The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-02-25
KNoTTY QUESTION OF LAW.
HEIRS OF MRS. ROBERTS BRING
WILL. INTO COURT.

p,ouerty Was to Be Kept Intact I'm
ill the Death of the Last of the Six
Daughters-The Railroads Paid
So. 900 for the RObertsviIIe Prop
.rtv and MIR. James II. sheldon.
Who Inherits Through n Deceased
wife and Daughter, Desires That
His share BE Paid to Him-Other
heirs Argue That Division
would Be Contrary to the Terms
of the Will.
An interesting question was argued at
ls.gth before Judge Falligant yesterday
by several of the leading members of the
savannah bar. The question involves the
dsposition of large sum of money now
awaiting the order of the court, and
served to bring out strongly the unusual
f.atures of one of the most peculiar willis
ever filed in Chatham county.
The will is that of Mrs. Mary J. Roberts
The wife Of the late Hiram Roberts, whose
dcath in 1894 preceded that of her husband
Mrs. Roberts was possessed of a large
amount OF her property, and the will was
drawn by her husband with the evident
a long term of years.
The couple had six daughters and three
sons. BY the terms of Mrs Roberts will
me property was left in bulk to her six
daughters, should they survive her to be
controlled and managed by them under the
terms of the will. The Will required the
property TO be kept intact until the death
of the last of the daughters, when the
property should be divided among their
descendants the descendants of each
daughter to take the mothers portion
should any of the daughters die without
leaving children il was provided that their
share should, at the division, 80 10 the
sons of the testator, Hiram, James ana
Dwight Roberts, for their lives, and after
their death to their children.
The principal portion of the property
thus beoueathed consisted of lots in
Walton ward in the section of the city
known as Robertsville. 1t happened that
Walton ward was selected by the several
railroads which recently united for the
purpose of building a union depot in Sa-
vannah as a suitable site for the depot
The heirs had no objection to selling at
she price offered but there was no author
ity in the executor of the will to sell and
the terms of the will provided that there
should be no division until after the de-
cease of all the daughters. AS the rail
roads had the right 90 condemn the prop
erty for a public use, ii was deemed more
advantageous TO all concerned to sell at
private sale. The matter was accordingly
presented TO the court, and an order was
obtained from Judge Falligant directing
the executor to sell at the price offered,
which sum was to be reinvested for the
joint benefit of the heirs.
The sale was made and the purchase
price, $4,000, was paid into the hands or
the executor. Mr.. Albert Wylly. So far
the heirs had all been agreed among each
other When the property had been turn
ed into money, however, Mr.. James R.
Sheldon de-fded that he preferred to have
his share in cash instead of having it re
invested in the joint. Mr.. Sheldon became
an heir by the death of his wife, who was
a Miss Roberts. The wife's share was in
herited by her little daughter and the
death of the latter left Mr.. Sheldon an
heir to a one-sixth interest in the prop
erty.
Mr. Sheldon claimed that the property
having been changed from real estate,
fair division of which might have been
difficult to reach and having been con-
verted into cash, there was no reason why
he should not be permitted to withdraw
done without injury to the other parties
interested. Mr.. r. r. Richards, Who
represented Mr.. Sheldon at the hearing
before the court yesterday, pointed out
very forcibly that Mr.. Sheldon occupied
different position from that of the other
heirs, his share in the property being
definite and specific, and that no disad-
vantage could attach to the direct heirs
by reason of his withdrawal.
Col. William Garrard, Mr. S. B. Adams,
Mr.. U. H. McLaws and Mr.. John w.
Burroughs the latter representing himself,
representing the other heirs, argued in be-
half of their clients that the will was
imperative and that the conversion of the
original property into money did not affect
its status under the will, and that no
division could be made without jeopardiz-
ing the interests of all concerned Mr.. ].
r. Saussy represented the executor. Mr..
WILLY.
Judge Falligant took the matter under
advisement for the purpose of investigat-
ing the knotty point which has been rails
ed at his leisure. The question for the
court to decide Is whether, the will, with
the conditions which it imposes with re-
gard to keeping the property intact, is 50
imperative that it must be observed TO the
letter., or whether the change of the real
estate into money has so altered the
status of the property as to permit of a
modification of the terms of the will and
a division in the manner desired.