The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1917-01-18

Judge George w. Taylor in the
County Court this morning handed
down a decision interpreting the wills
of the late Mary. G. Grant and Charles
Grant, deceased. The property cover
ed by the wills is valuable property
and the division of it has been a mat
ter for the courts Of Kenosha county
for nearly a quarter of a century.
In the decision of the court the
whole story of the property is told,
Judge Taylor held:
'9The leading facts in this matter
are that in the year 1887, Charles
Grant and Mary G. Grant, his wife,
made their joint willsc, each giving to
the other his or her property, for life,
with liberal provisions for the use and
disposal of the same and, after the
death Of the survivor, then the estate
remaining should be divided between
four persons, namely: Maria Louisa
M. Karnell, Carl Frederick Malm, Pet
er 0. Dahl and Ada G. G. Williams,
share and share alike. No one of these
four persons were any relation to
Charles Grant, but they were either
chilaroA Of his wise by sa9rmer hus-
bands or lived in the family Of Charles
Grant and Mary G. Grant.
! Charles Grant died shortly after the
wills were made, and his widow, Mary
c., enjoyed the property until 1909,
the year of her death Prior to the
death Of Mary G. Grant, all Of the re-
maindermen died except Carl Frederick
Malm, whose death occurred in 1910.
Both joint wills have been admitted
to probate and the question now to be
determined is whether or not the prop
erty now on hand shall be divided
among the heirs of all four persons
named as remaindermen in the wills or
whether it shall be divided among the
heirs Of Carl Frederick Malm because
of the fact that the other three re-
maindermen pre-deceased the life ten
ant, Mary G. Grant.
Tt is conceded by all parties that
if the four persons named in the wills
had been the children of Charles Grant
the estate should now be divided into
four parts and distributed among the
four branches of the family. It is
commended, however, that because these
four persons were, strangers, in blood,
to Charles Grant, the estate did not
vest in the remaindermen until the
death of Mary G. Grant, the life
tenant In fact, the only question to
be decided is the time Of the vesting
of this estate.
1t is the opinion of the court that
in as much as Charles Grant had no
near relatives, except his wife, who
would be the natural benefciaries of
his estate, that for the purpose of in
heritance he considered the children
of Mary G. Grant and the girl who
lived in the family, Mrs. Williams, as
his children. This is quite natural
thing for him to do in as much as he
lacked near heirs of his own Many
testators treat the children Of their
wives, by former husbands, the same
as they do their own, especially when
the children are raised together or in
case the testator has no children. 1t
is quite evident that this was the in
tention of Charles Grant because,
while he had never seen or known some
of Mary G. Grants children, he in
Guided them in his will and left the
property to her children as a class
meaning and intending to keep his
estate intact in the family of Mary
G. Grant and himself.
For the above reasons, IL is the
opinion of the court that the estate of
Charles Grant vested at the time Of
his death, and, therefore, the estate
should be divided into four parts and
| distributed among the heirs Of the
four persons named in the joint wills
as remaindermen.
TTGu Scvn0T. GLASS pT.Av