The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-18
FILE DEMURRER
IN SUPPORT OF
EQUITY RIGHTS
John D. and Adolph B. Spreck-
els Object to Distribution of
Their Fathers Estate
Judge Coffey Remarks That the
Question Involved Is Validity
of Trust Clause

To protect their interests in the
estate of Claus Spreckels, deceased, in
the event of the will being contested,
John D. Spreckels and Adolph B.
Spreckels, two of the sons, yesterday
filed demurrers to the petition of Ru-
dolph Spreckels and Claus A. Spreckels
for partial distribution of the estate,
which is reported to be worth between
s2o 100000 and $4o,000,e00. The effect
of the demurrer will be to determine
the validity of the trust clause of the
alleged will.
Rudolph spreckels and Claus A.
Spreckels, as trustees of the trusts
which the alleged will attempted to
create, filed petition last Tuesday for
the distribution of a large portion of
the estate, including 81 5000 in cash.
The petition of the trustees was to
have the property taken out of their
hands as executors of the estate and
transferred to them as trustees of the
trusts provided for in the alleged will
To Preserve Equity
Should this transfer be made the
mere act of giving to Rudolph Spreck-
els and Claus A. Spreckels as trustees
the property named in their petition
would establish the validity of the will.
To prevent their equity lapsing John
D. Spreckels and Adorph B. Spreckels
yesterday caused their attorneys, Nor
rison, Cope & Brobeck, to file the de-
murrer to the petition.
Claus Spreckels, who had amassed
millions in the sugar industry. died De-
cember 26, 1908, leaving as his sur
vivors widow, Anna c. Spreckels;
four sons, John D. Spreckels, Adolph
Spreckels, Claus A. Spreckels and Ru-
dolph Spreckels, and a daughter. Mrs.
Emma c. Ferris
Under the terms OF the will the prop
erty is all given in trust to Rudolph
and Claus A. Spreckels as trustees.
These trustees, after the death of the
widow. are to divide the property into
three parts and to assign and transfer
one of the parts to each of the trus
tees and the third to the trustees in
trust for Mrs. Ferris. The interest of
Mrs Ferris in the event of her dying
without issue is to revert to the trus-
tees.
Attorney Cope for the demurrants
and Attorney Charles S. Wheeler for
the petitioners engaged in a brief clash
when the petition was called up for
consideration in Judge Coffey's court
yesterday afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Attorney Wheeler Objects
"I assume that the demurrer is an
attack on the trust provisions of the
will" observed Wheeler. "As far as
am concerned / am satisfied that if
the trust is valid John d. Spreckels and
Adolph B. Spreckels are not parties in
interest. If there is no question as to
the validity of the trust the objectors
have no standing in this court"
Cope explained that Attorney Nor
rison of his firm had the case in ,his
charge but had gone to a sanatorium
at ST Helena for his health. He urged
a continuance for six weeks or two
months.
People who bring contests ought to
be prepared to present them promptly"
retorted Wheeler.
"Mr. Morrison went to st. Helena
before the petition was filed and did
not anticipate the speed and prompt
ness with which Mr.. Wheeler would
move in the estate significantly re-
turned Cope in referring to the haste
of Wheeler to have the validity of the
will established by securing the par
tial distribution.
Validity of the Trust
Judge Coffey read the 10 pages OF
the demurrer and remarked that the
validity of the trust seemed to be the
only question involved and that it
would involve a hearing on the merits
of the case. When Judge Cope re-.
newed his request for continuance be-
cause 1t would endanger the health of
Mr. Morrison to force his early attend
ance in court, Judge Coffey continued
the matter until next Tuesday, when a
time for argument will be agreed upon.
The demurrers to the petition for
partial distribution set forth that each
demurrant as IAN heir at law of said
Claus Spreckels, deceased, and a per-
son interested in the estate, OF said
Claus Spreckels, deceased, demurs to
the petition for partial distribution
for grounds in part as follows:
Allegations of Demurrer
'.That the said petition does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause for the granting, or to entitle
the petitioners, or either of them, to
the granting, of the prayer of said
petition in favor or on behalf of said
petitioners. or either of them, or of
any distribution or relief therein
prayed for, either in whole or in part.
or of any relief or distribution what
ever to the said petitioners, or either
of them;
THAT the said petition does not state
any fact or facts sufficient to entatle
Continued ON Page ?, Column 2