New-York tribune., 1906-07-29
WILL HARD TO BREAK.
Precedents Make UphOlding of Sage
Testament Probable.

Surrogate Thomas yesterday issued the citations
to the heirs at law and next OF kin OF Russell Saga
who are named in the petition for the probate of
the will They are returnable September n and
are directed to be published in certain designated
papers for six weeks.
The application for TIE order was made by Henry
W. De Forest, counsel for Mrs Sage. and Charles
T. Adams representing the attorneys for the other
executors. the former submitting an afhdayit IN
support Of the affidavit sworn TO by Charles w.
Osborne, Mr.. sages cashier and confidential man
and one of the executors of the will
The talk yesterday was mainly as to tho pessieii-
ity OF successful contest OF the VIII. Although
the eleventh cause-that forbiddiug a contest on
the part OF legatees on pain of disinheritance-
was generally agreed TO be unusual one, yet
cases were cited in which it had been incorporated
in testaments
OF similar cases perhaps the most prominent was
the in which application to revoke the probate
Of the will Of Mrs. Cornelia NJ. Stewart. widow OF
A. T Stewart, the merchant, made by Prescott
Hall Butler. a nephew Of Mrs. Stewart, who was
partner in the law firm OF Evarts SOuthmayd d
Choate. The case was heard before Surrogate
Rastus s. Ransom in 1889. Joseph H. Choate and
Cleveland TreadweN appeared for Butler and Elihu
Root represented the proponents Of the will
Incorporated in the viii a clause substan-
TALLY in the same language as that forbdding a
contest Of heirs in the Sage will Quoting Justice
Redheld on the laws Of Wills, which he accepted as
an authority on the subject. Surrogate Ransom held
that conditions against disputing wills were rea-
sonable las nothing can be in conformity to
good policy than to prevent litigation.
Another point on which this decision is thought
90 have bearing in the event Of contest Of the
Sage will is with regard to any secret agreement
that might be made between the heirs whereby one
Of their number should make the contest being re-
imbursed, in case of failure. by the others. In the
Stewart case Mrs Kate A Wetheroll was to re-
ceive legacy of 100000. She had affirmed the win
and codlcils and wished to be considered in the
light of a witness for the proponents Of the WILL
Yet It was shown that she had entered into
secret agreement with other heirs to contest the
WILL and the Surrogate held that by reason OF this
agreement she had deprived herself OF her legacy
in the event Of the will being sustained. The de-
cisIon has nver been reversed by any court There
are several other decisions this point which
appear to make the success Of any effort to break
the will very improbable.
The report that Mrs. Sage would distribute
her husbands fortune in charity received no con-
rublic her plans If she has formulated any. II
fs Inferred from her previous charitable deeds
institutions as she thinks deserving. but even her
more intimate friends do not pretend 70 KNOW
The cost of administering such an estate as that
left nv Mr. Sage is enormous. II is asserted that
the expenditures In connection with an estate or
yh;SS &C a fair estimate the cost Of administering
Mr. Saze's estate will easiy run UP 10 $4,0OOQ0O.
The nature of the business conducted py M.
SAGE makes II almost impossible It is said that IT
can be continued. The general idea Is that as soon
as all the loans shall have been paid in the pusi-
Sage's brother and Charles w. Osborne, win. it
Is understood remain in charge until that time
,ac+ed ed thai DR.. J. P Mum. Charles w. Osborne
and Mrs. Sage win each get between S4o000o ana ,
That the estate will amount to between S6o.0ooOoO
and $50 100000.