Site icon GenealogyBank Blog

More Legal Battles over the Mark Hopkins Railroad Fortune

Melissa Berry
Photo: the Severance mansion in California. Credit: Los Angeles Public Library, Archive Collection, Genealogy and History.

Introduction: In this article, Melissa Davenport Berry continues the story of the people affected by the huge fortune left by railroad magnate Mark Hopkins, focusing on a lawsuit contesting Mark’s widow Mary’s will, which left the estate to her second husband Edward Francis Searles. Melissa is a genealogist who has a blog, AnceStory Archives, and a Facebook group, New England Family Genealogy and History.

Note: Melissa is writing a series of articles about the people affected by – and the mad scramble for – the huge fortune left behind by Mark Hopkins when he died without a will or heir in 1878. This is the ninth article in that series; links to the first eight installments can be found at the end of this article.

When Mary Hopkins Searles, aka “America’s richest widow” (widow of railroad magnate Mark Hopkins), passed on 25 July 1891, her will named her second husband Edward Francis Searles, aka “Lord Searles,” as sole heir. With Mary gone Lord Searles was cash flush and held the keys to all her palaces, which were valued in the millions – but he would not be living lavishly without legal battles with the widows’ outraged relations.

The suit to break Mary’s will was brought before Judge Rollin E. Harmon in Salem, Massachusetts, in the Essex County Court house on 22 September 1891. The North Shore certainly got their share of scandal, as well as the rest of the country! During the hearing, the courtroom was packed. The press concluded it was “one of the most sensational will contests on record.”

Timothy Nolan Hopkins, the adopted son of America’s richest widow, was the major player in contesting the will – but 21 claimants from the family line joined forces with him. On October 24 Judge Harmon announced his decision: Mary’s will stands as is. Edward Francis Searles was Mary’s sole heir.

According to press reports, this was only a preliminary skirmish and notice to appeal was immediately filed.

Los Angeles Daily Herald (Los Angeles, California), 26 November 1891, page 3

One of the claimants, Annie Crittenden Severance, filed an appeal in November 1891. Also named in news articles was a separate appeal filed by Lyman and Delia Sherwood of Putnam County, New York, first cousins to widow Mary (more on that in a later story). The appeals were filed on the grounds that the testatrix (Mary) was not of proper testamentary capacity when she willed her fortune to her much-younger husband Edward.

Annie was the niece of Mary Hopkins Searles, and her sister Mary Kellogg Crittenden was married to Timothy Hopkins. When the probate hearings started in September 1891, Annie appeared to be on Timothy’s side – but then testified on behalf of Searles, figuring this was a better way to get a share of the estate.

Annie’s husband Mark Simbley Severance worked for Timothy Hopkins in the Pacific Railroad office.

Illustration: Mark Simbley Severance. Credit: Los Angeles Times Digital Archives.

Mark’s brother James also worked for Timothy Hopkins, as his private secretary. Annie’s mother-in-law, Caroline Seymour Severance, was known as the “Mother of Clubs” and was instrumental in establishing the New England Club for Women in May 1868.

With all these family entanglements, you can imagine the hornets’ nest Annie forged by betraying Timothy. According to Virginia Elwood-Akers in her book Caroline Severance, Annie’s relations with her mother-in-law slipped dramatically when she testified on behalf of Searles to get her cut. The same sentiments were expressed by the family in personal correspondence; the letters are housed in the Stanford University Archives and Special Collections.

Timothy was already feeling betrayed by having been cut out of his mother’s will – and now his sister-in-law was testifying against him in court.

Caroline received a letter from Annie’s sister Mary K. Hopkins which related that “Annie’s conduct has created great comment among our mutual friends, and it is rather hard Mr. Hopkins [Timothy] should have to battle against my own flesh and blood.”

Caroline had other misgivings about her daughter-in-law Annie. She opposed the “capitalist” lifestyle that Annie and her son Mark embraced. Caroline thought the couple’s home was too extravagant.

Photo: home of Mark and Annie Severance, Los Angeles, California. Credit: Los Angeles Public Library, Archive Collection, Genealogy and History.

In general, Caroline disliked Annie’s influence on Mark, especially in the horse racing enterprises she encouraged. Caroline’s devotion to social reform was in complete opposition to Annie’s efforts to gratify her taste in fine horseflesh.

Illustration: one of Annie Severance’s winning horse teams. Credit: Los Angeles Times Digital Archives.

According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Annie was one of the few women in the country to own and breed race horses. She never missed a race. Her gem in the stable was Lady La Belle, who was the two-year-old division champion in the world. Annie’s husband Mark was president and treasurer of the Horse Show Association.

San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco, California), 11 August 1895, page 2

So, for Annie there was no horsing around when it came to winnings – whether it be at the track or in the courtroom! Annie was awarded $250,000 from Mary’s estate, but she failed to pay her Boston attorney Herbert L. Harding.

San Diego Union (San Diego, California), 29 June 1893, page 1

In 1893 Harding sued Annie for $10,000 for legal fees and damages. Harding tried to place liens on one of her properties. (The case can be found in “Civil Procedure Reports: Containing Cases under the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Civil Practice of the State of New York, Volume 25,” pages 294-301.)

Hold on to your seat readers: this drama is far from over. Still to come: Timothy’s law team provides evidence and witness testimonies from the Crook boys at seances in Mary Hopkins home, implicating Searles as a fraud. Searles is relentlessly hammered in the sweat-producing cross-examination concerning seances, sale of stock, and scorned kin.

Research Sources and Aids:

Genealogy:

Others in the family tree:

Elizabeth Needham, genealogist and Mayflower Society member, confirmed the genealogy for Mayflower line connections which also include:

Other direct lines include:

Severance line:

Children of Theodoric and Caroline Marie Seymour:

Other Articles in This Series:

Exit mobile version