MySource:Mksmith/Estate of John Jackson Shaffer, Succession Correspondence, 1918-1919

[letterhead]
Butler & Wurzlow
Robt. B. Butler / Calvin Wurzlow
Attorneys at Law and Notaries Public
Houma, Louisiana

Oct. 21, 1918.

Hon. John D. Shaffer
Ellendale, La.

My Dear Senator:

Your Father's Will was admitted to probate, to-day. Under the law, testamentary executors must signify their acceptance with[in] ten days after appointment.

I am enclosing herewith an Act of Declaration of Acceptance, which it will be necessary for you and your Mother [Mrs.Minerva Ann (Cantey) Shaffer] to sign.

I have also appended below, an Oath which it is necessary to have both of you, to sign.

If you and your Mother will sign both of these documents and return to me, I will attest the signatures as Notary Public, and will file them in the record.

I have likewise forwarded similar documents to your sister, Mrs. Van Syckle, at Hamilton, N.Y., with the request that she execute them before a Notary Public and return to me to be placed in the record.

I also explained to her that it was not obligatory upon her to accept the executorship, but that she could, if so disposed, decline to accept, and leave the administration to the other two executors. Should she desire to decline the executorship, I enclosed to her a certificate to that effect which she is to execute before Notary and return to me for filing in the record.

I explained to her that it is important that we hear from her within the delay of ten days, and I feel satisfied that she will give the matter prompt attention.

Meanwhile, while we are awaiting word from her, we will take up with the proper authorities in New Orleans, the modus operandi of gaining access to and making an inventory of the boxes in the Whitney-Central Bank.

With continued regards and best wishes, I am as ever,

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Robt. B. Butler

PROBATE NO. 1401
20TH. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

STATE OF LOUISIANA,
PARISH OF TERREBONNE.

SUCCESSION OF CAPTAIN JOHN J. SHAFFER.

Let Mistress Minerva Ann Shaffer, John Dalton Shaffer and Mistress Anna Laura Van Syckle be confirmed as Testamentary Executors of the deceased and let letters testamentary issue to them with seizin and without bond, upon their taking the oath required and qualifying as such in accordance with law.

Granted in chambers at Houma, La. on the 21st day of October A.D. 1918.

[signed] H. M. Wallis, Jr.
Judge, 20th Judicial District Court
Parish of Terrebonne.

A true copy from the original on file and of record in my office.

Clerk's Office Houma, La., Oct. 21st A.D. 1918.

[signed] E.C. W_[illegible] Clerk.

Houma, La., March 16th 1919

Mrs. Bessie Shaffer Letcher
Tulsa, Okla.

[Note: The above is handwritten but the body of the letter is typed. It is evident that copies were sent to all of John J. Shaffer's children.]

My Dear Mrs. Letcher:

I enclose herewith, a copy of the proposed distribution of the asset of your Father's estate.

You will observe that under the Plan of observing your Father's wishes that your mother should be given one half of his estate; she would by special bequest receive the household furniture and the gold watch which are together inventoried at the sum of ----- $1,150.00. And also one half of the remaining assets ----- $109,452.215.

And each of the six children will receive an interest in the assets (an undivided 1/12th), amounting to $18,242.035, Or a total amount to the six children, aggregating ----- $109,452.215.

Total amount for distribution ----- $220,054.43.

While, under the second plan, should the first be rejected by the Court; your Mother will receive 1/3 of the assets ----- $73,351.476. And each of the six heirs 2/18ths, $24,450.492 -- or for the six -- $146,702.952. Which is likewise the total amount for distribution ----- $220,054.428.

The difference is that your Mother gets more and each heir less, if the first plan is approved by the Court.

Under the first plan, your Mother will owe a state inheritance tax -- $1874.04. And each of the six heirs, one of $141.84; or a total for all six -- $851.04. Or a total payment to the state of $1550.058. Or, the total as is due under the first plan, viz -- $2725.08

Since filing the above account, your brother, T. A. Shaffer, has expressed some dissatisfaction with the proposed distribution of the assets, and the matter is now being held in abeyance pending necessary conferences with him or his attorney.

We understand him to take the position that the several children's prescribed notes found in your Father's bank box evidence, to their extend of their face [of] benefits received from your Father that must be collated into the assets of the succession. In other words, that each heir against whom your Father held a prescribed note, must account for that amount in the final settlement.

We also understand him to take the position that the Crescent-Magnolia Co. was in effect and substance, the property of your Father; or that it at least owes your Father an accounting for moneys advanced by him at various times to the company. He wants to have the books of the company audited, as well as your Father's books.

He also objects to the amount placed on the account as attorney's fees.

He also says that some of the heirs have received greater advances from his Father than did he and that, in fairness to him, they should account for such advances -- before any final distribution.

We have agreed to take no further steps toward closing the matter up, until we have had a further conference either with him or his attorney.

AS TO HIS OBJECTIONS:

We have always understood that your Father placed all the children on a substantially equal basis, at the time the Crescent-Magnolia Co. was organized.

It was our impression that all the children were lf this mind. For that reason, it never occurred to us that there was any necessity for providing a collation among the heirs. No one of them ever suggested to us that he or she was at all dissatisfied, hence our move to have the property distributed in accordance with the Articles of the Will. We were surprised to learn of his dissatisfaction.

Second: As to the Crescent-Magnolia Co., he appears to think that it has not held its stock-holder's or director's meetings, and that its existence as a corporation may, perhaps, be disregarded.

This is the first we have heard of this suggestion. It was our understanding that Crescent-Magnolia was alive, going concern -- and that we had nothing to do with its affairs, other than to take cognizance of the fact that your Father held some of its stock, and to inventory the same as one of its assets. No one ever suggested to us that this was your Father's property, or that it owed your Father any money, whatever.

When this inventory was made, we listed on the inventory every single thing that was called to our attention, or about which we had any information.

Even now, we are not advised that the Crescent-Magnolia Co. is not what it seems to be -- a going concern. Or that it owes the estate any monies, other than is evidence by the mortgage notes which are included in the inventory.

We are advised that your Father's books, as well as the books of the corporation will show that the corporation is not indebted to him otherwise than to the extent of said mortgage notes.

We are not advised to what extent your brother may be inclined to press these suggested objections against the Crescent-Magnolia Co.'s operations as a corporation. If they are insisted upon, it will force the Court to determine whether his suggestions are well founded.

We imagine that the books and records of the company will vindicate its past history, and will at the same time show whether it owes the estate any money at this time, other than the mortgage notes on the inventory.

The enclosed proposed distribution is sent you in order that you may familiarize yourself therewith. We also thought it right to advise you of the present status of the matter.

According to your brother's claims, we estimate that in order to satisfy them would require that he receive seven or eight thousand dollars more than is shown as his share in the statement now enclosed to you.

He said to us that if he received what he considered himself entitled to, he would be satisfied to have the settlement made in any way that might be satisfactory to the remaining heirs.

Since at least some of the prescribed notes were signed by you, and you are interested in the affairs of the Crescent-Mgnolia Co., we would be glad to have any comment that you may wish to make, after familiarizing yourself with the statement enclosed, and this letter.

It might be well, also, for you to indicate your disposition towards the demand for a collation among the heirs.

If this demand is insisted upon, we think the Court will order the collation.

Had we suspected that any heir was desirous of a collation, we would have taken this matter up with you, long before now, with the view of accomplishing an amicable adjustment among the heirs without the necessity of ventilating their affairs in Court. It is our opinion that such a plan is feasible if it appeals to all the heirs as desirable.

With regards, we are,

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Robt. B. Butler

P.S.: Since writing the above, I have seen your brother again and we understand that he admits that the above is a fair statement of his position.

And he further states that it is not his desire to cause any unnecessary embarrassment or inconvenience to any one; that his sole desire is to obtain what he believes to be his just due, and that he would be glad to secure such an adjustment without any publicity that might be distasteful to other members of his family.

It is our opinion that if his contention that he has not received as much from his Father as has [sic] the other heirs is substantiated by the records, the court will endorse his demand for a collation.

Of course we are not in a position to say who will have to collate or what or which amounts will have to be collated by the various heirs, for the reason that we know nothing of what your Father may have given each or any of them.

As to the Magnolia Co., we think it alright to permit its books to be examined for the purposes of showing its financial relations with your Father; as an heir, your brother, is entitled to know whether the Company owes the estate anything. The same reason applies to your Father's books.

We have told your brother that there would be no objection to an audit of these books, in so far as they bear upon the financial transactions of or with your Father. And have agreed that the audit might be made by n account satisfactory to him. We think he is entitled to this information, and feel assured that you will agree with him.

R.R.B.