AMERICA THE GREAT MELTING POT
Contact information on HOME page
Direct descendant is highlighted in red
| Mary Ann Powers | |||
| Born: 10 Sep 1828 OH
|
Source: death record | ||
| Married: 04 Apr 1843 Louisville, Jefferson Co., KY |
|
|
|
| Died: 29 Apr 1916 Oldham Co., KY |
 "Deaths" from the Louisville Courier-Journal May 1, 1916 |
|
|
| Buried: Cave Hill Cemetery, Louisville, P 316 #5 |
FATHER
MOTHER
HUSBAND
| John B. Stoll b. Abt 1823 Philadelphia, PA d. 8 Mar 1890 Louisville, Jefferson Co., KY |
 Mortuary Record for John B Stoll |
Biography of Mary Ann Powers
by Susan
Brooke
August 2013
John and Mary Ann had no children of their own, but raised several of their nieces and nephews. In 1870 their household consisted of Cora Powers, aged 15, and Bell Powers, aged 12, both daughters of her brother Andrew J. Powers who had just married his second wife. Also living with them were Charles Stoll, aged 13, Alfred Stoll, aged 11, and Florence Stoll, aged 8, all children of her sister Elmira Powers Stoll, deceased.
John Bascom Stoll had started out married life as a butcher but ventured out into many other areas and became a successful merchant in Louisville. (1) In 1867 he became director of the German Security Bank, and Insurance Company. (2) He had the J. B. Stoll butcher company as listed in the 1870 city directory as well as a tanning company with George A Stoll. (3) He was a Democrat running for the Legislature from the 4th District as listed in the Louisville Daily Express on July 31, 1869.
He was also a slave owner. In 1859, his slave, David, was arrested for stealing hides. (4) In the 1850 census for slave owners, John B Stoll was listed as owning one male slave, 25 years old in 1850.
John died in 1890 leaving his estate to the three children of his brother, Henry Stoll, who was married to Mary Ann's sister, Elmira. John's brother William appealed. (See page for John B. Stoll)
In 1904 Mary Ann was sued by her sister-in-law, Caroline Childers Powers. An article in the Courier-Journal for September 20, 1904 reads, "Caroline Powers sued Mary A Stoll to quiet her title to a piece of property on the east side of Cabel street, near Fulton. She claims title by right of adverse possession." Caroline, the widow of Mary Ann's brother, Andrew Jackson Powers, had been living at 119 Cabel since 1883, before A. J. Powers died in December of 1883.
Mary Ann died April 29, 1916 at her residence in Goshen, KY. The death certificate lists her cause of death as senility, with a secondary cause of fractured hip. The death certificate also states that she had been ill for at least six months. (see death certificate above) When she died her nephew, C. R. Stoll brought suit against the estate claiming that he had a power of attorney from his aunt entitling him to a certificate of deposit for $33,100. (5) The bank administering the account refused to make payment, claiming that Mrs. Mary A. Stoll had not been in her right mind when she signed the power of attorney. The case went to trial. A nurse for Mary Ann Stoll testified that Mary Ann was very fond of her nephew and had told her that she had made gifts to her niece and nephews. (5)
Then the bank who was administrating the estate presented witnesses. A confident of Mrs. Mary A. Stoll gave testimony that she had heard Mary Ann speak harshly of her nephew, and "did not intend to leave any of her money to him because of his treatment of her in financial matters." (6) The manager of the savings department testified that "when Mrs. Stoll had made the deposit she had said to him and others connected with the bank that she did not want any of her relatives to know she had the money on deposit." He also testified that C. R. Stoll inferred that he wanted the money to reinvest it for his aunt even though he wanted the money paid directly to him. (6)
The court ruled in favor of C. R. Stoll partly based on the testimony of his sister, Florence Battorff. She had been in agreement with her siblings at the time of her aunt's death, that C. R. Stoll would get the money and that it would then be distributed among the three siblings. In order to testify on behalf of her brother, she had to withdraw from that agreement. After the trial, it was ruled that her testimony could not stand and a new trial was ordered. (7)
SOURCES
#1 Louisville Daily Democrat pg 3 December 24, 1851 meat stall of J. B. Stoll |
# 2 Page 116 of City of Louisville and a glimpse of Kentucky / Young Ewing Allison. |
#3 1870 Louisville Directory Listing the J. B. Stoll companies |
# 4 Louisville Daily courier June 15, 1859 David, slave of J. B. Stoll arrested for stealing hides. |
| #5 Louisville Courier-Journal December 22, 1916  |
$33,100 Stoll Suit is Begun Deposits not paid nephew, The Allegation German Insurance Bank Party Only As Umpire Other News Of Courts Hearing of a suit in which C. R. Stoll is endeavoring to get possession of $33,100, with interest for several years, was begun in Judge Gordon's court yesterday. The title of the suit is "Stoll versus the German Insurance Bank." though the latter acted merely as umpire in the matter and is named only because the money in question was originally deposited in that bank. It is now in the possession of the court, and the Oldham Bank & Trust Company, as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Mary A. Stoll, an aunt of the plaintiff, is fighting the case. This bank is represented by Attorneys L. D. Greene, Judge F. R. Peak and Judge James P. Gregory, while Mr. Stoll's attorneys are Gillman and Crawford. According to the suit filed, some time ago Mary A. Stoll deposited with the bank on April 24, 1912, $23,600 and later indorsed the certificate of deposit in favor of the plaintiff. Payment was demanded on October 24, 1912, but without result. June 21, 1913, a deposit of $24,300 was made by Mary A Stoll and later this certificate of deposit also became the property of C. R. Stoll. Though demand for payment was made December 21, plaintiff alleges, it was refused. Technicalities Discussed Attorney L. D. Greene said one of the questions for the court to decide was whether Mrs. Stoll, who died some time ago, was in full possession of her mental powers when she endorsed the certificates of deposit in favor of the plaintiff. During the trial yesterday several questions of law were discussed while the jury was sent out of the court room. The administrator contends that the money, which Mr. Stoll claims should go to the estate. The plaintiff was on the witness stand for an hour and was followed by his sister, Mrs. Florence Battorff. The latter, who was accompanied by her physician, testified that she withdrew from an agreement, made with her brothers, C. R. Stoll, the plaintiff, and Albert Stoll, according to which all of the estate was to be divided equally among that three, in order that she might testify in the case before the court, which she could not do under the law, as long as she was a party to the agreement On account of her impaired health she was excused until this morning. Albert Stoll said he owed his aunt about $10,000 for rent and that he was relieved of this debt as a gift from her, and as his share of his aunt's estate Later, he said, it had been agreed by his brother and sister that he would pay the amount, and that all three should share alike in the estate. As a result he expected to share in whatever might result from the action brought by his brother and which was now before the court. Testimony of Nurse Miss A. Crowley, a nurse, who attended Mrs. Stoll for several months, just prior to her death testified that Mrs. Stoll had been very fond of C. R. Stoll and that she had told her she made gifts to her nephews and niece. When court adjourned judge Gordon told the attorneys for both sides he would like to have legal authorities cited on the question of whether Mrs. Bottorff, in order to make herself a competent witness in the case, had the right to withdraw, by common consent of all parties concerned, from an agreement she had previously entered into The court was promised that efforts would be made in that direction and that it was hoped that such legal authority would be found by this morning, when the case will be taken up again. |
| #6 Louisville Courier Journal December 23, 1916  |
Stoll Dispute in Tetimony Miss Maxwell, Confidante, on Witness Stand Additional Evidence Given in $33,100 Action Other News of Courts Additional evidence was heard before a jury in Judge Gordon's court yesterday in the case in which C. R. Stoll is seeking to get possession of $33,100, alleged to have been given to him by his aunt, Mrs. Mary A. Stoll, who died a resident of Goshen, Oldham County last April. The Oldham Bank & Trust Company, of Lagrange, administrator of the Stoll estate, claims the certificates of deposit for the money were given to Stoll by his aunt for reinvestment and that the entire amount should be turned over to the estate to be divided equally. All evidence was heard before the adjournment of court yesterday, and the arguments will be made this morning. Among the witnesses heard yesterday was Miss Hattie Maxwell of Louisville, who had been a confident of Mrs. Stoll for nineteen years, had transacted much business for her during that time, and spent considerable time at the Stoll house in Goshen. She said she often heard Mrs. Stoll speak harshly of her nephew and had frequently heard her say she did not intend to leave any of her money to him because of his treatment of her in financial matters. She said at the time Mrs. Stoll and her nephew were partners in a farm owned by the deceased at Goshen, and that Mrs. Stoll had filed suit to dissolve the partnership and obtained a perpetual injunction restraining Stoll from coming about the place. This remained in full force and effect until a reconciliation was effected in October, 1911. Power of Attorney John E. Duhn, manager of the savings department of the German Insurance Bank, where the certificates of deposit were being kept by Mrs. Stoll testified that C. R. Stoll presented to him and the other officers of the bank power of attorney presumably given to him by his aunt, and requested the payment of one certificate of deposit for $24,300, saying he wanted to reinvest it for his aunt. He said payment of the deposit was refused in order that the officials of the bank could learn from Mrs. Stoll if she had authorized the power of attorney, as the officials of the bank did not care to take the risk of paying out such a large sum of money without first consulting their client. One reason for this, he said, was that when Mrs. Stoll had made the deposit she had said to him and others connected with the bank that she did not want any of her relatives to know she had the money on deposit. He said the day payment was refused he and an officer of the bank went to the home of Mrs. Stoll but found that she was in a weakened condition and did no get to see her. This visit in the Stoll house was about two weeks before her death. On arrival they were met by Mr. and Mrs. Bottorff, the latter a sister of C. R. Stoll and a niece of the deceased. Second Visit to Bank The witness said that Mr. Stoll again came to the bank on the morning of Mrs. Stoll's death and asked him to reconsider the matter and pay the money, and that he returned later in the day and told the official Mrs. Stoll was dead. At no time during the several conversations regarding the money, the witness said, did Mr. Stoll say to him that his aunt had made him a gift of the certificates of deposit. He always said he wanted to reinvest the money for her, On one occasion, the witness said, Mr. Stoll said to him that anyone who would leave that much money on deposit at 3 percent interest needed a guardian. |
| #7 Courier-Journal March 4, 1917  |
Reverses Verdict Giving Judgment For $33,100 Court Grants New Trial to Executor of Mary A. Stoll In a written opinion handed down in joint session yesterday setting out in detail the conclusions reached after a careful review of the case. Judge Gordon set aside a verdict recently returned by a jury awarding to C. R. Stoll a judgment for two certificates of deposit in the German Insurance Bank aggregating $33,100, and awarded a new trial to the Oldham Bank & Trust Company, of Lagrange, executor of the will of Mary A. Stoll. The latter was an aunt of C. R. Stoll and it was contended by the latter that she had assigned the certificates to him a short time before her death as a gift. The German Insurance Bank was in no way involved in the dispute, but simply held the certificates until ownership is established by the courts, the certificates having been deposited in the bank by Mrs. Stoll several years before her death. The court's finding, in which a new trial was granted, was based on the belief that an error had been committed in permitting Mrs. Florence Bottorff, a sister of Stoll, to testify in the case in his behalf because of an apparent interest she had in the outcome of the case. It was held in the opinion of yesterday that the finding of the jury was no doubt based largely upon the testimony of Mrs. Bottorff and her husband, T. W. Bottorff. The sister had an agreement wit her brother, but during the trial of the case she withdrew from the agreement in order to be able to testify. In the new trial neither the sister nor her husband will be permitted to testify, under the ruling made by the court yesterday. Relative to the interest of Mrs. Bottorff in the case, the court said: "Under the contract made between the three donees, Mrs. Bottorff and C. R. and Alfred D. Stoll, it is manifest that if C. R. Stoll should establish his gift in court Mrs. Bottorff would be approximately $12,000 better off than if his gift was held invalid and, aside from the question as to whether or not that contract was enforceable, it is manifest from the record that Mrs. Bottorff regarded it as a binding obligation upon her and it was so treated by her counsel, and in view of that agreement she was advised to, as she says, and she did withdraw from the agreement. In order to disqualify a witness on the ground of interest it is not absolutely necessary that the interest shall actually exist, but it f the witness regards the interest as existing and believes that it exists the authorities hold that this is equivalent to, and so far as the testimony of the witness is concerned the same as though the interest did actually exist." |