Chapter VI

Interesting spotlights on some cases about the Emerick-fortune

No case ever created more interest or dealt more with the public than the claims which were voiced in 1928, 1930, and 1932 in regards to the Emerick claims, and the processes which were opened against the Astor fortune. In view of the stated and discussed facts, one could assume that these processes were contradictory. We can admit that, but the facts were not known or surfaced at a time when the claims were already submitted or had been discontinued. But this will be understood with the following later discussion. The first claim was placed with the US district court of New York in May 1928. It was based on the account of the partnership via the trustees and the heirs of the John Jacob Astor fortune. The partnership contract between Astor and Emerick was produced and the trusteeship was declared valid.

The Emerick's stated due to the last will and testament and the established trusteeship, that the Astor's contrary to the established trusteeship, had failed to give account about the Emerick estate, but that on the contrary, in a fraudulent way, the kept it a secret and used it for their own good. This was the basis, and on that they based their claim. The Astor's reacted with a claim to contradict this whereby they claimed that the trusteeship violated this due to the length of time that had expired. Their point of view was even if they should recognize the given claims, that the trusteeship had become invalid and that hereby their position was defended. After hearing the material of proof by the attorneys, the courts decided that the trusteeship was invalid, and they dismissed the claim by the theory that by pushing the deadline of the trusteeship for 90 years later, when the estate of the Emerick heirs was to be divided, that this was unlawful and by the regulations of the law that it had become invalid due to the passing of so much time. The claimants put this theory aside and maintained that even if the trusteeship as Emerick had ordained it, had become invalid, then a follow-up trusteeship should have grown out of it, and that Astor could not hold on to the Emerick fortune in good conscience. The accused then maintained that if a resulting trust had come about, and the Astor's had not given an account about the Emerick fortune, the regulations of the passing of so much time and negligence to pursue had come into question. Again the case was opened, written down and submitted.

The courts recognized, that the claimants, due to the passing of so much time could not get the upper hand. That means that sins of omission by the Emericks was inexcusable, regardless to the failure the Astor's had committed in regards to the trusteeship. In other words. They were waiting too long in regards to their rights in order to show up in court by now and to ask for the accountability. This decision was presented to the Court of Appeals, where the decision was kept.

It is obvious, that had the facts been known at the examination of the will in 1849, that the above mentioned step had not been taken. They would have asked the Surrogate Court in regards of its decision at the time, and they would have asked for action. The question of a time limit would not have come up, if the matter had been dealt by court with the proper jurisdiction.

Both claims from the years 1930 and 1932 were in nature written claims about researching the facts in regards to the process in 1849.. There was no concrete evidence on which to base such a claim. But there were rumors, explanations and even evidence from hearsay was taken into account, and therefore steps were taken, to proof this material in a legal way. The other conflict came to an end because the claimant had come to find out about these rumors and before they knew what the evidence would show. In both cases the insufficient evidence led to a failure and the decision was against the claimants. With this, the process had been carried out as far as possible. Many years later, the author discovered the proof and the facts in regards to the Surrogate Court's decision in 1849. He heard it from a source where nobody would have expected to get it, in a secret note amongst the papers of a man who long since had passed. While he respected the believe the attorneys had put into the rumors and the hearsay in reference to the proof in connection with the court's decision, but on the other hand to defend the Emerick's, by writing this historic overview, he counted it his duty, to show the facts, so that they could be published with the historic overview. The world has a right to the facts, regardless of what the outcome of the processes between the Emerick's and Astor's would be." The whole thing is as strange as any of the stories by Mr. Ripley.
They are interesting highlights in the process which deserve to be captured. It was an unusual process, especially due to the age of the disagreement and the underlying factors, the documentations and as well the unusual questions and developments of legal regulations which had an affect here. This was not just a legal fight, it was an extraordinary claim.

We shall state:

1. The Courts

All cases were dealt with at Federal Courts in New York City and Portland, Oregon. The first claim was handled by judge Thomas D. Thacher. He was a capable judge, sympathetic, friendly, and serious. He paid great attention to the claims as well as to the mentioned laws. Some important points he stressed: "Does a Federal-Court have the rights to probate the wills?"

He asked the attorneys to answer regarding this matter. After he had read their opinions, he decided that Federal Courts could in certain cases probate inheritance matters,. He put two opinions down in writing which were kept by the next highest authority. He put down his position and became general attorney under President Hoover.. In certain phases of the case we appeared in front of the Judges Bondy and Goddard.

Judge Bondy was hard of hearing and very strict, but he was a capable judge.

Judge Goddard was capable and a likable judge. Due to the case in Portland,

Judge Fee presided in Oregon. He took more notes than any other judge we ever had appeared before. He promptly decided, said very little during the hearing, got along and was sensitive. During the hearings many Judges as well as witnesses came down with the flu. Therefore the court case was taken to the Multanomah Hotel, and they heard some testimony from a witness while he was in bed. Two doctors and a nurse were witnesses of this interview. It was an unusual event. He established the rule that all documentation and evidence had to be presented by employees of the courts.

The attorneys were not allowed to step out of line, territory, or the limits.

Justice is placed in good hands with such a judge.

2. The Attorneys in this process:

Calvin I. Hoy and Joseph Renard from St. Louis; Evan B. Lewis from Philadelphia, Senator Charles W. Letzgus from Camden, New Jersey; Evans, Hunt & Rees and Goodmann Block from New York City; Samuel C. Stoner from Los Angeles; Joseph Sterns, Jr. from Portland. A hundred law students were present during this interesting case and very prominent legal capacities were repeatedly consulted. The defender was represented by the Law Firm, Taylor, Blanc, Capron & March; Carter, Melburn & Taylor from New York City; Dey, Hampton, and Nelson and Joseph Carson, the present Mayor from Portland (1936).

Messrs. Lyeth and Mittendorf appeared under the commission of the said legal firms during all courts in New York City. The writer of this book participated with another attorney either as an attorney or as a witness during each session. There may have never been any more dignified and honorable attorneys during any other court action than these. The most prominent attorney was Mr. Rees. He was regarded as one of the greats behind the bars of justice in New York. His input and writings speak for themselves.

3. The Legal Process awakened a great interest and its information was spread to a wide audience. In many regards, this was an unusual process. We would like to guide your attention to some newspaper headlines which surfaced on May 26, 1928, the day of decision for the first claim.

New York Telegram: "900 heirs claim against Astor due to an agreement from the year 1787."

Daily News: "Claim against Astor for $39 million dollars."

New York American: "Three Astors sue due to the Astor Millions,"

New York Times: "The Heirs of the Partner Sue Astor."

New York Sun: "900 Sue Astor after 112 years as the heirs of 2/3 of the Astor Fortune."

Philadelphia Ledger: "Four gather to sue Against Astor's Millions."

Philadelphia Record: "The Heirs of Astor's Partner are Suing for Many Millions."

Thus, the newspapers presented the story with great headlines and in lengthy articles. In Germany from where both men had emigrated, big headlines and articles appeared. It looked as though the occasion would lead to a family feud. Emerick's who were spread across 40 states listened to it. Many of them filled high positions, or they were leaders with big companies. One of them was highest judge in one of the states. They did not bring up a claim, however Emerick blood flowed through their veins and they followed the outcome of the legal actions with interest. From family to family the tradition was that a certain John Nicholas Emerick had left a fortune with an Astor in trusteeship. For some unknown reason the Emerick fortune disappeared. So when the news about the claims spread across the nation, an awakening went through the chain of Emerick's, and they wanted to know the truth about the inheritance Emerick had left.

Like in any community of people, there were also such who followed their own egotistical plans. They came up with claims, they told fantastic stories and they wrote to employees of the course as well as to high officers in Washington. One woman wrote a simple poem to a judge. Others told the press twisted stories, just to gain front-page publicity. Their imagination and exaggerations went wild. They fought one another with questions to the degree of their relationship. All of this made it harder for the attorneys in doing their work. The employees of the courts and the writing chambers were flooded with letters of all kinds. There were Emericks who freely gave advice how the processes should be done. Another phase in the case was how people could imagine what would count as evidence.. All letters, newspaper articles, and reports by long dead persons were sent in as valuable evidence. The attorneys could not complain about freely offered advice. It may be declared in summary, that there has to be a great deal of critical judgment when dealing with so many people.

Preparations for such a hearing demanded a great deal of unusual attention.

A heavy and great responsibility rests on the shoulders of the attorneys.

Because the parties who would know all the facts have long been dead, the only thing in our hands are the documents. Those were the witnesses who had to speak for themselves. Given these circumstances, the courts were very careful. The defense was sentenced against their favor. The attorneys had to be extra careful. Normally they can make deals with their witnesses, but here they only had documents which were 112 years old and therefore created an entirely different basis for negotiations. It took a careful examination. It takes the extraordinary ruling under the name "Old customs in regards to documents". The rule says that letters, documentations and papers which come from private people, and which are 30 and more years old, that they proof themselves, if the come from the place where the estate is managed. The prerequisite for this is that both parties who wrote them are dead and that the left papers and documents are valid. Stephen's law of proof shows this rule very clearly.

On page 136, paragraph 88, it says:

"Where a document supposedly 30 years old is being presented in the certain case at hand and brought from a credible source, it is assumed that the signature and all other parts of the document, showing the handwriting of the person, to whom this content and idea of the document is attributed are true; just the same, in such a case it is assumed that the valid signatures and documents brought by the witnesses as they are documented to be the ones having signed it are valid. Here the validity of the signatures of the signer does not have to be examined, even though the witness is presently in front of the courts."

This is the accepted right in regards to old documents. It is a rightful ruling which should be just to all parties. Therefore the attorneys took certain steps during the case to justify their actions.

1. They examined how many documents had been kept. Fortunately, they were able to trace them back to Emerick's death, without interruption. A more complete presentation would have never been possible.

2. They presented the documentation to one of the leading handwriting experts in America, Mr. Thomas McColl from Philadelphia. For 40 years he had been examining documents and he had to witness in courts. He examined the proof for age, as well in any other way, whether it was written with a goose-tail, or with a feather, the paper, the ink, the style of writing; he did microscopic examinations and he checked them chemically in laboratories, and he tried all methods of examination as far as they could be done scientifically. He wrote this document down, and later appeared in court as a witness. This is one of the most interesting documentations which was presented in court. Be it added, that documents are like people; they have their own little ways and manners, and time bestows them with their own story. The old suitcase, the biographies of the Patriarch, the stories of the Iroquois Indians, the family chronic, the Methodist songbook, fur pins, pins, diaries, and all sorts of other things came from a different age. Like old people, the tracks of time in their makeup and in their physical appearance, are recognizable. It was one of the greatest amounts of documentation ever to be dealt with during a hearing.

3. The circumstances. You need to look at the time when the ones involved were alive. It was from the horse and buggy times. The writing with the goose-tail, the fibers in the paper, they used ink, these all are signs of a long passed era.

Even the energy with such a process was unusual. In most cases the passing of time may not have been so long, but they show similar facts and circumstances. We remind you about the case of W. Percy Simpson, which was dealt with around the same time, at the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia. The circumstances and the documentations were quite similar.

The facts in this case were based on copies of letters which were found in a secret and strange way in an old book amidst trash. The accusations were calling for fraud, keeping secrets, and other circumstances, just as they had been brought up in the Emerick case. The Defense was brought by Owen D. Roberts, he is now "Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court" in the United States of America. The judgment of the "Lower Courts" recognized that $615,590 should be awarded.

In their reasons, the court pointed out:

The accused has successfully hidden all of his misdeeds. He would have been safe, if there was not the book in question which should up, fortunately, to show his fraud. Therefore it was possible to have justice rule. It is true that the interest for almost 25 years, while the accused successfully hid his fraud, amounted to one to one and one half of the major debt. But the outcome will not allow any checking whether such a reimbursement is to be allowed by the ruling circumstances, since replacement of the unjust actions should have been recognized. All those years, the accused had enjoyed using the monies, which were the claim of the accuser. The open way of the fraud prevents us to get anything out of the accuser except for the full amount and the reimbursement of the interest. The amounts in questions shall not prevent the courts to let justice prevail, regardless whether it seems right and cheap.

The decision shows the position of the claimants in front of the courts during the Emerick-Astor hearing. They had the same opinion as the Common Pleas Judge. Regardless to time and amount, the Astors should give account in front of the law. We know, that there are secrets and suspicions in regards to the estate.

The Simpson case showed more mysterious points, but the courts concluded:

If it were not for the book, which had fortunately come to light and uncovered the fraud, and therewith it makes it possible to have justice prevail." In disregard of the secrets woven around the material of proof, a judgment for more than half a million was given. This does not mean that the gain came due to the claim, nor did it discredit the material of proof. The same comes true with the proof in the Emerick hearings during the years 1928 to 1932. The question is not how or from whom the material of proof was obtained. But it is of a livelong importance whether it is genuine.

In the Simpson case the court judged that the proof was valid. It did not fall under the ruling where old documents are concerned. Nobody declared at court how the proof was found, but it was presented to the court and accepted.

January 26, 1929, the Philadelphia Ledger shows the following story:

A recently discovered suitcase - which had been in the possession of George Washington's sister Betty for a long time, which contained more than 2,000 documents of the first presidential family and that era, was brought to the Capital by Professor Hardt of Harvard University. The suitcase was found near Fredericksburg, Virginia, in Frank Taylor's house, a descendant of Betty's, in Washington. - No explanation was given why the matter had not been made public sooner.

There was no question about the contents; the documents were accepted as genuine and valid. Historians and authors would have been happy to pay a high price for those papers since the were valid for the public. They went back to the year 1753. For several situations of a similar matter, which we came across, there is no explanation. Assumptions do not get us anywhere, since one is worth as much as the other.

This has been proven in the Emerick case. Most of the people involved had been dead already. We cannot know why they did certain things. From the writings and facts, it is shown that George and Nancy were looking for the wealth which had been entrusted to them. But after their death, the whole matter was neglected.

We cannot answer the question, why, and we also do not want to speculate. Therefore the mysteries in connection with these facts remain unsolved. We accept the documents these people left, but we cannot state why they acted the way they did. Many examples of the kind could be shown.

The following lines shall illustrate the above:

"Dorham, Texas

That someone failed to register a title to property in Texas before 100 years had passed, is most likely a masterpiece of a slow history, as R.C. English, Dorham, writes in 1838:

The republic of Texas acknowledged a title to a piece of land in Red River Valley, which was later Fanin County. The document had gotten in a fur-suitcase, and was being eaten by rats. 80 years later, a descendant of the title holder obtained a witnessed copy, which was also found in said suitcase. 18 years later the copy was presented. 93 years later, the goosetail seal of the administrator of the republic was put on the parchment title.

The Emerick family does not stand out by itself, and there are not such extraordinary and unacceptable secrets to destroy any trust. As far as we can say, there has not been a court hearing during the last years which had created more interest or touched a larger legal field. Some of the legal questions being dealt with (and there were 160 cases) were: agreement about partnerships, trusteeships, old documents, neglects, neglect of time, resulting trusteeships, and the question inasmuch as how the Federal Court could acknowledge last will and testaments, connections to irrelevant claims, and lifelong pensions. All of this caused the hearings and the legal questions to be quite unusual. Therefore the hearings were rather interesting for a great number of law students and attorneys. Since the activities of the men were in the early time of the republic, laws for a time going back more than 100 years, had to be looked through. 112 years had already passed since the two men worked and before the case came to light. Since those days the legal questions had been brought up many times. The history of the Nation, the surrounding circumstances when the documents were prepared, and many other rather interesting questions had to be paid attention to.

The documents had to be viewed in the light of the many interpretations. From the writings of the two men and from judging several circumstances, one can conclude that John Nicholas Emerick was not a greedy, egotistical, or heartless type of a man. On the other hand, John Jacob Astor became the opposite of his partner. His success and wealth made him money-hungry, and until he lay on his deathbed, no other thought prevailed, but the money; although he already had accumulated so many millions. Parton showed a dark picture about Astor's last hours. It is so unusual, therefore it should be repeated here.

"From under his covers, the old man yelled "Did Mrs. .... pay the rent."

Answer: "No" replied the employee. "Well, she will have to," the old man replied. "But she cannot pay at the moment she had some misfortune, and we need to give her some time." "Oh no, said Astor, "I demand she pay, and she will pay if you handle her right."

The man left Astor, and in order to calm down the old dying man, he prepared a fake receipt and gave it to him saying that the lady had paid the rent. Astor was satisfied with this. Parton now asks the question: "Who would want to own 20 million at such a price?"

There are some other highlights worth mentioning:

For example, when I started the case; the many interviews I had with Emericks and other attorneys; the months I had spent to view old reports and writings in several towns etc. the walk to libraries and archives; the discussions I had with a certain Benjamin Korber from Steinheim, Germany, in America and in Germany. The trips I took in this country to gather proof, to hear reports, and to get witnessed testimony; the days I spent in legal libraries in New York, in Philadelphia, and in St. Louis; the range of correspondence which was necessary to answer all possible questions. My experience with public employees in Washington, D.C. and with postal inspectors; the connections I undertook with other attorneys; all of this is enough to write a whole book. But I have tried to only report some of the highlights. They make up part of this story. Nobody knows the story of the case, which I was involved with, for five or more years, better than I.

"The story is interesting and I therefore present it to the public."

C.I. Hoy

4 N. 8th St.

St. Louis, Mo.