Omaha daily bee., 1906-04-08
ROMANCE IN REAL ESTATE
Strange Story Of Title 70 Parcel Of Land
Located in Boston.
TRUTH THAT MUCH EXCEEDS FICTION
Greed of Heirs for Legacy starts
Strange Circuit Of Law Salts
that Eventually Right
the Wrong.


In presenting this interesting account Of
the wanderings Of Zee simple title from
one claimant to another we feel that
word is necessary from the donor lest the
reader may feel that we are placing too
much confidence in the creduilty Of our
friends.
We cannot testify as TO the facts Of Mr..
Crocker's remarkable story, but Mr..
Crocker, now deceased. was a well known
attorney and trustee in Boston and his
standing as a lawyer as well as the author
tiles cited in the story, are sufficient evil
denoe OF its veracity.
We are Indebted TO Mr.. Crocker's brother,
Hon. Geo. @. Croker, the transit COM
missioner Of Boston, for the original copy
as It was published by the Massachusetts,
Title Insurance company and the American
Law Review In october, 1876.
History OF n Title.
OF the locality Of the parcel OF real es-
tate, the history of the title OF which 1t Is
proposed to relate, 1t may be sufficient TO
say that It lies in Boston within the limits
OF the territory ravaged by the great FIRE
of November and 10. 1872 In 1880 this par
Gel Of land was IN the undisturbed pos
session Of Mr.. VIII am ingalls,. who referred
his title to II TO the will Of his father, Mr..
Thomas Ingalls, who died in 1880 Mr.. In
gals, the elder, had been a very wealthy
citizen OF Boston; and when he made his
will. a few years before his death. he owned
this one parcel OF real estate worth about
10000 and possessed In addition, personal
property 20 the amount OF between 100000
and $4,000 BY his will he specifically
devised this parcel Of land to his
wife. for life and upon her death
20 his only child, the William In
gals before mentioned, in fee, to whom,
after directing his executor to pay to two
nephews, william and Arthur Jones, the
sum OF $4,000 each, he gave also the large
residue Of his property. After the date
of his will however, Mr.. Thomas ingalls,
engaged in some unfortunate speculations
and upon the settlement OF his estate the
personal property proved to be barely suf-
ficient for the payment of his debts and
the nephews got no portion Of their lega-
cies. The real estate, however, afforded to
the widow a comfortable income, which
enabled her during her life TO support her
self In a respectable manner. Upon her
death In 1915 the son entered into possession
OF the estate, which had gradually in
creased IN value; and he had been enjoying
for fifteen years a handsome income de-
rived therefrom, when he was one day sur
prised TO hear that the two cousins, whom
his father had benevolently remembered
IN his will, had advanced a claim that
this real estate should be sold by his
fathers executor and the proceeds applied
TO the payment Of their legaoies.
Surprise TO the Holders.
This claim. now first made thirty years
after the death Of his father, was Of course
great surprise to Mr.. ingalls,. He had
entertained the popular idea that twenty
years possession effectually cut Off all
claims. Here, however, were parties,
after thirty years undisputed possession by
his mother and himself setting up in 1860
q claim arising out of the will of his
father, that will having been proved in
1890. Nor had Mr.. Ingalls, ever dreamed
that the legaoies given to his cousins
could in any way have precedence over
the specific devise Of the parcel OF real
estate to himself 1t was, as a matter OF
common sense, so clear that his father
had intended by his first will to provide
for his wife and son and then to make a
generous gift out OF the residue OF his es-
tate to his nephews, that during the
thirty years that had elapsed since his
death It had never occurred to any one to
suggest any other disposal of the property
than that which had actually been made.
Upon consulting with counsel. however
Mr.. ingalls, learned that although the time
within which most actions might be
brought was limited to a specified number
OF years, there was no such limitation af-
fecting the bringing of an action to recover
a legacy. See Mass. Gen, St. C. 81, %; Kent
against Durham. 1O6 Mass. 5S6 sol; Brooks
against Lynde, Allen 81, &c, He also
learned that as his fathers win gave him
after his mothers death the same estate
that he would have taken by inheritance
had there been no WILL the law looked upon
the devise to him as void and deemed him
10 have taken the estate by descent. What
he had supposed to be specific devise OF
the estate TO him then was a void devise, or