Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-03-12
BOY WINS FIGHT
FOR SHARE IN WILL
Question of Disposition of
Gratuity Fund Before Vice.
Chancellor Emery.

Vice Chancellor Emery was asked
this morning to decide whether a
gratuity fund. created to relieve
widows and or !,ans. can be disposed
OF by will Inc question came up
in proceeding brought by Frederick
u. Brewer, a six-year-old boy,
through his father, John Brewer. as
his next friend, for $500 specifically
bequeathed to him by his uncle, after
whom he had been named.
The will on which the proceeding
was based was made by Frederick ID.
Brewer, of this city, who died in No
vember, 1911. Brewer, who was
bookmaker, held membership in the
Metropolitan Turf Association. Under
the bylaws of this association
gratuity fund is provided for the
benefit of the families of mel .oers
who die. 1t is obtained by assessing
each of the surviving members $25.
In the case of Brewer the gratuity
amounted to SO, 600. In addition to
this the estate of each member is
entitled to pro rata share of the
funds in the treasury of the associa-
ton at the time of his death, Brewer s
share of this amounted TO $425 at
the time he died. He, however, had
had a running account with the as
ISOLATION and owed it 1925 and his
estate received but 800 on this ac-
count.
Shortly before his death Brewer
made the will in question. He gave
all of his real estate to his widow
and made her the eXecutriX of his
estate. Speaking of the gratuity fund
as policy. he left this entirely tc
his widow, Elma NJ. Brewer, but di-
rected that she give 500 of it to his
son William and $500 to his nephew
Frederick ID. Brewer. He stipulated
| that the money was not to be paio
| to his nephew until he was twenty
| one years Old, but was to be invested
| and given to him with the accumuia
lions when he reached his majority.
! Mrs. Brewer, who since her hus'
| bands death has remarked did moi
set aside the fund. 1t being contendef
that the $500 received by her was
not an insurance, but a gratuity, ane
that Brewer had no property right II
| it and could not dispose of 1t by viii
In support of this John Evans
| treasurer of the Metropolitan Asso
citation, was called to the stand. hi
produced the bylaws of the associa
ton. They distinctly provided tina
the fund should be given to the widow
IL there were no children and that sh'
should be entitled to one-half If ther'
were any children. the other hal
going to them 1t was also shown
that William Brewer, the book
makers only son. had surrendered his
interest in the fund to Mrs. Brewer
for 500 and his fathers watch
The attorney for young Brewer at
tackled the provision in the by-lawt
of the association which declared
that the gratuity fund could MOI
be attached fer debt owed by thu
} estate of the decedent and that i
must be distributed to the benetlciar
les regardless of other claims. HI
said that the court should set thi
aside as against public policy, blu
the vice. chancellor interrupted him
saying that such q doctrine woul'
drive out numbers of the corpora
lions doing business in the State.
The ice-chancellor finally decidet
the case on what he termed the doc
, trine of election" He said that tn
, widow was entitled to her dove
right in the realty left by her hus
! band, that she might be cut off iron
) participation in his personal propert
by a will. In view of the fact tina
she had received the whole of Brow
er's estate, according to the term
of the will, she was bound to cleo
either to accept the terms it imposes
on her or to decline to do so and ac
cept only what the law gave her. b
accepting all of the property she ha
bound herself to do what the tesla
tor desired her to do He directe
| that she should invest the funds a
the will provided.