF a daughter 10
her father and was obedient and dutiful
Shortly after she went TO live with Mr..
Emeric, plaintiff continues. on the 4th day
OF June, 1850, she was baptized under the
name Of Grace ID. Emeric in the presence
OF the deceased and other members Of his
family, in accordance with the rites OF the
Roman Catholic church, and she then and
there renounced the name of Matilda
Darling and became a legal member OF
the family Of the deceased. True To her
obligations. she lived with her adopted
father and loved and cherished him until
the time Of his death, on August l5 last
NTna ha
that he had made a will and testament in
which he bequeathed his entire estate 10
his widow. Elizabeth Emer1c. to the eX-
clusion OF the plaintiff. Another will IS
IN existence, she alleges, which bequeaths
her portion OF the estate. but IL has not
been produced. and Mrs. Emeric has filed
the other for probate In Contra Costa
County.
Regarding the will. the plaintiff says
that at the time Of the execution Of the
will on June %. 1889, her adopted father
was I'll and distressed and OF unusual
mind, so that his failure 10 mention her
was unintentionaL In conclusion she
prays that Judgment be given her declar-
Ing that Mrs. Emeric. the defendant. is a
trustee and holds one-half of the estate
for her benefit She also asks that the
defendant be compelled 10 make a good
and sufficient deed conveying to her one
half OF the real estate located in this city,
one piece being located on Front street,
near Washington: the other on Geary.
near van Ness avenue
In another action Mrs. Siefried Joins
Fredericka Blume and William O.. Hen
shaw with Mrs. Emeric as defendant
This suit is brought TO recover title 10
One-half OF a vast tract OF real estate in
the San Pablo rancho, Contra Costa Coun-
". In this suit the plaintiff makes the
same allegations as to her relationship,
but claims that the Contra Costa prop
erty was obtained from the deceased
through the exercise of undue influence
During the pendency Of the actions Mrs
Siefried asks that a receiver be appointed
to take charge Of and protect the prop
erty until final decision is reached