New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-04-10
Mrs. ShOnts
Wins Appeal
In Will Case
Unanimous Decision Re.
stores Her as Admins
tratrix: /. II. r. President
'lncompetent,' Says Court

Holding that the removal by former
Surrogate Robert Ludlow Fowler of
Mrs. Mi'lla D. Shonts as temporary ad-
IN nistratrix of the estate of her hus-
band, Theodore p. Shonts, was "wholly
unauthorized" tho Appellate Division
restored the widow yesterday to the
powers of which she was deprived
This victory for Mrs. Shonts was the
first she has scored since the litigation
began over the will and estate of her
husband. the former president of the
! lnterborough Rapid Transit Company.
1t means that all the personal property
left by Mr.. Shonts, even that claimed
by Mrs. Amanda c. Thomas, friend of
the testator, to whom he left the
greater part OF his estate, must be
turned over to the custody of Mrs
Shonts. Much of this property has
been placed in storage with the author
ity of the executors of the will.
Law Uphods Widow
Under the existing circumstances :"
said Justice Merrell, in the unanimous
opinion of the Appellate Division, "the
petitioner very properly asks for
temporary administration. AS de-
freedom of his household effects and
personal estate, which he was power
less to divert from her"
The higher court held that former
Surrogate Fowler erred when he ap-
pointed the Guaranty Trust Company
in her place. The trust company,
Delaney Nicoll and E. J. Berwind
were named by Mr.. Shonts as executors
Of his will, which is being contested by
Mrs. Shonts.
The former Surrogate said in refus-
ing to permit the widow to QUALITY as
temporary administrators that he did
not know there was will. 1t is
pointed out by the Appellate Division
that Mrs. Shonts referred to the will
IN her petition to Surrogate Fowler.
Justice Merrell also said he believed
Mr.. Fowler was in error as to both his
assumption that Mrs. Shonts was ap
pointed because the court assumed
there was no will and his conclusion
that the production Of the will to pro-
bate deprived the Surrogate's Court
OF jurisdiction to grant the letters to
Mrs. Shonts.
Surrogate Fully Advised
"Ihe appointment of a temporary ad-
mihlstrator ~Was not asked upon the
ground of intestacv," said Justice Mer-
reli, but the Surrogate was fully ad-
vlsed OF the existence of the pretended
will, whereby the petitioner said the
deceased had attempted to make will
leaving the largest part OF his estate to
d woman-Mrs. Amanda c. Thomas
unrelated to him or his family. to whose
influence he had been subjected for
considerable period prior to his death.
and that at the time of the making of
the alleged will and for a considerable
time prior thereto the deceased was
mentally incompetent to make a will"
The higher court further quoted
from the petition of Mrs. Shonts to
Surrogate Fowler that if the alleged
will was offered She would contest it
on the ground of testamentary incapac-
ity and undue influence
Justice Merrell said the petition.
which asked Mr.. Fowler to annul the
letters granted to Mrs Shonts was
predicated upon charge of gross de-
ception and Misrepresentation on the
part Of the widow. This charge was
not sustained by the facts, said the JUS
tice, and the revocation of the letters
was ordered by Surrogate Fowler on
the mistaken assumption that Mr..
Shonts died intesetate, although Mrs
Shonts did refer to the will under
which Mrs. Thomas was beneficiary
Continuing his opinion, Justice Mer-
rell said: "ln an extended argument, in
an effort to Justify his action, the
learned Surrogate has edeavored to
clothe the act of the executors in pro-
pounding the alleged will for probate
with undue Importance. The Surrogate
deems himself bound in consequence of
the mere production Of the alleged will
to revoke the designation of Mrs.
Shonts as temporary administrators of
her deceased's husbands estate
"Thc, document propounded pos
sessed no such virtue. At most, it was
an alleged will, assailed as the inef-
fectua tcstamentary effort of an en-
fecbled mind, governed and controlled
by undue and sinister influence, and
therefore incapable of probate as the
will Of the deceased"
Mr.. Shonts made no bcquest to his
widow in the contested will. providing
for her in the document the payment
Of 100000, which represented a loan
from Mrs Shonts to her husband, and
the proceeds of a $4,000 insurance pol
icy on his life, of which she already
was the beneficiary.