The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1910-02-16
\ an exhaustive opinion rendered
yesterday morning. Judge Corey de-

IN an exhaustive opinion rendered
yesterday morning, Judge Corey de-
a cIared invalid the trust created under
the terms Of the viii of the late
Claus Spreokels. The effect is to leave
the estate for distribution, according TO
the California law, share and share
alike 10 the FIVE children. Each viii re-
ceive 100000 The widows portion,
amounting to s5,OO0.00O, was in no way
affected by the decision BY strange
coincidence, her death yesterday pre-
cedcd the ruling by a few hours.
Judge Cofey sustained the demurrer
iuterposed to the petition for 2 partial
d.str.bution. This demurrer was filed
on behalf Of John .. and Adolph B.
Sprcckels- They are upheld on every
point u law. The claims of Rudolph
and Claus A Spreckels. who were
namcd as trustees, were overruIed. The
sour sous and Mrs. Emma Ferris, the
oeus'iter,. have been placed upon an
equal footing.
There was some speculation yester-
cay over tie terms Of the will that
oIrs. spreckels is known TO have left
IT'S provisions viii not be disclosed for
several days.
No Merit in Their Claim
Judge Cofey's decision reviews at
great length every legal point pre-
seuted during the hearing. He cites
case after case in support of his ruling
In no particular did he find merit in
the contentious of Rudolph and Claus
A. Spreckels. II was announced, how
ever. that they would carry the issue to
the supreme court
The viii Of Claus spreckels, first of
ALL declared that all his estate was
community property. A half, there
fore, amounting TO $4,000. 600, went TO
his wife. Anna Christina Spreckels. On
this point there was no contest.
It was the trust feature alone that
was attacked. This provided that upon
the death Of the widow Rudolph and
Claus A. Spreckels were to receive
one-third each. and as trustees were TO
hold the remaining third in trust for
Mrs. Ferris. the income only to go to
her. II was set forth further that in
case of her death without issue her
portion was 10 be divided between Ru-
dolph and Claus Spreckels. The will
made no provision for John D. and
AdoIph Spreckels. The trustees were
to administer the estate as a whole
during the life OF Mrs. Spreckels.
These were the features about which
the contest centered. Under the terms
Of the trust Rudolph and Claus A.
Spreckels would have received 1856
sss each and the two other brothers
nothing. With the breaking of the
trust the sum of sIooO.oOo viii go to
each.
Expect TO Be Upheld
Adolph and John D. Spreckels chose
10 bring the issue to a focus on the
demurrer. .preferring not to indulge in
2 contest that would involve the inti-
mate affairs of the family. They have
gained a sweeping victory. which. their
attorneys have assured them. viii be
upheld by the supreme court.
The decision goes TO the root of the
trust provisions permissible in wills
amenabIe TO the California law. The
Fair case is cited at great length.
Judge cofey's analysis deals with each
legal question involved with a com
pleteness that is said to make it epochaI
in California Jurisprudence.
The Judge held that there was no
Continued ON Page 2, Column