New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-09
No CONTEST PROBABLE
OVER ASTOR'S WILL
Provision Made for PoSthumous
Heir Sufficient. Expert in
Probate Law Says.
FRIENDLY ACTION EXPECTED
Executors and Legatees Would
Be Freed of Responsibility
by Having Courts Ruling,
as in Grant Case.

NAV Re stated. despite contrary intima-
t,ons, that there will be no contest over
the will of Colonel John Jacob Astor
and that IT will be probated as made on
Nav L. the day selected by counsel for
the executors as the day on which the
document filed in the Surrogates' office
nm Tuesday should come for probate.
According TO lawyer who has had
many years practice in the Surrogates
court and is versed in every detail OF
the probate Law. the provision made by
Colonel Aston for any child surviving
him other than his son, William Vincent
Aston. and his daughter, Muriel Astor.
VINO are his only living children. fully
APPLIES TO the posthumous heir expected
II IS predicted, also. that the executors
Of the Astor will will bring a friendly
action in the Supreme Court for the
construction of the will to avoid all pos
sible future controversies or obstacles so
the distribution Of the estate or the
valid establishment of the trust funds
provided for in the instrument.
The chief speculation over the will is
whether Mrs. Madeleine Force Astor,
wife Of the testator. waived her dover
interest Of one-third Of the real estate
owned by Colonel Aston in the ante
nuptial settlement made between them
last fall.
Second Wife Still Minor,
The impression generally held before
the marriage that she did so is strength
ened by the terms and language Of the
Will While she could not take such an
important step alone. because, in the
eyes Of the law she was g minor, and.
in fact. is still minor, il was said that
her father. William H. Force. was con-
stituted her guardian for that purpose
That important document is retained by
the Force family. and probably its con-
tents will never he made public through
its being placed on file in a public Office
4 similar settlement was made between
Colonel Aston and his first wife. Mrs.
Ava Willing Aston. who divorced him,
and the terms Of this settlement, referred
10 IN the will Of the testator. have never
become public.
OF course, the first Mrs. Astor did rot
receive under the settlement anywhere
near the amount Of money she would
have become entitled 70 on the death II
her husband. but there Is no going be-
hind her waiver Of her dover rights. 50
that tire suggestion is unreasonable that
there might be q contest 10 staolish a
right - this much greater share Of the
estate
However IN making an estimate Of tha
share Of the vast real holdings cf Colonel
Aston. in which Mrs. Aston would have
g cre-third interest If she had not
signed away her dover rights. y must
rs remembered that this would not have
included that part n the estate only
eft in trust fcr Colonel Aston by his
father, William Aston. which consisted
of the latter's residuarv estate. for While
the victim cf the Titanic catastrophe
rad the life income from this trust rdnd
ard had the power II distribution. II did
rct constitute z part q his estate, and
"a could dispose q ell Of ~ 20 his son
as he DID. while Mrs. Aston would have
70 claim on II.
Dover Rights Cimnishe5.
Ar4 as this share held in trust was
no !nconsi4erahle part Of the estate dis
POSED e By Colonel Aston. - must be
remembered that her share. Il she had
re, waived her dover nights. would not
have amounted, as has been generally
believed. u one-third cf all tbs real es-
tate made over IN the will nov
What strengthens the belief that Mrs.
Aston has no Claim If dover is the spe
c!Nc language Of Colonel Astor in his
Will, which said about the provisions
for her. L hereby declare that the pro-
visions II this. my will. made for my
said wife. are in lieu and bar Of all
dover and claim Of dover. and Of all
claim on her part upon or in respect OF
nv estate" The Will Of the testato.
was drawn by able counsel, and while
the purpose was that Of Colonel Astor
the language was that Of the lawyers
and they must have known the reason
for the provision in drawing the instru~
ment.
AS 10 the doubt expressed over the
provision made by the head Of the house
Of Aston OF 100000 for any child sur
viving him other than the two now liv-
ing. the expert opinion was expressed
Yesterday that It fully protects the ex-
pected posthumous heir. II was pointed
out that Section % Of the decedents
estate law. as published in The Tribune
on May /. IS fully applicable 10 the case
a. issue This section reads:
What the Law Provides
Nrherever tcstator shall have a child
born after thc making Of last VIII, either
IN the Uterine or after the death or sucH
fes,stcr and shall have DIED leaving sucl
child 50 after born unprovided for by any
settlement, and neither PROVIDED LOT IN an,
uav IN such will. every such cElId snd4l
succeed 70 the same portion or snch pdi
en,'s real and personal estate as wouI1
Rave descended or been distributed 10 such
child n such parent had died intestate. ana
shall be entitled To recover the same por-
Won from the devisees and legatees IN pro,
portion 70 and out Of the parts devised ana
benueathed 10 them by such Will
II will be seen from a perusal OF the
foregoing section Of the law that the
provision for the child or children sur
viving the testator is a settlement Tor
the child afterborn, as provided for In
the law. No trouble in the probate or
the will is expected from this source
although there is just possibility that
the probate proceedings will be delayed
until after the birth OF the new heir,