Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-01-26
MANY CLAIMANTS TO PROPERTY
Controversy Ono Between Son of An
thony Robertson, stepson and His
GrandchiIdren-The Son Victorious
Estate of $4,000 lnvoved-May Be
Appealed.
l to Times-Republican.

Robertson, deceased, William II. Rob-
ertson, administrator, giving title to a
$4,000 estate to the son of Anthony
Robertson, claimed by a step child and
several grandchildren. The Rob-
ertson case, which occupied all
the first week and half Of the second
week of the present term of court, is
one which involves not only many fine
points Of law, but also the vital ques-
ton, Is 1t safer to place your property
in trusted hands while yet you live,
and expect your wishes to be carried
out when you are gone, or to make a
will and trust the court to see it prop
erly executed?
In rendering his decision. Judge
Wright said: Il regret exceedingly
that the law compels me to find for the
defendant"-that is, for the son, Will
lam r. Robertson. The verdict is by
no means popular, altho the law is on
the side of the son. Many OF the old
settlers who are conversant with the
case and knew of the desires OF An
thony Robertson, believe the property
should have been given to the grand
children and stepson, regardless Of the
technicalities of the case. While the
case will be appealed to the supreme
court, lawyers say the decision OF
Judge Wright will. undoubtedly be con-
f1rmed, regardless Of the justice of the
claims of the grandchildren.
In 1889 Anthony Robertson Of Steam
boat Rock had living one son and also
several grandchildren by two daugh-
tiers, deceased. Also he had a second
wife and a stepson. Mr.. Robertson.
altho capable business man, could
neither read nor write. According to
the plaintiffs In the case, he had given
property to his son. William R., and
desired all his remaining estate, which
he estimated at $4,000, to go to his
grandchildren. Thinking his wife might
outlive him and his stepson (who is
now living in Oklahoma), inherit her
one-third, he arranged with his wife
to join with him in deed to cut off
her dover by paying her $4,000 cash.
The property was decided to William
AS., WV az SAAC lhlAC AlNCo Sb dll, IAdS.p
and the heirs claim that William r.
was to account to the grandchildren
for the value of the same on the death
Of his father. But this additional con-
tract was not in writing.
Anthony Robertson retained possess
sion OF the real property until his
death in June, 1900. This was admitted
by William r., who claims to have
paid his father for the same in 1892.
There is a typewritten receipt between
father and son in 1892 acknowledging
the settlement Of all claims in full, but
on which is written in ink "as relating
to all money loaned or advanced to
William R., as agent for Anthony" The
heirs claim this receipt, which was for
$3,023.45, had nothing to do with the
real estate, which was worth over
10000.
1t was not shown In court that Will
lam r. ever claimed the real estate
during his fathers life, but upon An
thongs death he claimed everything,
including the property exempt to the
widow, who survived her husband a
little more than a year. She went to
live with relatives in Tennessee, and
applied for an allowance of $500 for
a years support, thru her nephew, T. ].
Dickey. of Steamboat Rock, now dead.
Believing William RS statement that
he owned the real estate in fact, Mr..
Di6key signed receipt on payment Of
the $780, releasing not only her claim
for an allowance for support, but also
for the exempt property, worth about
$500, and her. share of the estate, re-
ported by William r. as about $3.50
more. Her administrator, William
Williamson, attacks the 5000 settle
ment, made by William RS attorneys.
as fraudulent and without authority
of law" w. r. Robertson claims that
the $4,000 paid her twelve years be-
fore cut her off from all participation
in any part of the estate. and also that
the Dickey $500 receipt estopped her
from all shares.
About this time the heirs brought
suit in equity to set aside the deed.
This case went to the supreme court
and was lost because there was no
evidence in writing that the land was
decided to w. r. in trust" The court,
however, held that if the land had not
been paid for the heirs could bring no
action to compel VIM. r. to pay for it.
That is the present case, which was
brought in the fall of 1904 and has been
postponed and continued until now.
One of the features of the case was
the claim by the defense partly that
the payment in 1892 was made partly
in cash and partly by w. r. Robert
sons check on the Farmers and Mer-
chants Bank of Pratt, Kan. 1t was
claimed that the check was lost but
the stub was introduced as evidence.
This bank went out of commission in
1897 and all of its books save one were
burned. The president of the bank
testified that the only reason it was not
burned with the others was that it
wouldn't go in the stove. This book
proved to be the balance book of the
bank which showed that VIM. r. had
no account at the bank at the time of
the check and hadn't had for over
three months.
Judge John Porter, who has been
practicing law over fifty-six years,
with the exception of eight years on
the bench, has had charge of the case
for the heirs from it's start. C. L. Hays