Probate of the Estates of Pryor and Margaret Garrett

This page is possible due to the generosity of my cousin, Ann Daberko, in sharing these documents with me.  

Family lore says that Pryor Garrett was a successful man of his time and left his widow with a substantial estate that would have easily supported her for the remainder of her life.  Then entered the lawyers, doctor and and even a granddaughter who drug the estate through four years of probate resulting in the widow, Margaret Garrett, being stripped of almost everything of value and a hefty profit for the lawyer, doctor and granddaughter  She was left with the home she shared with her husband and one small property - the least valuable properties of the estate, and penniless with no way to support herself at age 73 in 1919.  Sallie Ann Wines Steward, one of the granddaughters, and her husband and family moved in with Margaret Garrett and supported her both emotionally and financially for the rest of her life.  But the story of how Margaret Garrett was cheated by friends and relatives was passed down.

Recently, my cousin came in possession of the probate records of the Garrets, and I have studied them closely to make sense of them.  There appear to be many missing documents, but what does exist sadly supports the family story.  Following is a brief background of the participants and then a lengthy  section of "Thoughts and Questions about the Estate Administration for Pryor Garrett, Jr. as related to specific court documents".  At the end of that are some brief comments on the probation of Margaret's estate.  Please note these questions and opinions are entirely my own.  Any corrections or other comments are always welcome.  

Due to the length of the court documents, I have put them on separate pages as follows:

Legal Documents Pertaining to the Estate of Pryor Garrett

Legal Documents Pertaining to the Estate of Margaret Garrett

Both pages contain a link back to this page. 

Background:  Pryor Richard Garret was born 8 Nov 1848 and died 12 Dec 1915.  In 1867 he married Margaret Esther Simmons Wines, known later as Little Granny.  Margaret brought a young  son, Eli, from a previous marriage.  Her first husband, Alex Wines,  had been killed in the civil war.  From this union, one son was born, Albert Garrett.  Eli married and had 3 daughters: Sallie Ann, Laura and Ida.  Albert married and had one daughter named Margaret.  A great tragedy befell the family with the early death of these 2 young fathers.  Albert in 1899 and Eli in 1900, both leaving young children.  The following chart depicts these relationships.  Persons primarily mentioned and involved in the legal cases are bolded in red:  

For unknown reasons, the young mothers were not capable of continuing to raise their children.  Margaret and Pryor took them in and raised them until adulthood.  In 1903, they petitioned the courts for legal guardianship of the children of Eli Wines. As noted, Pryor had been a successful man, and had accumulated a good deal of land in both Collin and Denton Counties, Texas.  He made his will in 1904, leaving "all of my estate, right, title and interest in possession, revision, or remainder" to his wife for the remainder of her life, and at her death, he left an equal 1/4 share to each of his four granddaughters.  It was a simple will.  Margaret should have been left with ample support for the remainder of her life and pass on to her granddaughters what remained of the estate at her death.  It was not to be.  

Thoughts and Questions about the Estate Administration for Pryor Garrett, Jr. as related to specific court documents:

Note: Mr. J. W. Shepard is the administrator of the estate of Pryor Garrett.

August 11, 1916 - Inventory of Property

This inventory includes 4 parcels of land as follows: 1 acre from Kendrick’s addition – value $500, Block 12 Kendrick’s addition – value $450, P. R. Garrett Addition – value $500, 10 acres in Denton County – value $500.  Mr. Shepard then totals the amount to $1500.  Creative accounting?  I get $1950.  Another $30 is added for a share of preferred stock, and the sum total is $1530.  I total $1980.

Oct 13 1916 – Presents bill to court for $200 loan made in Dec 1914

The original loan was for $200.  $25 was paid on that loan in 1915 leaving a balance of $175.  Mr. Shepard charged $229.00 in his statement to the court in 1916.  The problem with this bill is that it was secured by collateral, with the original note saying that if the bill was unpaid, the collateral was to be sold to repay the note.  My question here is - why didn’t he sell the collateral?  Never, in any of these documents is mention made of the collateral (except later in Margaret Ray’s contest).  I suspect Mr. Shepard got his money and kept the collateral too.  At any rate, it should NOT have appeared as a debt against the estate until proper accounting for the collateral was made.  More about this bill in the comments below on Margaret Rays contest to the estate and in the final estate settlement. 

20 Sep 1916 – Bill for Dr. S. B. Wyatt

Family lore is that Dr. Wyatt gouged Margaret Garrett by inflating his prices and excessive charges.  His statement seems to bear some truth to that.

He also ordered 28 prescriptions for Pryor between October and December of 1915.  Now, we know that Pryor was terminally ill, and it may have been common in those days for the doctor to stop by every day, and the doctor may have been desperately seeking relief for Pryor. I guess I have assumed this were house calls, because it hardly seems likely that this desperately ill man actually trudged over to the doctor 34 times in one month!  However, it all seems a bit excessive.  The other thing I noted is that these bills are meticulously noted, however, in the detailing of 148 visits; only 6 payments are recorded totaling $14.00.  The final amount on the bill is $437, yet the amount submitted to the court is $273, so there must have been payments made that are not recorded on these very well kept records. So, if  they missed recording $140 worth of payments, what else did they miss?  My final question is, how do you submit a bill for $273 to the court from a source document with a different amount on it? 

15 Nov 1916 – J. T. Elliot Lumber

This bill presents items charged in Nov and December of 1915 and Jan 1916.  Six dollars and 45 cents of this bill was charged in Jan of 1916, after Pryor died, and should not have been allowed as billable to his estate.  An estate is NEVER responsible for bills incurred after the person dies.  $1.90 of the bill is all the estate should have paid. 

12 Dec 1916 – Request to sell land to satisfy debt in “Exhibit A”

Mr. Shepard continues with his “creative accounting”.  He submits to the court a listing of bills against the estate, some of which are quite creative in themselves, and states that the total indebtness of the estate is $1,545.00.  The supporting document, Exhibit A, actually adds up to $1,296.14.  No explanation or justification for the $248.86 difference.  Then, he purports that he sell a piece of property to satisfy the debt that he claimed was valued at only $450!  This does not make any sense at all.  It’s clear no one was double checking anything this guy did.   

There is a website called “The Inflation Calculator” which translates the buying power of a given year up to the year 2001.  (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) It’s interesting to use to get an idea of what the amount of money would be in today’s dollars.  I used a spreadsheet to enter the dollar amounts from “Exhibit A”, translated what the 1916-dollar value would be in 2001.  I then “disallowed” those charges on “Exhibit A” to see what were really valid claims against the estate.  The worksheet has explanations for why I took off certain dollar amounts.  My total for reasonable and valid claims is $635.40.  HALF of what Mr. Shepard presented to the court.  Although I question the doctor’s bill, I left that amount intact.  

 APR 1917 – The Margaret Ray Contest

This document is very curious for a number of reasons.  First, it is obviously a draft as it has several handwritten notes and changes and the last part is written entirely by hand.  It is doubtful that this is the final document that was presented to the court.  Second, it contains several factual errors.  Third, it is the only record of Margaret’s suit in the probate file.  We know that in the final estate accounting, Margaret was given $500 (see final estate settlement below).  Did they actually go to court?  Or did Mr. Shepard just make a settlement with her?  Also, in May of 1917, (below this) there is a summons for several people to appear in court.  Was that in response to this contest? See more further down.

Having said all that, it is certainly reasonable that Mr. Shepard’s administration of the estate needed to be questioned – particularly his “creative accounting”.  But, this document comes off as an attack against both Mr. Shepard and Margaret Garrett, the woman who raised her, and a demand that she receive her share of the estate immediately.  Specifics are: 

1. A claim is made that under the will, Margaret Ray is entitled to one fourth of all of his {Pryor Garrett} property.  That is NOT what the will says.  It says that she is to have ¼ of the remainder of the estate after Margaret Garrett dies.  As long as Margaret is alive, she has no claim on the estate.

2. The right of Margaret Garrett to sell any of the land of the estate is challenged.  It states that she is given only a “life estate” and that does not include the right to sell any of it.  It further states that once Margaret Garrett probated the will, she had no right to contest any part of the will – e.g. that she had no right to sell any of the land.  The will specifically says: “bequeaths ….all of my estate, right, title and interest in possession, revision or remainder”.  I checked with an attorney friend on what this statement meant.  He says it gives her the “right” to do anything with the estate she so desires.  We believe she is specifically challenging the sale of land in Denton County sometime after Pryor died and before the estate was given over to an administrator to probate.  Need to get a copy of the deed for the Denton land sale and find the exact date.  

3. She challenges the claim of $229.00 for the note to Mr. Shepard.  I agree 100% that this note should not be charged to the estate.  She is correct in saying that he has collateral that should be sold to satisfy the debt.  However, she also states that F. M. Steward (refers to him as Stewart with a "T", but his name was Steward) was the actual borrower and P. R. Garrett was only the surety for the loan.  This is NOT evident by the original agreement.  Both F. M. Steward and P. R. Garrett signed it and nowhere does it indicate the loan is solely for F. M. Steward.  It may have been the case, but from a legal standpoint, not provable. 

4. She challenges the claim for funeral expenses of $62.50 and burial clothing for $12.50.  My first comment is that this is just ugly.  She claims that Margaret Garrett had no funds to pay these bills with, and therefore should not be reimbursed for them.  And that if Margaret did indeed pay these bills, it was out of community funds on hand at the time of Pryor’s death, and so she should not be reimbursed as those funds should be part of the estate.  What is ignored here is that any funds on hand at the time of Pryor’s death automatically became the property of Margaret Garrett and Margaret Ray had no legal interest in them.  If Margaret Garrett did pay these debts out of community funds, it would be natural for the estate to reimburse her.  Margaret Ray challenges that they were not paid.   Did she think her Grandfather's funeral and burial clothes were free? It is normal for an estate to pay the final burial expenses.  Bottom line though – the very idea of contesting your grandmother's payment of her husband’s (Margaret’s grandfather and guardian) funeral expenses and burial clothing is just distasteful. 

5. The payment of the two tax amounts, one for $75 and one for $175 are challenged.  I too would have contested these.  They are grossly excessive.  See more about taxes in the final estate settlement below.

6. The claim for $350 for Court Costs and Attorney’s fees is contested.  Justifiably contested.  Looking at it in today’s terms, the estate really had about $11,000 of debt divided between less that 10 creditors, and he was asking to charge close to $5900 to settle the estate.  A high sum even in today’s world.

7. The claim for a loan from First Guaranty State Bank is contested.  This debt does not appear on “Exhibit A”, and there is absolutely nothing in the file to justify this debt.  If it was actually made on Jan 28, 1916, as Margaret Ray attests, then it rightfully should not be a debt of the estate.  However, if there were funds left over from the sale of the property, they would have been turned over to Margaret Garrett and she could have paid the bill anyway. But, by the end, we know, Mrs. Ray and Mr. Shepard had ensured that there were no funds left.

8. The request to sell the most valuable piece of property to satisfy debts is challenged based on the “inflated” statement of debt against the estate.  If, in fact, it were the most valuable piece of property, then I would totally agree.  The debts charged against the estate are inflated and in some cases fictitious. 

9. Claims that not all the assets of the estate are listed.  First, she claims that just before his death, Pryor sold land worth about $2500, and she is demanding to know what happened to that money and believes it should be part of the “inventory of estate”.  She claims that large amounts of it were loaned to F. M. Steward and J. M. Huffman and that there should have been notes made for those loans, and they should be listed as assets of the estate and any remaining cash should be listed.  Well, we don’t know whether Pryor made notes for those loans IF there were indeed any loans at all.  We can never know, nor could they at the time, what Pryor did with that money.  He may have loaned it to individuals, or given it away or paid bills with it.  At any rate, I don't see how she believed she had the right to question what Pryor did with his money while he was alive and expect anyone to justify it to her.  It seems she believed that she was entitled to part of it.  But, she was not entitled to anything as long as Margaret Garret was alive.  The only reason I could see that she would contest this is that perhaps she thought a large sum was still available that could be used to pay the debts of the estate.  She was not entitled to ANY of the money unless Margaret died before spending it.  Secondly, she charges that some 30 acres of land owned by Pryor in Denton County were left off the inventory.  There are 10 acres in Denton County listed.  I didn’t get a chance to search the deed records, so don’t know if this was true or not.  My cousin, Ann Daberko, has a document in which Denton County returned a tax payment for Pryor Garrett because there were no lands belonging to him in Denton County.  So, we don’t know if these lands were sold before he died….this may be the land that was sold for $2500.  Getting the deed records in the future may help clear this up.

10. The sum of $52.50 is contested because it is claimed that it is not itemized.  The only bill I can find for this amount is the grocery store bill, and an itemized copy of it was filed.  She claims that the grocery store bill was accrued after the death of Pryor.  This bill is a bit confusing.  At the top, it is dated 6/17 1916, then above the detail account is written 1915 and charges appear from Jan-Jul.  The account name is P. R. Garrett and Frank Steward.  From looking at it, I can’t tell if it’s for the year of 1916 or 1915.  If it was for 1915, then it was a valid claim against the estate.  If it was for 1916, then it was not.  She claims the debt is that of another, clearly indicating that she thinks it is the debt of F. M. Steward.  However, given that the entire estate was tied up in probate, did she believe that her Grandmother had no right to eat until the estate was settled?

In conclusion, from the beginning of the document, it appears that Margaret Ray believes the estate was to remain entirely intact during the lifetime of Margaret Garrett and that she was eligible to receive a full ¼ of the estate, as it existed on Pryor’s death, including the funds from the land sale before Pryor’s death.  In actuality, Pryor’s will gave Margaret Garrett full rights to do anything with the estate she so desired during her lifetime, and only devised the remainder of what was left to the granddaughters after Margaret died.  Even with that, someone did need to challenge the administration of the estate by Mr. Shepard.  What is interesting is later in the probate of Margaret E. Garrett’s estate; the inventory shows her having a full ½ interest in the remaining property.  There are no documents known to me that show how that decision was made.  We can wonder if the other ½ interest went to the grandchildren.  Need to go back to the courthouse and find any documents relating to that, although they are not in the probate records for Pryor Garrett or Margaret Garrett.  More about this in the settlement of Margaret Garrett's estate below. 

May 2, 1918  Summons

This document summons several folks to appear to give evidence at court in the matter of the Estate of P. R. Garrett.  There is also a Sheriff’s return of Subpoena.  There are no other documents relating to this summons.  One odd thing about this summons is that Eliza Gurley was summoned.  She had been out of the picture – e.g. disappeared with no contact for some time, so that seems odd to me. 

July 1918 – Court orders that the land sale was legal

This document states that it has heard evidence for and against the sale of the property and that it judges the sale to be fair and lawful.    I would assume that the evidence was heard from those witnesses summoned in the document above.  What is curious is that neither Margaret Garrett or Margaret Ray were summoned, but it could be supposed that they were going to testify anyway.  There are no documents in the probate file about this court proceeding.  

18 Apr 1919 Final Estate Settlement

Mr. Shepard presented his final estate settlement to the court and requested that he be released from the administration and the probate be closed.  This was done shortly thereafter.  

Excel Comparison – Note I used 1919 for the original year in this comparison.

 Margaret Ray was paid $500, equivalent to  $5, 670 in 2001.  It says she was paid “under contract on file”; so I assume this means she had negotiated some sort of settlement with Mr. Shepard.  She didn’t deserve any of it while Margaret Garrett was alive, and I believe she figured out a legal loophole to steal from her Grandmother.  It was said that Margaret Garrett was left broke after the probate, and her granddaughter Sallie Wines Steward and husband, F. M. Steward, took care of her the rest of her life.  I’ve often wondered how Margaret Ray could take such a large sum of cash knowing her Grandmother was left with no cash.  In 1930, in Margaret Garrett’s probate, she was given ½ interest in the remaining property; I don’t know what happened to the other ½ interest…if it was divided amongst the 4 grandchildren, including Margaret Ray.  It would seem that she had already gotten more than her fair share.  Wonder if there is a way to get a copy of that contract?  There was another family story that after Margaret Garrett died, Margaret Ray contested the right of the other 3 girls to inherit any of the Garrett estate as she was the only "true blood" descendent of Pryor Garrett.  Those words "true blood" have echoed through the generations.  We have not yet found documents to support that. 

Mr. Shepard got paid his original note for $200, but added on interest making it a $282.20 bill, equivalent to $3,207 in 2001.  As far as we know, he also kept the collateral he secured for the note, netting him at least another $3000 + profit.  He also paid himself $200.45 for Administrator’s fees.  Equivalent to $2, 237 in 2001.  From what I can tell, he profited at minimum some $8,444 by 2001 standards for administering this estate.  He also claimed a payment of $166.44 for delinquent taxes due the city of Plano, but only showed receipts for $72.96 of that amount.  One thing about Margaret Ray’s contest was right--his charges were excessive. I've a feeling that he likely ended up well over $10,000. 

Mr. Shepard states that he paid $55.25 for title abstracts, equivalent to $628.58 in 2001.  This could not be true.  Today, you can get title abstracts, on order, from 50 cents to a dollar a page, most courthouses you can copy them yourself for ten or twenty cents.   This bill is just outrageous. Title abstracts that I have typically run 1-2 pages.  At a dollar a page, I could obtain about 315 abstracts.  There were only 4 pieces of property.   

There was a delinquent payment made to H. E. Morgan for $54.06.  Have no idea what this was for. More $ for Mr. Shepard's pockets?

In the end of the document, Mr. Shepard says that J. F. Harrington was the attorney for this petitioner and should be entitled a fee of at least $175.00.  Mr. Shepard was the ATTORNEY and administrator of the estate; why on earth would Mr. Harrington require a fee of  $175?  Equivalent to $1984.56 in 2001 dollars.  He did notarize a couple of documents, but current Texas law allows notaries to charge a maximum fee of $6.00.  Most don’t charge anything. It may have allowed a fee in 1915-1918, but not that amount.  I see no other function this man performed.  Twelve years later, in 1930, Mr. Harrington was the executor for Margaret’s estate and he charged $75 for the full estate administration. Did Mr. Harrington ever get the money?  Or did that also go into Mr. Shepard's pocket?  We know it didn't go to Margaret Garrett. 

Lastly, he says there is another $20 to $25 expected in court costs, and that there is only $189 left and he can barely cover the remaining expenses.  I think we can presume that Mr. Harrington got his money and Margaret Garrett ended up with no money at all. The family story has been that is exactly what happened.  She had a couple of pieces of property, the house she shared with Pryor, but no cash to live on.   

In final summation of my review of these documents, I believe the family lore that the attorneys and her granddaughter cleaned her out is pretty much true.  It does appear that she was left with a couple of  pieces of property.  I wonder if Margaret Ray got any of that when Margaret Garrett passed away.  That may have been part of the “contract on file” with Mr. Shepard.  In Margaret Garrett’s will, she leaves $1.00 and nothing more to Margaret Ray.  It’s hard for me to believe that the court approved all of Mr. Shepard’s submissions with no backup and grossly mistaken math, but apparently no one really looked at the numbers.  It also appears that documents have either been lost or removed from the original probate file.  Then there is the story of Margaret Ray's continued greed after Margaret Garrett died.  The "true blood" story.  We don't have documents to support that, but given the supported veracity of the first story by these documents, it's not a big leap to guess that event occurred also.  

Of course, Pryor had obtained legal guardianship of the girls, so they were legal heirs.  Also, a person can leave any part of their estate to any person they so choose. We are not restricted to leaving things to direct heirs only.  I need to look a the actual probate file for Margaret Garrett and see if there are documents that were not filmed and/or ask how I could find records pertaining to the other half interest of the land.  

Of other note is the difference in the court documents pertaining to Pryor’s Estate and Margaret’s Estate.  The court seems to have paid closer attention in 1930 then in did in 1916-1919.  An independent appraiser was appointed and it appears that a little closer attention was paid then when Mr. Shepard went to court with his shameful claims.

The last thing I have to say about Mr. Shepard deals with the story of the mule barn.  There was a very profitable mule barn in Plano.  The story is that it was originally an operation of Pryor Garrett and Mr. Shepard.  They built it and started it up, with an 50/50 investment and ran it together for many years.  Pryor agreed to let Mr. Shepard put his name on it.  When Pryor became ill, he was no longer able to work at the mule barn, but on days when he was a bit better, hung around the place.  Granddaughter Ada Aline Steward reported memories of going many times to the mule barn owned by her Grandfather and "Old Man Shepard".

It was expected that Mr. Shepard would buy him out as it was quite a profitable venture and owned 50/50 by the two of them.  I expected to see some sort of settlement on the mule barn in the estate.  Half interest in that business venture certainly should have appeared on an estate inventory.  I'm also surprised it did not appear on Margaret Ray's contest.  Family lore says that Mr. Shepard never paid a penny to the Garrett family for Pryor's share.  I have been unable to document this.

I have just a few comments about the settlement of Margaret Garrett's estate.   (Mr. Harrington from above was the administrator of this estate).

There were two pieces of property (all the property left) that were valued at $735.00.  The estate had debts totaling $451.06.  The bills included seem reasonable except for the funeral expense of $170.00.  It could be possible, but I have checked other ancestor records and the web for funerals in the same time frame and haven’t found many costing over $60.00.  Most seemed to run around $43-50.  And with the property valued at $735.00, more than enough to cover the expenses of the estate, why was it necessary to sell her personal property, valued at $150.00?  Note that Mr. H.O. Harrington, undertaker and relative of Mr. Harrington - the administrator, got about three times the going rate for a funeral and was able to buy the land for  $235 less than it's stated value.  The family lore is that both attorney's Shepard and Harrington saw the Garrett deaths as a major windfall.  In the Pryor's estate, it is not evident that Harrington had much to do with it, unless he collected that $175 fee for nothing.  But, having a natural suspicion of these men, I can't help but question Mr. Harrington about these charges and benefits to a relative. 

 There is no final accounting of the estate.  Perhaps on a future visit to Texas, I can look at the original probate file and see if there are more records.  Additionally, there was more property left from Pryor’s estate that is not mentioned in Margaret’s estate.  For example, the land in Denton county, being either 10 acres listed in the inventory, or 30 acres according to Margaret Ray’s contest.  Need to find out what happened to that land - unless it was sold before Pryor's death.