The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1904-05-05
CASE Is MUCH TANGLED
HISTORY OF THE FAMOUS SUI.
LIVAN LITIGATION TAKES ON
ADDED INTEREST.
Courts Have Been Endeavoring for
Three and One half Years to
Solve Case

SEATTLE, May 5.-Increased inter
est is given the litigation over the will
Of the late John Sullivan by the ap-
pearance of Cornelius Sullivan of St.
Louis, whoi says he is a brother of the
dead Seattle millionaire. Together with
Nellie Hogan, of South Carolina, who
claims to be the daughter of Sullvan's
sister, now dead, he asserts that they
van estate.
For three and one-half years the
courts of King county, the United
Sttaes court for the district of Wash
ington, the United States circuit court
of appeals and the United States su-
preme court have tried to lend their
aid in deciding who should receive the
property left by the late John Sulli-
van when he died intestate in Seattle
on September 26, 1900. No case of a
will in this state has ever aroused the
public interest and that of the legal
profession as the Sullivan case has
done
Immediately after Sullivan's death
Thomas T. Littell was appointed spe-
cial administrator of the estate and
served until November 10 of the same
year. This appointment was made by
the probate department of the King
county superior court. Louis Daussat
and Marie Carrau then filed a petit
ton for letters of administration. al
Ieging that Sullivan had died intes-
ttae and in their debt. on the day that
Littelrs service as special admnistra-
tor closed Terence O'Brien was APP
pointed a general administrators and
has since held that position.
Carrau Oral Will.
In the following March Marie Car
rau filed her petition in which she al
legged that the night before his death,
Sullivan had made an oral will, leav-
ing the property to her, and she
prayed that this will be admitted to
probate. In this state an oral will cam
not be admitted to probate unless the
proof be offered within six months and
a citation is issued to the widow or
the next Of kin to the deceased. This
same law provides that this citation
must be served within ten days before
the hearing, but in this case on the
dav the petition was filed the court
directed the heirs to appear and show
why the will should not be probated.
On June 20, 1901, Hannah O'Calla-
CHAN and Edward Corcoran, as heirs
at law and next of kin to John Sulli-
van. instituted suit in the circuit court
of the United States for the district of
Washington against Terence OBrien
as administrator, and against Marie
Carrau. In their suit they maintained
that the alleged will had never been
made by John Sullivan; that if made,
If was invalid upon it's face and that
the decree Of probate of the King
county superior court was void be-
cause it was rendered without notice
to anv one, and that to give it effect
would be to deprive the heirs Of their
property without due process Of law.
Irish Witnesses Examined.
Marie Carrau defended the action in
the circuit court and a commission to
take testimony in Ireland was duly
issued. Many witnesses were examined
both in Seattle and in Ireland. Testi-
monv was taken in Seattle by Marie
Carrau in support of defense of the
will and by Hannah O'Callaghan and
Edward Corcoran in opposition to the
alleged will. In 1901 Judge Hanford
rendered a final decree, in which he
decided that Hannah O'Callaghan and
Edward COrcoran We're first cousins of
John Sullivan and were heirs at law
and next of kin. He ordered the ad-
ministrator to recognize this decree,
and adjudged that the alleged will had
never been executed, and enjoned
Marie Carrau from ever again setting
ND any claim to the property under the
provisions of this will.
In this litigation in the circuit court
Marie Carrau had contended that the
matter in controversy was within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
the state of Washington, and that the
circuit court of the United States had
no jurisdiction. From Judge Hanfords
decree. Marie Carrau appealed to the
United States circuit court of appeals
for the Ninth district circuit. This
court did not hear the case upon its
merits. but simply upon the question
of jurisdiction. and decided that the
circuit court had no jurisdiction of the
suit. and rendered a decree directing