Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-06-09
SUIT OVER ESTATE
Property Valued at 81, 100000 In
volved in Controversy.
TEE WILL OF GEORGE ". UTERMEHLE
Allegation That 1t Should Not Be
Held Operative.
GRANDSON THE CAVEATOR


Legal action OF more than ordinary IN
terest and Importance was taken today
when Charles H. Utermehle through At
torneys Wilton ]. Lambert and d. w.
Rakar a,ed n cova.+ In III. ornh.ns Cow,
-. 49, - It, az -,
ae's' nc p"p.i "fi'.ns o'i NE 'iieie' al
legged to be the last will and testament of
George w. Utermehle, deceased 1t Is set
forth that Charles II ITtermehle the cave.
o+or ,ros r,,,o,, 80 ~, 80 .h 1T,
was e'h"oh anu o"e VI INC nehs
at-la" anu next OF KIN OF George w. bter-
mehle at the time OF the latter'S death In
1889 Shortly after his grandfather's deaf
saws Mr. ITtermeb,e manor writing bo.r-
-
ing GATE the 'tn DAY OF December, 1881,
purportfng to be the last will and tesla
ment of the deceased, was propounded be-
fore tho court and v.s .dmitted 70 nr,b,te
III, :. -, -. -, 49,.
,;a,o, -. 49, .,,..,,',It a.. a.. go.
n,o,,,ded for c,,.h COCO, ho oont.sts ~.
probate and validity of the paper writing.
and declares the same should not be held
operative either as will OF personal or
zeal property.
Basis OF Contest.
The reasons he advances are: First, be-
cause 1t is alleged the testator was not
ne sound .,a a;snosi,a ,o;,d o,n,h,a of ax
ecu1ing Vaild deeo or contract at tne
time of the signing of the paper writing;
second because 1t is claimed the paper
writing noe oht.,ned and the exec,,,iop
tharaof nrocurad nv undue inf3uence nr.c-
ticed against and unon George w, liter
mebIa Nv Pose NJ Tavlor :, dauphter md
n ~, NJ Tar,or bar bnsband or nv,
~ hetps M aSio,' ne. ,,nnn U ~
tho netitioner. third becanse If 10 averred,
the paper writing was not freely and vol
unfairly executed. but that the suoscr.i'
.lo.r .mere,o was pro oo ~ deneased a NV,
the narttes mentioned. or by some other
person or persons unknown.
The court is asked by Mr.. utermehle TO
SCI ASIDE me propate as 10 peiso on PIE
anS -, a1,nn, anoronri.te iSsues tn he
framed under the iiirection of the court. to
he ,r;ed before a inv tn determine the al
Loo Rows Of fact ss 70 the validity of the
aIfaaa nil
value OF the Estate.
The late George w. Utermehle, over
whose 1arpe estate the present contest
80, - ;Lh,.o,t 80
ARISES, was oiie VI 'he carry iii'iaoi'"n's VI
washington, ana was very prominent III
his day In both business and financial
circles. He is said to have left property
worth nearly 81 200 ono consisting chiefly of
Wash,neton real estate
Rv the terms Of the will In ouestion.
after certain dev;ses to the testator's
widow who has since died II is said nearly
estate
to two s11rvivinp dauphters Mrs Tavlor
and Mrs Norment the latter being both
row residents of this CITY. 1t is understood
Mr. ITtermehle was largely interested in
nrone-tv nm 7tb street and that the will,
IN d;snyte has never been nrohated nnder
the act of 1SsS which confers Jurisdiction
upon the Probate Court as to real estate.
Mr. Otermehies succesS'
The present litigation will undoubtedly
recall to the minds of many Of the. older
citizens of Washington the rapid success
achieved by Mr.. Utermehle. in financial
way. during the civil war and subsequent
ly. He seemed to develop an especial par
TALLY for real estate investments and
mortgages on realty, Whefi large liteIesl
NJ T-tarn,ah,o ~ lo,,r ~ nariod o,,da,,ad
the reputation of having more ready money
at his command than almost any other
capitalist in the city and it was said was
no less experienced in the art of retaining
iaf. ~ IMAM Al '-'e ''''-'' ~ ''i-0
Several wears before Mr. ITtermehIc's
death, his only son. Charles H. Utermehle,
died, leaving widow. Mrs. Naomi Cter-
mehie; VINO no" hves IN thls CITY anu
soI- lleh mere BOY, the pIesenl ca Cd
.ol. l, was uhuer stoou ma Seoi W.
utermehle mad entertained consloeraole re-
gard TOT MS son up 10 lIle .iihe VI .le ia.-
tei ueath any hiu piCuSi.. w " ~
extent INTO BUSINESS Win MN. m,
Shortly AFTER the decease Oh mares Ill-
CATION In Wnlcn cohslderapis ieeins Wa
manifested arose between Mr. oleinleiile
and his daughter-in-laW; me dispute III
VOWED ABOUT $to,Vo "or'n VI 1oii i an du
curities winch were on aeposiI III lLe t>a
tional Metropolitan Bahk 10 the creuit VI
young utermehle Inc Iather clailne : ne
was entitled to the equltaple o"ne .,ii, "
the securities. f1naliy tne 'ui., wiileh vs.
instituted by WIFI VI repie'iii' "a@ e'"'
pl om1sed.
1o+or a,o,ber LITIGATION which shared a