The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-09-23
EXPOSES ERRORS
IN SPR[CkfLS WILL
Attorney A. F. Morrison Makes
Forceful Argument Against
Clause of Document
Provisions Similar to Those De.
cIared Invalid in the Fair
and SutrO Testaments

! Citing decision after decision in sup
port of the points of his argument, A.
F. Morrison continued his attack ip
Judge Coffey's court yesterday on the
trust clause of the will of the late
Claus Sprecke1s He will probably
conclude today the exhaustive and
forceful argument he is directing at
the instrument whereby the dead
sugar king attempted to dispose of the
millions he had accumulated during
his long life.
/ 0. K. Cushing will probably follow
lin behalf of Rudolph Spreckels and
Gus Spreckels, the proponents OF the
4 will, in opposing the demurrer of John
D. Spreckels and Adolph B. Spreckels
to the petition for a decree of distribu-
ltion. Peter f. Dunno will close in
behalf of the demurrants.
/ With the exception that Adolph B.
Spreckels made his appearance during
the morning session, the personnel of
the courtroom was about the same yes
terday as the first day of the will
contest.
COMPREHENSIVE ARGUMENT
Morrison concluded his attack on the
part of the trust dealing with the real
property phase and then launched the
power of his argument against that
part of the trust dealing with the per-
sonal property. The Fair, Pichoir,
| Hayward, Dixon and Sutro estates were
among those discussed by Morrison
during his comprehensive argument.
/ He repeated his contention of the
previous day that the trust was in
validated because the testator at
tempted to delegate to the trustees
the power to partition and divide the
property. With his clear logic he
showed how the conditions in the
Spreckels trust were similar to those
in the Fair trust which was declared
void by the supreme court. The trust
in the Spreckels VIII, he argued, went
even further in delegating power to
! the trustees than was the case in the
Fair will.
FAILS. OF ITS PURPOSE
After defining the full purport of
the words employed by Spreekels in
| authorizing his trustees to assign
| transfer, set over and deliver the
property of the estate. Morrison again
made the point that the will failed of
its purpose because direct requests had
not been made, the only requests at
tempted being those mentioned in the
trust clauses This. he added, was in
contravention of the state law.
Turning next to the personal prop
erty trust, Morrison contended that this
part of the estate was inseparable from
the real property and SO the clause was
void because of the interdependence of
the two classes of property. If the
realty trust were set aside, the greater
part of the property would be elm
mated and so the instrument would be
mutilated.
Twill was drawn the city was In ruins.
and that the testator consequently in
tended that the two classes of property
should be kept together, SO that the
personal property could be used to re-
habilitate the real property. If the
real property trust were invalidated.
that class of property would go to the
heirs and the personal property could
not be used for rehabilitation He
showed how unreasonable would be
the condition imposed on Mrs. Ferris
! If she were to get fifth of the real
property and third of the income on
the personal property If the personal
/ property could not be used to rehabili-
tate the real property.
SUTRO AND FAIR WILLS
! According to the Spreckels will"
L {
given the discretionary power to
change personal property into real
property. IL the discretionary power
was exercised, the realty must there
after be considered as realty, and so,
in accordance with the Sutro decision,
this would render the trust void. BY
converting the personal property into
realty the trustees would have real
property to convey, and this would
bring. the matter within the purview
of the Fair decision. and thus esta blish
i the illegality of the position of the
/ trustees"
| Another strong point made by Nor
rison went to the power of the testator
/ TO create trust to continue longer
/ than the lives in being. He contended
| that such a possibility might arise in
the Spreckels CASE which would be
| contrary to the law of this state, which
holds that every future interest is void
| in it's creation which by any possibility
may suspend the absolute power of
ALIENATION for a longer period than the
lives of the persons in being. Such
power is suspended when there are no
persons in being by whom an absolute
/ interest in possession can be conveyed
/ Morrison will continue his attack this
morning on this point involved in the
Spreckels trust.