The Washington times., 1917-08-30
E. B. Mclean WINS:
TOBE CO. TRUSTEE
OF GREAT ESTATE

CONTINUED from Page One)
tion of a litigation which began on
June Z, 1916, when Mr.. Mclean inter-
posed his protest against the validity
of his fathers will, during which
time many spirited legal contests have
been enacted by counsel.
In December, last, an agreement
was reached between the American
Security and Trust Company, the ex-
ecutors named in the will OF John r.
Mclean, which, when presented to
the court, was refused ratification by
Mr.. Justice Stafford, who heard the
proceedings at that time.
Acquires Benefits First Sought.
Under the present settlement It ap-
pears that Mr.. Mclean acquires not
only the beneht Of the features in
volved in the previous attempted set
Element, inasmuch as he has entire
control OF the Washington Post and
the Cincinnati Enquirer, and since
that time has been in receipt Of the
entire income of the estate, but that
now, in addition, he becomes coequal
in power in the handling OF the en-
tire principal OF the estate by the
present decree.
The American Security and Trust
Company was represented In the pro-
ceedings by Attorneys ]. J. Darling
ton and Frank ]. Hogan, and the
guardian ad litem OF the infant chill
dren, Edward F. Mitchell, was repre-
sented by Attorney R. H. Yeatman.
Text Of Courts Ruling.
The full text of Judge Gould's de-
cision follows:
This is a bill in equity filed by
Edward B. Mclean, sole heir at law
and next of kin to John r. Mclean,
praying that he be appointed CO.
trustee with the American Security
and Trust Company, the trustee named
in the will OF the said John r Nc
Lean. The plaintiff has heretofore
filed a caveat to the will, which Is
pending. The contention OF the plain
tiff Is based largely upon the in
tention OF the testator. as indicated
by his will, to appoint the plaintiff as
a co-trustee OF his estate, and the
failure to carry out that intention
by reason OF his (the testator's) be-
lief that. as the plaintiff was a bene-
ficiary under the will, he was by law
prevented from acting as such trustee.
THE answer of the American Sc
ana COMPANY 6Olo
trustee appointed by the will. admits
that It. Is within the Jurisdiction Of
the court to appoint an additional
or co-trustee to aid in the adminis-
tratIon of the estate; II also admits
that John r. Mclean would have ap-
pointed the plaintiff as co-executor
and co-trustee with itself in the ad-
ministration OF his estate except for
his belief that there were legal DIFF
ficulties or obstacles to his appoint
ment in this capacity
The answer further states that the
defendant company is advised, be-
lieves. and, therefore, AYERS that the
validity OF the trusts created in and
by the said will depends upon that
instrument as It left the hands OF the
testator, at the time OF his death,
and that should the court, in the ex-
ercise of its jurisdiction over trusts,
see fit to appoint the plaintiff CO.
trustee with this defendant for the
purposes of the administration of the
trust estate, the validity of the trust
would not thereby. be endangered: in
view of which fact, and OF the mani
fest desire OF the testator that the
plaintiff should be associated in the