Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-27
AFTER SINGER GOLD
P. c. w. Sohege Sues for Major
Portion of $50, 900, 900.
CLAIM BASED ON CONTRACT
Sewing Machine Company's Stock In
volved in the Case.
LEFT IN TRUST BY WIFE
Tlaintin Was Third Husband Of the
Sewing Machine Mans Widow
Antenuptial Contract.

NEW YORK, March 27.-Claiming that
under an antenuptial agreement he is en-
titled to the major portion Of $4,000, 900,
Paul Charles William sohege. third hus-
band OF the widow Of Isaac Merritt Singer,
has Instituted a suit in the chancery court
OF New Jersey to gain possession Of the
vast sum left in trust by his wife.
The Singer Manufacturing Company Of
Elizabethport and children and grand
children of Mrs. Sohege are the defendants
In the action, which promises to become
notable in the annals of international will
contests.
The husbands case has already been
thrown out Of the courts of France, and
has been decided against him by the chan
Gerry division of the high court of Eng
land. To enable him to sue in this coun-
try. Sohege has assigned a one-twentieth
interest in his claim to Joseph I. Ryan Of
Jersey City, who is made a co-complain-
ant. Argument in the matter began before
vice Chancellor Pftney in Newark yester-
day.
The action is to determine the DISPOSE
ton Of 5,574 shares of Singer company
stock, which constituted stock dividend
on 2,787 shares Of the same company. the
original owner Of which was the widow
OF the founder of the great sewing ma
chine concern. He died quarter of q
century ago. leaving a fortune Of $780,
100000.
Widow Was Bakers Daughter.
In her maidenhood Mrs. Singer dispensed
cakes and pies over the counter Of her
fathers shop on the Rue Washington,
Paris. She was Isabelle Eugene Summer
ville the daughter Of humble tradesman,
and was famed in the French capital for
her wit and beauty. The wealthy Ameri-
can inventor lost his heart to her, and
they were married in 1865.
A few years after her husbands death
Mrs. Singer was wooed and won by a
Belgian violinist named Ropsart, who ap-
peared in Paris as the Viscomte dEstim-
bourg. After he had married the rich
widow he acquired the extinct title of Due
de Camposelice and won fame for his chart
ties with his wife's money. He died In
1887.
Four years later the former Mrs Singer
married her third husband, the present
contestant Of her will. He is well-known
Paris clubman, but at the time of his mar
riage was impecunious. Before her death
his wife had the satisfaction of marrying
her two daughters brilliantly. One became
the Princess de Scey-Montbeliard and the
other the Duchess Decazes. Both are deep
ly concerned in the present suit
Prior to her second matrimonial VEN
ture Mrs. Singer entered into an ante
nuptial agreement, which also specifically
included "any future husband" This is the
basis of Sohege's action. The complaint
sets forth that when Mrs Singer was about
to marry a second time she entered into
settlement whereby the 2, 181 shares of the
Singer corporation she owned were de-
livered to John C. Palmer and John B.
Gould as trustees.
"Any Future Husband" Included.
+ The agreement was that the income should
be paid to her during her life and after
her death to be held for all or any of her
children and by her then intended or any
future husband In 1903. some years after
her marriage to Sohege, new stipulation
was made whereby the present trustees
were substituted. They are Adam M. Singer,
Merritt G. Singer and Lewis Randall.
The bill sets forth that the Singer Com
pany through the trustees created surplus
of $40, OOO, 900 and that instead of the sum
being divided among the stockholders in
cash It was wiped out by the declaring of
stock dividends. In order to do SO the capi-
tai stock was increased from $10,0O0,0O0 to
SOD 600 600. The ratio of new stock appor-
toned as dividends to the original holders
was two shares for each original one.
The contention of SOhege Is that the 1874
shares Of his wife. composing the stock
dividend on the 2.7S7 shares that formed
the trust fund. must be treated as income,
and that therefore he is entitled to receive
his portion of the added shares under the
marriage agreement. The defense holds
that the 5,574 shares must be considered as
part of the capital Of the funds settled by
the agreement of 1879. The defense also
maintains that the New Jersey court has no
i,1rC