Omaha daily bee., 1908-06-28
DEED is HELD TO BE FRAUDULENT
Half Section of Merrick County Land
In Involved.

IN IuNOINeus
CENTRAL CITY, Neb., June 27.-(Spe-
cial)-A deed, which the decree Of the
court declares to be fraudulent and to
bear the seal and signature of a fictitious
notary public and which involves the title
70 a half section of good Merrick county
land, was the feature of a suit which
was decided by Judge Hollenbeck In the
district court here this week. The parties
involved in the suit are residents Of
Omaha and it was there that the fraudu-
lent deed is alleged to have been made.
John w. Dillrance died in Omaha Sep
Sember %, 1891, possessed of a consider
able amount of personal and real property.
His will was admitted TO probate and his
wife, Sarepta, and his son, Allen Bertis,
were appointed executors of the estate.
Besides the son who was named as one
Of the executors there were three other
children, Elizabeth l.. Henion, Fannie ".
Coots and Nathan Eugene Dillrance. II
was provided in the will that the execu-
tors should take charge of the estate for
five years, managing as they deemed best.
and, If necessary, should sell part of the
property in order to keep up and repair
the other portion. At the expiration of
the five years the estate was to be
divided, the widow to receive one-third
and the remaining two-thirds to be
divided equally among the four children,
except that Allen Bertis Dillrance was to
receive IS 900 more than the others, the
will stating that during his lifetime the
deceased had given each Of the other
three that amount in excess of what n
had given Allen Bertis.
According to the evidence in the case
the executors had never made any attempt
to finally settle the estate or make a final
accounting. on November 10, 1901, the
wife, sarepta DiIlrance, died, leaving no
last will or testament.
Sixteen years after the death of tho
father, Nathan Eugene Dillrance began an
investigation of the affairs OF the estate
in order that he and his sisters might Sc
cure their portion. Their father had owned
a fine half-section OF land in this county,
located near Clarks and described as the
south u Of section II, township II. range 8.
west str p. M. To his surprise he found
that thee was a deed on record from the
mother, Sarepta Dillrance, TO John d.
! stickley, as trustee. He at once made al
investigation OF the circumstance attend
ing the pretended deed and last fall insti-
tuted a suit in which he made some serious
allegations.
In his petition he claimed that the deed
was dated but two days before his mothers
death. wheD she was on her death bed and
incapable of transactlng any business. The
allegation was also made that the instru-
ment was witnessed and sworn to before
one John T. Dillrance, a pretended notary
public in Douglas county, while as a mat
ter Of fact no ore Of that name ever held
a notarial seal in the county. The allega-
ton was set up that the deed was fraudu-
lent.
The title of the suit Instituted was Nathan
Eugene Dillrance, plaintiff. against Eliza
beth L. Henion, Fannie V. Coots. Allen
Bertis Dillrance and John d. stlckley, de-
PENDANTS. In his suit the plaintiff asked
that the pretended deed on the Merrick
county records be set aside and declared
TO be OF no effect and that the cloud on the
title OF the land be removed. It was
claimed that Allen Bertis Dilrance had al
ready taken from his fathers estate more
than the 5000 which he was to receive in
excess Of the others, and the petition prayed
that the court decree that the half-section
OF land be partitioned equally between the
four children, Nathan Eugene Dnlrancs,
Elizabeth L. Henion, Fannie V. Coots and
Albert Bertis Dillrance, or that the land be
sold and the proceeds divided.