Newspaper clipping from The Alton Democrat, September 9, 1916:
 |
| (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| (Click to Enlarge) |
"One of the most interesting cases will be that of Elizabeth Baadte, Martha Jennings, Mary Enders, Kate Heitzman and others against Susanna and William Walgenbach, a contest between sisters over the estate left by Dominick Moes who died December 13, 1914. A paper was found purporting to be his last will and testament but it was defectively drawin and the court refused to admit it to probate and record, and administrator, Frank A. Baadte was appointed. He commenced suit against Susanna and Wm. Walgenbach asking for the return of $2666.25 claimed to have been given the Walgenbachs and which belonged to the estate, and for rent for the farm for several years, and other items. The Walgenbachs admit receiving about that amount from Moes, but claim it was given them to be distributed according to his instructions and that they have made equal distribution of it as directed. In another action four of the surviving daughters, named above, ask that the deed given by Dominick Moes to Susanna Walgenbach on April 24, 1914, covering the old Moes farm two miles east of Hospers, be set aside on the ground that Moes at that time was of unsound mind, totally blind, and incapable of understanding the nature of his act and was unduly influenced by the Walgenbachs. Their reply is that he was of sound mind, comprehended what he was doing and that the consideration they agreed to pay of $23,840.00 was all that the farm was worth at that time.
The court has consolidated both of the cases, and it will come on for trial Monday, September 18th. Van Oosterhout & Kolyn, Geo. T. Hatley and A. T. Paske represent the plaintiffs, and T. E. Diamond and Klay & Klay appear for the defendants."
_________________________________________________________________________________
Newspaper clipping from The Alton Democrat, September 23, 1916:
 |
| (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| (Click to Enlarge) |
"Dominick Moos died at Hospers, December 9 1914 at the ****** daughter Mrs. Susan Walgenbach. Some of the heirs to his large estate are contesting his will and a previous disposition of a considerable portion of the estate on the ground that Mr. Moes at the time of his death was 83 years old, blind and childish. The case has occupied the attention of Judge Holes all the forepart of the week until Wednesday night the court room being crowded with witnesses and interested spectators. A formidable array of legal talent sat at the big tables inside the bar, G. T. Hatley, A. Te Paske and Van Oosterhout & Kolyn representing the plaintiff; T. E. Diamond and Klay & Klay the defense. The case was tried without a jury and has been taken under advisement, the attorneys to submit written briefs. Plaintiffs are Elizabeth Baadte, Frank A. Baadte, Martha Jennings, Walter E. Jennings, Mary Enders, Jos. Enders, Kate Heitzman and John Heitzman. Defendants are Susan Walgenbach, Wm. Walgenbach, Lizzie Gaasman, Nicholas Gaasman, Bertha Bolling, Thos. Bolling, Peter Theis, sr., and Apolena, Jos., Frank, Lydia, Edward, Matilda, Ferdinand and Peter Theis.
The testimony shows that Dominick Moes, since the death of his wife 13 years ago lived largely with his daughter, Susan Walgenbach, and for the last few years his son-in-law, Wm. Walgenbach, transacted most of his business. In 1912 he sold 160 acres to his son-in-law John Heitzman and divided the proceeds among his children. In late 1913 his eyes began to fail and blindness resulted in the spring of 1914. April 24, 1914 he executed a deed to 160 acres near Hospers to Wm. Walgenbach for $150 per acre to be paid in cash to his estate on year after death and a bill of sale to all of the buildings on his Hospers property to his daughters and stepson, C. M. Klein, jointly. A lease was also given Wm. Walgenbach for the quarter section sold him for $490 per year and board for Mr. Moes. In December of 1914 Mr. Moes died.
At that time Wm. Walgenbach held between $2,500 and $3,000 in cash belonging to the estate which he sought to divide without going through the probate court in accordance with instructions given him by the deceased.
Some $1,500 was so divided, although certain of the children declined to take the money.
The present suit is to recover for the estate all moneys so paid, to set aside the deed given to Wm. Walgenbach and the bills of sale conveying the property at Hospers. Plaintiff claims that at the time of making the deed and the bill of sale that Mr. Moes was blind and deficient in mental vigor, the defendants disputing that claim and asserting that everything that was done was by the expressed with of the father.
Dominick Moes could not read or write and the signature to the deed in question was by "his mark" signed as witnessed by John ***** and John ***** and ***** seal being affixed by J. *****
One of ***** is the competency of ***** in regard to the disposition of property given by word of mouth."
No comments:
Post a Comment