The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-10-01

-
to digest this difficult problem of in
ternational Jurisprudence while taking
his case in the New England noun
tains.
Mr.. Lindabury, as counsel for the
defendants, had as clients Adam NJ.
Singer, Washington M. G. Singer, Lewis
Rendell, three sons and an English
friend of the American inventor, and
the Princess Edmond de Polignac, nee
Eugenia Singer; the Duchess Jean Ellie
Louis Octave Guillaume Severe DINA
MEN Duo Decazes de Glucksburg, nee
Blanche Singer; Louis Jean Victor de
G~lucksburg, Marguerite Ell de Glucks-
burg, Jacques Etc de Glucksburg, chill
dren of the duchess, and Paris Eugene
Singer, all of them either the children
or grandchildren of Mrs. Singer by her
| American husband.
The amount involved in the suit runs
into the millions and represents the big
block of stock awarded as dividends to
Mrs. Singer in 1901, three years before her
death.
The papers in the suit show that after
Mr.. Singers death in 1879, his widow mar
ried Vcomte D'Estenburg, otherwise
known as the Due de Camposelice, who died
In 1887. At the time of this marriage ar
~ante-nuptial agreement was made whereby
2,7S7 shares OF the Singer company stock
were turned over to John c. Palmer and
John F. Gould as a trjst. the income to
be paid to her during her life and after
her death to be held for all or any of her
children then living, by her former hus
band. In 1891 the widowed duchess mar
ried plain Mr.. Sohege, of Paris, entering
into a marriage contract In conformity with
French law, which made her last husband
her partner In all the "gains, of her estate.
Seven years later, 1898, Mrs. Sohege and
her husband confirmed by a second instru-
ment the trust created by Mrs. Singer
prior to her marriage to the Due de Cam
poselice, and under the powers conferred
by this instrument Messrs. Palmer and
Gould appointed Adam M. and Washington
M. g. Singer and Lewis RendeIl trustees
of the stock In their stead.
On the reading of Nine. Soheges will in
1904 1t WIS ascertained that the t~estatrix
named her husband as her universal
legatee,'' whereby he became possessed of
all her personal estate. Sohege Immediately
took out letters OF administration and
brought suit In the French courts for the
5,574 shares of capital stock allotted the
widow of Mr.. Singer as a dividend in 1901.
While this suit was pending the trustees
to whom the stock had been turned over
and who had made It a part of the corpus
or principal of the trust fund, brought suit
in the High Court of Chancery, giving
notice to Sohege to appear and defend
his rights.
1t appears from the voluminous records
in the case that Mr.. Singer and all his
family had long been expatriates, and
made their domicile in England. The
original trust deed executed by Mrs.
Singer was made while she was still re-
| af1fnR khara .rfOu 20 No.. oow~sn go - 1T
Belgian Due de Camposelice, and the trust
was in fact held by the respective trus-
tees in England.
Consequently, when Sohege declined to
appear and make answer to the suit
brought in the English Chancery Court.
the testimony taken was ex parte, and the
decision of that court was that Ii held ex-
elusive jurisdiction, the confirmation of
the trust agreement by Sohege In 1893
barring him out of the advantages he
might nave had under the French law.
Obtaining no satisfaction In either the
French or English courts last year, So
hege. ON terms which the bill says are not
disclosed. sold or assigned a twentieth in
terest in the 5,574 shares Of stock to Jo-
scph Ignatius Ryan, of this State, and
began proceedings here. The Singer heirs
Immediately i~nterposed the objection that
the New Jersey Court of Chancery had
no jurisdiction.
In the argument heard last night, Mr..
Marshall. agreeing that the Singer Conn
pany appeared in the case as ~stpckholder,
contended that the compliments held
legal ownership to the 1874 shares, as 1t
was derivable from denominations of In
come and therefore part of the personal
estate of Madame Sohege, to which it was
admitted he was solely entitled.
He also argued that suit was brought in
New Jersey because it was the situs of
the property represented by the stock, and
he held the court had jurisdiction, as his
represented.