Estite of the Late Mr. Frank L, Hough 4 "opinion and Report Objections raised to the adminis trator's account and report of the estate of the late Mr. Frank Lewis Hough by William Of Hough and Helen H. Silvsemsn, respectively brother ani sister of the deceased, will be overruled, in the opinion of Judge Milton J. Helmick of the U.S. Court for China, given on Jan, 'This matter arises on objections to the final account and report of the Administrator by William M. Hough and Helen H. Silverman, broth<y and sister of the' deceased. Since the ce: ceased loft no will and no children, his brothers and sisters share in his separate estate with the widow, under the kiws of the District of Columbia. The objectors complain that a certain valuable collection ivory and a motor car owned by the @eceased at the time of his death were not included among the assate of the estate, nor administered, but were treated' as the joint property Jor the deceased and his wife, to Which she succeeded on his death, The fuels, which were mostly settled. by "stipulation, are as follows:
"The decease, Frank L, Hough. and his wife, Ella J. Hough, before the former's death maintained joint bank accounts in both the New York and Shanghai amices ofthe National City Bank of New York. These accounts were created and maintained under agreement of joint. tenancy, Jexceuted by Frank L. Hough and Ella J. Hough on the printed forms furnished for that purpose by the bank. On or about November 24, 1833, the deceased purchased a 1933 Cadittae sedan in Shanghai and paid for it with a check signed "by him jane, drawa upon the joint account with the New York office of the bank, The Shanghai municipal license for the car was taken in the name of Frank L, Hough and the car was used foe "ordinary "family "and pleasure constituting the collection were acquired from. time to time in China and paid for ith monies drawn from the joint account, with the Shanghai office of the bank. The collection was kept in the Shanghai residence of Mr. Hough and his wife as a part of its furnishings, The objectors contend that the car and "the ivories wore not held—in Joint tenancy but became the separate property.of the deceased. because the withdrawal of funds from the joint account was a severtance which destroyed the joint tenancy in the absence of an additional specific agreement that the property rising from the severed funds shaula
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.