Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-06-12
SUIT THAT
RESTED Is YEARS
Vice-ChanceIlor Howell Allows
Cross Bill Filing in RAN
dali Estate Case.

Vice Chancellor Howell, after hear
ing argument. gave Charles d.
Thompson. Jersey City lawyer, per-
mission to file a cross-bill in a parti-
ton suit begun In 1896 and in which
no action has been taken in fifteen
Years.
The suit, involving the 500, 900 es-
tate of the late George D. Randall,
who died in 1889. is one of the most
complicated tangles over property
that has fallen to the Court of Chan
Gerry to untangle.
1t originated seventeen years ago,
when Mrs. Edith r. Hopping, one of
Mr.. Randalrs three children. brought
suit for the partition of the estate
to separate her portion of one-third
which she was entitled to under the
terms of her fathers will upon reach
Ting at the age of "a.
That particular piece of litigation
remained dormant, the court refusing
to designate any certain third Of the
estate. Now 1t is revived by Mrs.
Hopping and a counter-suit is started
Inv the heirs Of the late David Me-
Murtree, who was run over on Mar
ket street some twenty years ago by
Fred l.. Randall, another of the three
heirs, against whom McMurtree OBJ
tanned a judgment of $1,000. The re-
alization of the prayer in the cross
bill makes 1t possible for McMurtrees
heirs TO collect on the long-standing
judgment
After securing the judgment, Nc
Murtree levied on and had the sheriff
sell out Fred Randall's interest in the
estate and bought it in at the sale.
Then he tried to collect, but he failed,
because 1t was held that Randall had
no present interest in the estate.
Mrs. Lillian 2. Yereanee, Mrs. Hop
ping and Fred Randall were the three
heirs of Fred Randall, and by the
terms of the fathers will Mrs.
Yereance and Fred Randall were each
to receive the income from one-third
of the estate, the property to descend
to their heirs at their death. Mrs.
Hopping's one-third was to go to her
outright when she became "a years
of age.
While her partition suit was dor
mant Fred Randall began a period
of litigation against George R. Gray
as the only surviving trustee of his
fathers estate That bill was filed
on the theory that Gray's successor,
Charles NJ. Hopping, husband of Mrs.
Edith r. Hopping, was not regular
ly appointed, as Gray had not been
properly discharged.
After hearing argument by Clar>
ence Sackett for Fred Randall and
his two sons. George D. and Fred L.
Randall, jr., and District Court Judge
Cecil McMahon for Mrs. Hopping and
Mrs. Yereanee, Vice Chancellor
Emery decided that Gray had MOTH
ing to account for and that Hopping
was responsible for the estate from
the time of Randall's death. in 1889.
At the end of this litigation Mrs.
Hopping revived her partition suit,
and 1t was referred to Jay Ten Eyck
as advisory master. In this the
George D. Randall homestead prop
erty at 1874 Clinton avenue was not
included as part of the estate. Mrs.
Hopping acting on the theory that
under her fathers will it belonged to
her and Mrs. Yereance alone.
When Mr.. Ten Eyck filed his re-
port McMurtree's grandchildren took
exception and their cross suit is the
result. Mr.. Thompson, who appeared
for the grandchildren, Is McMurtree's
son-in-law.
Therefore some OF his clients are his
own children. He came in and asked
that the Clinton avenue property be
included when the estate Is parti-
toned. His theory is that the actual
title to the property was not given
to Mrs. Hopping and Mrs. Yereance
by their fathers will, but that they
only had an interest so long as they
occupied it, and inasmuch as they
had given 1t up it therefore fell back
into the estate. The counter suit may
mean that the estate will be tied up
for Several wears mora