The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-08-06
Litigation Over Will.
A Single Sentence in the Will
of Emma n. Neal Causes
Legal Battle.
$4,000 INVOLVED.

The Orphans Court of Columbia
County has All interesting case on
its hands just now. The question
at issue is the proper Interpretation
of sentence in the last will and
testament of Emma II. Neal, late
of the Town of Bloomsbury, deceas-
ed, and the facts, briefly stated are
these Emma H. Neal died in 1887
She made a will leaving her estate
to her husband c. w. Neal. "for
his sole and separate Use at his dis
cretion, for the support and educa-
ton of my children.
c. w. Neal was also the execut-
or of the will, but in 1901 he re-
signed and his daughter, Grace Neal
Hutton, became the trustee. Up to
the time that he resigned from the
executor ship, c. w. Neal used the
income at his discretion, but the
trustee, Grace Neal Hutton, devoted
the earnings or income exclusively
to the maintenance, education and
support Of the children.
c. w. Neal now petitions the
court to order this money, the rents,
issues and profits of the estate to be
paid to him, claiming that under
the will they are "for his sole and
separate use" The trustee answers
this petition on the ground that the
testatrix placed her estate origin
ally in the hands of c. w. Neal, in
trust for the support and education
of her children.
Upon this Interpretation ofthe one
sentence the estate amounting to
SIS, 900 hinges.
The case was argued at consider
able length before the court on
Monday by B. Frank Zarr for the
petitioner, and by Geo. w. Tustin
and Fred Ikeler representing Grace
Neal Hutton the trustee.
In his remarks to the court Mr..
Zarr stated that Mrs. Neal had
created a life estate for her husband
c. w. Neal and that according to
the wording of the will he was given
full discretion as to the use Of it.
The children he claimed had moth
ing to do with any part of the will
until after the death Of the father.
He also spoke upon the charge of
mismanagement or misappropria-
ton of the funds.
Geo. w. Tustin, Esq, followed
for the children of Emma H. Neal,
deceased, denying the right of c.
w. Neal as a beneficiary in this
estate, claiming that he has no
standing.
His argument was devoted to the
validity and construction ofthe will.
He argued that under the conten-
ton of the other side, there was
either absolute disinheritance or
partial disinheritance, which it re-
quires clean statement of the tes-
tator to do, and where the words
are of doubtful nature, they must
be construed in favor of the heir as
against the executor.
A man cannot hold property in
his own name absolute with the
profits in trust for another, for it is
repugnant to reason and law that a
title absolute should yet be limited.
Hon. Fred Ikeler followed for
the trustee, dwelling psincipally up
on the question of her removal from
the trustee. ship. Yet he did speak
long enough on the construction tc
analyze part Of the will as to
whether or not the testator meant
to leave the disputed property to c.
w. Neal. He forcefully argued that
the true construction was that c.
w. Neal should have the sole and
separate use, not to use for any pur-
pose as might seem good to him,
but for the support and education
of the children, and that he might,
for this support and education,
use his own discretion. He further
offered the books to show that the
claim of c. w. Neal, of mismanage-
ment and misappropriation, was un-
founded.
Few cases there have been of late
that has created more general con-
Germ, and its conclusion is eagerly
awaited.
1t isn't likely that the matter will
end with the Orphans Court opin-
ion. Whatever Interpretation is
handed down here, the case it is
said will be carried to the Supreme
Court for final decision.