Treasure Chest Thursday: Jean La Forêt Does Land Research

This sheet of paper is 8 1/2" x 13".  It's a piece of off-white 20# bond with a watermark of BERKSHIRE / SOUVENIR BOND / USA.  It has a small rectangular piece of paper, on which is written "Original" in pencil, folded over the upper left corner.  This page is followed by eleven others on the same type of paper.  They are backed by a rectangular piece of an advertising poster, which appears to have been cut down to size for the purpose of backing these pages.

Jean La Forêt was definitely willing to spend time on research.  It must have taken many hours to find all the records he cites in this document and then type up the summaries.  He researched the property that John Schafer, Emma (Schafer) La Forêt's father, bought in 1856 from that purchase through to 1919, the year Emma's mother died.  He even included transcriptions from Louis and Elizabeth Curdt's divorce case.  Here's a quick overview of the contents:

1856:  John Schafer bought lots 9 and 10.

1864:  A warranty deed was executed for lot 9.  The property was released on margin October 19, 1867, six weeks after letters of administration were granted to Elizabeth Schafer to handle her deceased husband's estate.

1870:  John Schafer's estate was settled.

1874:  Louis Curdt and Mrs. Elizabeth Schafer married.

1883:  Emil Petit and Emma Schafer married.

1885:  Emil and Emma Petit's waiver was filed.

1885:  Louis and Elizabeth Curdt filed a deed of trust on the land with a life insurance company.

1891:  Elizabeth Curdt divorced Louis Curdt on grounds of desertion.  She was awarded custoy of Louisa, August, and Alvina and ownership of lots 9 and 10 but received no alimony.

1891:  Louis Curdt filed a quit claim on the two lots.

1891:  Elizabeth Curdt took out a $2,800 mortgage on the land.  She paid it off in 1895.

1892:  Elizabeth Curdt leased some part of the land for two years to C. W. Seidel.

1896:  Elizabeth Curdt deeded part of lot 10 to Charles Frederick Schaefer (Louisa's husband), apparently for $3,000.

1897:  Charles and Louisa Schaefer filed a quit claim to Elizabeth Curdt for half of the property deeded in 1896.  The amount is $1 and "other consideration."

1897:  Elizabeth Curdt filed a quit claim to Charles and Louisa Schaefer, also for $1 and other consideration, to exchange property.

1898:  Elizabeth Curdt took out a mortgage for $2,800.  She paid it off in 1900.

1898:  Charles and Louisa Schaefer took out a mortgage for $1,000.  It appears to have been paid off in 1904.

1900:  Elizabeth Curdt took out a mortgage for $1,500.  She paid it off in 1903.

1901:  Charles and Louise Schaefer sold part of lot 10 to August Eves for $3,350.

1901:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 10 to Charles Schaefer for $600.

1903:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 9 to Jacob Wagner for $2,000.  In 1912 Jacob Wagner and his wife, Louisa, sold the land for $15,000.

1903:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 9 to William Curdt (a relative of Louis?) for $1,300.  In 1912 William Curdt and his wife, Katarine, sold the land for $5,500.

1906:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 10 to her daughter Alvina for $1,000.  In 1919, after Alvina had married, she and her husband, Edward Schulte, sold this for $1 on a quit claim deed to Emma Opperman.

1906:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lots 9 and 10 to her son, August Curdt, for $500.  In 1909 August and his wife, Mathilda, sold the property to his brother-in-law Charles Schaefer for $1 and part of the land Charles and Louisa Schaefer received in 1906.  August and Mathilda Curdt sold this second piece of land in 1912 for $6,000.

1906:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lots 9 and 10 to Charles Schaefer for $875.  In 1912 Charles and Louisa Schaefer sold part of this land for $5,600.  In 1914 they sold an additional section for $2,000.

1912:  Elizabeth Curdt sold for $100 a small easement adjoining property she previously sold.

I can see from this how one could interpret the sales and resales as ripping off Elizabeth Curdt.  Playing devil's advocate, however, it could be that the land had simply appreciated quite a bit due to development in the interim between Elizabeth selling the lots and the children reselling them.  It also could be the case that Elizabeth was being generous with her children.  It's obvious from previous documents that Jean and Emma believed she was being taken advantage of.  I don't think I see enough evidence here of that, though.

Treasure Chest Thursday: The Curdt Siblings Respond

These four sheets of lined paper measure 7 13/16" x 9 13/16".  They appear to be inexpensive and of low quality, with no watermark.  Although the paper is lined on both sides, the writing is on only one side of each page.  Unlike so many items in this collection that have been glued together, these pages are attached by an ingenious metal brad.  The pages have three fold lines; it looks as though they were folded in thirds to fit into a business-sized envelope, and then one end was folded over to fit into a shorter envelope.

This is a four-page letter, all handwritten, dated January 28, 1920.  It is from Emma (Schafer) La Forêt's three siblings — Alvina (Curdt) Schulte, August W. Curdt, and Louisa (Curdt) Schaefer — and was written to Emma in response to the letter dated January 25, 1920 that she sent to them (which I posted last week).

If you don't want to read the handwriting, don't worry — look at this.

Yes, conveniently, I also have a typed transcription of the letter.  It is not exact — several capital letters were made lower case, a few letters went the opposite direction, spelling was changed, ampersands were converted to spelled words, and punctuation (which is very casual in the original) was adjusted.  In addition, two entire phrases were omitted.  But it's a little easier to read than the handwriting.  This particular page is 20# watermarked bond (BERKSHIRE SOUVENIR BOND USA), 8 1/2" x 13", and cream in color.  If that sounds familiar, it should.  It's the same type of paper as used in the typed copy of Emma's letter to her siblings.  In fact, this is attached to those two pages.

The differences between the original handwritten letter and the typed transcription are:

The second page of the original begins with "she always did with her property as she pleased & sold to whom she pleased for what she pleased & did with her cash as she pleased and saw best".  The transcription omitted "& sold to whom she pleased for what she pleased".

About halfway down the third handwritten page is "C. F. Schaefer bought several pieces of ground at different times, & sold them at a good profit, but he bought and paid the prices Mother asked for them, you say there was ($7,000.00) severn thousand dollars worth of property sold".  The transcription left out "at a good profit, but he bought and paid the prices Mother asked for them".

In addition, the transcribed letter has two notes at the bottom not from the original:  when it was received and answered, and a comment that the letter proves distribution of property was accomplished, not a sale.

In this letter we finally hear something from Emma's siblings, giving us a new perspective on some of the goings-on in the family.  Something that particularly caught my attention were the two comments about Emma having left her children in the care of her mother:

"when you married J. L. La Foret and went to Europe & left your children & her in her old age"

"but you do not mention the debts that were on same, & which Mother was left with three small children to pay interest on"

(Although the grammar in the letter is very fractured, it's usually easy enough to figure out the meaning, so I am going to assume that the interest mentioned in the second comment was being paid on the debts, not the children.)

I admit, I have wondered why Emma did not bring her children from her first marriage with her when she married Jean La Forêt and went to Europe.  But the siblings' accusations do not ring true.

First of all, when Emma left Missouri to marry Jean in 1908, the children were not that small.  Camilla Petit was born in 1894, making her 14, and Eugene in 1896, making him 12.  Marie was the oldest.  Emma did not give her birth date on any documents I have, but Jean wrote in his diary that she was born in 1885.  So she was an adult in 1908.  In fact, she apparently was married that year, because I found Marie in the 1910 census, married to William Schulte (as Emma stated in her narrative).  The census says that they had been married for two years.  And Camilla and Eugene are living with them, not with their grandmother.  (As an aside, the census shows that Marie was born in Germany; given how friendly Emma's in-laws were toward her, I'm sure that they were even more excited to have a baby in the house.)  While I have no documents that indicate how long Camilla and Eugene had been living with their older sister, it is not unreasonable to think they had been doing so since Emma had departed.

United States 1910 Federal Population Census, Enumeration District 119
Central Township, St. Louis County, Missouri, May 13, 1910, page 24A, lines 18–22

Once I call the complaint about Emma dumping her children on her mother into question, the siblings don't have much ammunition left.  So even though they wrote that Emma was the person who should dread the family's dirty linen being aired in court, I'm still inclined to think that the siblings were probably in the wrong and deliberately deprived Emma of at least some of her rightful inheritance.

I have one more item to include in this post:

Both the original letter from the Curdt siblings and the three glued-together typed pages with the transcriptions were in this envelope.  One of the copies of the waiver signed by Louis Curdt was in it also.  What was not in it was a copy of the response to the Curdt siblings letter dated January 28, which was sent on February 3, according to the note at the bottom of the transcription.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Emma Writes to Her Siblings

This is two sheets of paper each measuring 8 1/2" x 13", attached in the upper left by some sort of glue or paste.  They are cream in color.  The paper feels like 20# stock.  Each sheet has a watermark:  BERKSHIRE SOUVENIR BOND USA.

Everything on these pages is typed except the note "Retained" in the upper left.  I don't know if that refers to this typed copy being kept, but that's the only idea I can come up with.

While this letter purports to have been written by Emma (Schafer) La Forêt, as has happened often with documents I have posted, the writing style here seems to me very French, and I suspect the wording came from Jean La Forêt, even if Emma may have physically penned the original letter that was sent to her sisters and brother (which I don't have, unfortunately).  The word "informations" always makes me think of French.

The letter is pretty harsh in tenor.  The accusations of Emma's brother-in-law Charles Schaefer are direct and blunt, more so in some ways than in a previous document detailing his purchases and failings.  I am surprised, however, that Emma's sisters and brothers pretty much get a pass on culpability.  In particular, the characterization of Louisa as blameless and totally under the control of her husband seems odd to me in this context.

Blame notwithstanding, the primary purpose of this letter was to convince August, Alvina, and Louisa to cough up some of what they had gained from their mother — illicitly or otherwise — and share it with Emma.  I have felt sympathy for Emma's position in her family's machinations based on earlier documents, but this letter comes across to me more as whining than as a convincing indictment.  I think that's partly because of the melodramatic tone and partly the taunting withholding of information:  "occurrences in our family . . .  it will be better to keep away from public knowledge", "I know but will not speak of it until it becomes unnecessary."  Maybe the tone was the way average people expressed themselves in this period, but the taunting just hits me wrong.

From the first documents I posted about Emma and her life story, we've known that she and her husband did not pursue a court case against her siblings.  I suspect that's also coloring my opinion of this letter, which I realize isn't fair.  When the letter was written in 1920, Jean and Emma probably were still considering filing a lawsuit.  They must have believed this letter was the best approach.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Elizabeth Curdt's "Obituary"

This is three newspaper clippings that have been glued together.  The first piece is at the top, with the name of the newspaper and the apparent date of the articles.  It is 3 1/8" x 3/4".  The second piece is the long, main piece of this amalgamation.  It is a short article about Elizabeth Curdt's death from burns suffered two days earlier and a second article (a short piece about "Pershing's Own Band" giving performances) that is partially obscured by the third clipping.  It is 2 1/8" x 7 1/8".  The third piece has been pasted in the middle of the long piece, just below the report of Elizabeth's death, and is a standard death and funeral notice.  It is 2 1/8" x 1 3/16".

In addition to the three pieces having been clipped from the newspaper and then taped together, the other modification that has occurred to the long piece is handwriting in blue pencil at the bottom reiterating the date and time of Elizabeth's death.  It is possible that the only reason the second article was kept with the one about Elizabeth's death was to be a platform for the death notice and note.

This came to me assembled already, so I can't confirm from my own knowledge that these all came from the same newspaper, but for the sake of analysis today I will work from that presumption.  The St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat reported on Sunday, April 27, 1919, in its morning edition on the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Curdt the previous Friday, April 25.  On the same day, the newspaper included a standard death notice and funeral notice, with the funeral scheduled to take place the next day, Monday, April 28.

The piece of information that immediately jumped out at me from this is that Alvina was at the house, apparently by her own admission, when her mother died, and just couldn't get to her in time.  If you believe the theory that Elizabeth was murdered is a viable one, then that definitely sounds suspicious and casts Alvina in a bad light.  In addition, Alvina seems to have been the child who inherited the largest amount directly after Elizabeth's death (her sister's husband having apparently obtained most of his money through purchases and sales of land prior to their mother's death).

On the other hand, the coroner's jury gave a verdict of accidental death.  I'll have to order that file, if it still exists, to see if testimony is included.  I wonder if anyone commented on Alvina's presence . . . .

The article about Elizabeth's death lists only her three children who had been residing in Missouri their entire lives.  The death notice added Emma, who had returned from Europe in 1917, less than two years previous to these events.  It's possible that the information for the two were given and/or compiled by different people.

The handwriting at the bottom looks like that of Jean La Forêt to me.  I can't think of a reason for him (or anyone, for that matter) to have copied the date and time.  Maybe his eyesight was starting to fail and he wanted to be able to read it more easily?

Treasure Chest Thursday: Estate of John Schafer and Elizabeth Walz

This piece of paper is 8" x 9 7/8", a size we've seen previously.  It is off-white and has visible lines in both directions but no watermark.  It was folded in thirds, though the fold lines did not carry through to the scanned image.

This is the second page and the reverse of that page.  The sheet of paper is the same size as the first page and is of the same paper stock.  The two pages are attached by some sort of glue or paste in the upper left corner.  Both pages are typed, and they appear to be originals.  There is texture to the text on both sides of the page.

The first two pages here appear to be carbon copies of the the first two original pages shown above.  They feel as though they have gone through a typewriter, but the impressions are not quite as deep, and the ink seems to be that of carbon paper.  The paper stock is the same as the originals.  Instead of a copy of the third page, however, the reverse of the second page has "History of the Case" written in blue pencil.  I don't know whose handwriting this is.  These two pages are attached in the same way as the originals, with paste or glue in the upper left corner.

This envelope is 9 1/2" by 4 1/8".  It's made of a fairly heavy stock and is a medium tan in color (notwithstanding the orange look in the scan).  The writing is in blue pencil and looks like that of Jean La Forêt to me.  The pages above were in this envelope when I received them.

Looking at the two sets of papers, it is clear that the second set is a carbon copy of the first, because everything matches almost exactly as far as the typing is concerned.  The carbon copy has some corrections in pencil and pen, where words have been struck out and some additions made.  Both the original and the carbon have the word "transfer" typed in the lower right corner.  On the original, it appears that someone tried to type it and it didn't fit, so apparently the decision was made to type it separately on each page later.

I believe the person who put this information together was Jean La Forêt.  He was the person who often typed up and collated information.  The word "ennemi", which means enemy (second line of the second page) pretty much convinces me this is Jean's work.  "Informations" (second page, sixth paaragraph, second line, and third page, first line) seals it for me.  These are both French words.  So is "nefaste", which I have finally learned means harmful (second page, sixth paragraph, fourth line).

As for the content — now we're getting into some interesting material.  This is the first I remember reading that John Schafer's death was an accident, and definitely the first time I've seen it compared to Emma's mother's accidental death.  That puts a new spin on John Schafer's death, which until this document had not been cast as suspicious.

The document brings into one narrative several pieces of information we've read about previously:

• the marriage of John Schafer and Elizabeth Walz (which no one seems to have a copy of), which produced one child, Emma Schafer

• Elizabeth (Walz) Schafer's marriage to Louis Curdt, which produced three children, L[o]uisa, Alvina, and August

• John Schafer's purchase of lots 9 and 10 in St. Louis County

• Emma's marriage to Emile Petit

• Emile Petit's sale of Emma's interest in her father's property to Louis Curdt

• Emma's divorce from Emile Petit (although it was filed in 1907 and granted in 1908)

• Emma's move to Missouri after her divorce from Emile Petit and before her marriage to Jean La Forêt

• Emma's marriage to Jean La Forêt and her life with him until their return to the United States

• Elizabeth's divorce from Louis Curdt

• the amount of property conveyed by Elizabeth to her Curdt children

• the timing of Elizabeth's death, on the day she was going to talk to Emma about family matters

It's nice to see how much of that I have supporting documentation for!  These pages also add quite a bit more to the story, however:

• details about John Schafer's purchase of lots 9 and 10, including the apparent explanation of the name John Smith, enough such that I should be able to obtain copies

• details about the sale of Emma's interest in her father's estate, again enough so that I should be able to order copies

• the language problems that accompanied the accomplishment of that sale

• Jean expected to rejoin the Consular Service after the end of the war

• the belief that there were documents left by Elizabeth (Walz) Curdt that Emma was unable to view

This really is becoming a lurid soap opera, isn't it?  I particularly like the line "Strange things happen indeed in this family."

But oh!, I have so many more documents now that I'll need to order!

Treasure Chest Thursday: General "Informations" Concerning the Estate of John Schafer

This is the "cover page" for a grouping of three pieces of paper.  It is 8" x 9 7/8" and a yellowish off-white.  This cover page is the back of page 3 (see below) and is a fairly heavy weight, more similar to a cover stock than a letter.  The sheet has a watermark:  "Symphony Lawn" in a script font.  It was folded in thirds, and the fold lines are visible in the scanned image.

Pages 1 and 2 are also 8" x 9 7/8" and yellowish off-white.  They are lighter in weight, have no watermark, have lines running horizontally across, and are of moderate quality.  The three sheets are attached to each other by some sort of glue or paste in the upper left corner.  The images of pages 2 and 3 show a diagonal line in the upper left where I folded the preceding page(s) over to make the scans.  Everything on these pages is typed with the exception of a few items on page 2, which appear to be in Jean La Forêt's handwriting.

I found it interesting that Charles Frederick Schaefer was called "the moving spirit in all the transactions" on the cover.  His name first appeared last July, on the page that had the names, addresses, and spouses of Emma's three half-siblings.  He was Louisa's husband.

As I wrote above, almost everything here is typed, and it's easy to read.  The only handwritten items are on page 2, in the section that starts with "DEDUCTION."  For clarity, the lines with writing are:

What he bought for................ " 4475.00  4475–

Benefit..........$.– 6475.00  6475

Made out of transactions a Net benefice..of........$.18475.00  18475

The documents are written from Emma's point of view:  "Brother August", "sister Alvina", "my sisters and brother", "my father's Property."  That said, I'm not sure if she actually typed them or if Jean did.  Based on the papers I've looked at, this seems more his style than hers, and "informations" is something I've seen before from a native French speaker writing in English.  Maybe Emma dictated it to him.

The document begins with a nice timeline of various events from John, Elizabeth, and Emma Schafer's lives.  One date not included is the actual day that John Schafer died, but it was no later than September 3, 1867, which is when Elizabeth was granted papers of administration to handle his estate.  It took two and a half years to settle his estate, so it apparently was not totally straightforward.

The next few dates in the timeline agree with documents I've posted previously:  Elizabeth Schafer did marry Louis Curdt, who was a widower, on January 22, 1874.  Emma Schafer did marry Emile Petit on November 10, 1883.  I don't seem to have a copy of the document that Emile and Emma signed when they sold Emma's interest in her father's estate, but on July 19, 1885 Louis Curdt signed a waiver attesting to that, so the date of July 9 sounds reasonable.  Now I have a date for Elizabeth's divorce from Louis Curdt.  It's interesting to see that the deeds for the land John Schafer had bought were back in Elizabeth's name right after the divorce.

Then we get into the sales and purchases of the land that was in John Schafer's estate.  I have to admit, I'm confused by all the back and forth that occurred.  I suspect I will need to plat all this out to figure out what happened.  But it does appear at first glance that the Curdt siblings bought a lot of land from their mother at fairly low prices and then turned around and sold a lot of that land for much higher prices.  So it seems that Emma was not the only person shortchanged in this series of transactions.  Maybe Elizabeth understood what was going on, maybe she didn't.  It certainly doesn't cast the Curdt children in the best light.

The Midland Golf Club referred to here must be the same one that Jean mentioned in last week's document.  I'm not sure how the acreage in these pages correlates with the measurements from the previous one.  Perhaps platting will help clear that up also.

As for the accusation that Charles Frederick Schaefer benefited the most — well, it's hard to argue that conclusion based on the information on these pages, but I don't know if this is all the information or if it has been presented fairly.  Obviously something else I will need to look into after I've processed all of the documents I do have.  I don't know how easily I'll be able to check on whether Schaefer really bought "automobiles and other commodities to his heart's desire" or "soak[ed] himself with whiskey", but it should be interesting to try.

And I'm still wondering whether Charles Frederick Schaefer was related to John Schafer, and whether Louisa married a (perhaps distant) cousin of her half-sister.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Who Has How Much Land?

These scans are of both sides of one sheet of 5" x 8" lined paper.  The paper seems to be of moderate to poor quality.  It has no watermark but does have a distinct texture, and I can see lines running vertically down the sheet.  It was folded lengthwise.  The writing is all in pencil.  This looks like Jean La Forêt's handwriting to me.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

(Page 1)

E. Curdt to Alvina =
  ———
825.38' long - South side
452.53' wide – East side
827.84' – North side
450.83' – West side
          8.569 Acres
          8.571 acres

  —————

Louisa Schaeffer's lot =
south side
East side 461.52'
North Side 528.42'          5 1/2 acres
West Side 460.22'
South side 517.50'

  —————

From Ashby Road to Mid. Golf Club.
distance 825.38 + 517.50 = 1342.88
For 5 acres it would take a slice
162 1/5 feet wide, from Ashby Road
to Midland Golf Club. –

  —————

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

(Page 2)

Four acres = 174240 sq. ft
One acre  = 43560 sq. feet
two  —   = 87120  ——"——
Five —   = 217800  ——"——

  ———

If length 825 1/3 feet, it would
take a little over 105 feet in width.

 ——————————

5 acres South of Lot No. 10
from Ashby Road to Golf Club.

<drawing>

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

The first two sections of page 1 appear to be measurements of the land of Alvina Curdt (married Schulte) and Louisa Curdt (married Schaefer).  Similar to some of the account figures I posted a few weeks ago, Jean came up with two different results for Alvina's acreage.  Granted, there isn't much difference between the two — a mere .002 acres — but I have begun to question how good Jean really was with numbers.  I admit I don't know how to compute the amount of land based on the figures he's given.

The distance from Ashby Road, which is where the family members lived, to the Midland Golf Club is the sum of the lengths of the south side of Alvina's lot and the south side of Louisa's lot, assuming that the unit of measurement here is feet.  That's what he noted for Alvina and Louisa's lots, but I wish he had stated it here.  Does that mean that Alvina's and Louisa's lots were adjacent to each other and ran between the road and the golf club?  And what does it mean to say that it would take a piece 162 1/2 wide to make 5 acres?  Why would he need or want to make 5 acres?

The top of the second page is nothing more than how many square feet are in one, two, four, and five acres, although not in that order.  Maybe Jean wrote that as a reference for himself, as he worked out how many acres Alvina and Louisa had.

As for his next item, when I multiply 825.33333 by 105 feet, the result is 86,659.9997, just a little less than the 87,120 square feet Jean listed for two acres.  Taking that from the other perspective, 87,120 feet divided by 825.33333 equals 105.557351, which is not what I would call "a little over" 105 feet; it's more than halfway to 106 feet.  But it appears that Jean was thinking about 2 acres.  On the other side of the page he noted the south side of Alvina's lot as being 825.38 feet.  That 825.38 is almost the same as 825 1/3.  When I multiply 825.38 by 105 feet, the result is 86,664.9, a little more than the previous number but still significantly short of 2 acres.  Starting with the acreage, 87,120 feet divided by 825.38 is 105.551382, which is still closer to 106 than 105.  Maybe he was trying to figure out 2 acres for Emma?

In the next section, with the simple drawing, Jean refers to 5 acres.  Is this the same 5 acres he wrote about on the other side of the page?  None of the numbers written by the drawing — 80, 25, 30 — match the figures he's used previously.

If I'm really lucky, something else in this folder will explain what all of this means.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Jean La Forêt's Accounting of the Elizabeth Curdt Estate

This piece of faded, folded paper is 8 3/8" x 10 7/8" (the standard 8 1/2" x 11", shaved 1/8" on each dimension).  It looks and feels like a nice 20# bond; it has no watermark.  It has several folds in it going in both directions.  It has a few small tears at the ends of some of the creases.  The set of folds I think of as primary allowed it to be a trifold document.  Everything is handwritten in pencil; that on the "cover" panel is in blue pencil.  The writing looks like that of Jean La Forêt on the many documents I have posted previously.

The top image shows what I think of as the "outside."  The right panel of the page reads:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Final Settlement

Personal property

Elizabeth Curdt

————

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

This then has to do with the final estate of Emma's mother, Elizabeth (Walz) Curdt, who died in 1919 in suspicious circumstances.

Turning to the "inside" page, the first panel reads:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Otto Dauster

Charles Young

Geo. Appel

 ———

848.64

———

split[?] — 315.17

Left — 533..40

———

Alvina — 500.00

cash — 33.47

———

undertaker – 224.40

Burial — 21.00

Attorney — 10.00

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

This is the second panel:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Alvina — 500.00

August — 25.00

Schaefer — 25.00

Deposit — 204.50

Cash — 10.14

       848.64

furniture etc – 34.00

———

nothing in inventory

————

Judge Geo. W. Wolff

Clayton, Mo.

Attorney at law ,

————

$119.94

should be 133.35

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

And the third panel shows math computations:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

500  

25 

25 

204.50

10.14

34.00

———

98.64

848.64

315.17

—————————

533.47    | 4

 13      133.37

13         

14       

27     

——————————

133.35

119.94

13.41

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

The final panel, the "back page" so to speak, appears on the left of the side with the "cover":

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Geo. W. Wolff

Clarence L. Wolff

————

$119.94 {should be $133.35

by check August W. Curdt

adm.

dated Clayton, Mo. 8/10 1920

on

St. Louis County Bank,

80-459

————

Mrs. Emma M. La Forêt

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

So this gets us into some details of Elizabeth's estate.  Most of it appears to be breakdowns of amounts owed, while some items seem to be Jean's notes.

Who were Otto Dauster, Charles Young, and Geo[rge?] Appel?  Did they conduct the inventory on Elizabeth Curdt's estate?

The number 848.64, under the three names at the top of the left panel, shows up at the top of the middle panel and in computations on the right panel.  The occurrence on the left panel isn't connected to anything else.  Below the figure, however, are a "split" of 315.17 and "left" of 533.40.  These figures are similar to those in the second section of the right panel but don't quite add up to 848.64.  But what is the split?

The next section on the left panel shows an amount of 500.00 for Alvina and cash of 33.47.  The total of these two 533.47, matches that in the third column, but what is the cash?  The cash listed in the middle panel is 10.14.  There were two cash accounts?

The bottom section on the left panel has more costs:  224.40 for the undertaker and 21.00 for burial found plausible.  But only 10.00 for an attorney?  What did an attorney do for only 10.00?  Say, "Good morning"?

The top of the middle panel has a column of figures.  Alvina and August were two of Elizabeth's children with Louis Curdt; Schaefer was the husband of Louisa, the other daughter.  So the first three figures are Elizabeth's children.  The figure for Alvina is the same as that listed in the first column.  Did she receive a larger amount than her siblings because Elizabeth had been living with her?  And why are a deposit and cash in the same column?  The total written for the column is the same number as the first one on the left panel, but the numbers don't add up right.  When I add 500.00 + 25.00 + 25.00 + 204.50 + 10.14, I get 764.64.  If I add the 34.00 listed below for "furniture etc", the total is 798.64.  I'm not seeing the 848.64.  We're missing 50.00 somewhere.

If there really was "nothing in inventory", as the next item says, are all of these figures on Jean's scribble sheet from cash?  Doesn't the furniture count as inventory?  It's listed with a value.

Next we see the name of Judge Geo[rge?] W. Wolff, an attorney in Clayton.  We've seen his name before:  He was the president of the St. Louis County Land Title Company.  Did Jean hire him?  Was he a probate attorney handling Elizabeth Curdt's estate?  Is his name on this sheet because he was president of the title company?

The last section in the middle panel has $119.94 (the only figure on this side of the page to have a dollar sign) written larger and darker than other numbers.  Below it is "should be 133.35."  So Jean had a disagreement with one of the figures.

The top of the right panel repeats the figures from the top of the middle panel, including the furniture, and this time mostly gets the total I did.  It shows 98.64, whereas the total is 798.64.  Jean lost his hundreds column somewhere; I guess he just forgot to write down the 7?

In the middle of the right panel, however, 315.17 has been subtracted from Jean's middle-column total of 848.64, giving a result of 533.47, which is accurate for those two figures.  Then come four rows of numbers in a configuration with which I am not familiar.  I don't know if those numbers were subtracted to come up with the result of 133.35, or if the line under the 27 totally separates that set of numbers from the 133.35.  And there's a 133.37 by the odd configuration; I have no idea what that means, but I find it interesting that it's only 2¢ different.  This whole section has me bewildered.  Maybe it's the "old French math" method.

The last section of the right panel appears to refer back to the numbers from the bottom of the middle panel.  The 119.94 has been subtracted from the 133.35 which "should be" the right amount, leaving 13.41.  At least this math is correct also.

Returning to the other side of the sheet, at the top Judge Wolff's name shows up again, this time with Clarence Wolff.  The latter is possibly (probably?) related to the judge, but we don't know.  His name is not on the title company business card.

The next section explains the $119.94 figure (but not its origin).  It appears that's how much money Emma received out of her mother's estate.  August Curdt, the administrator for the estate, wrote the check, dated August 10, 1920.  But Jean repeated his note that she should have received $133.35.

After looking through all the figures on this piece of paper, though, I can't figure out where the $133.35 or $119.94 figure came from.  Maybe they'll show up on another page somewhere.

Overall this page provides some information but raises more questions than it answers.  I hope other documents in this pile clarify things later.

Treasure Chest Thursday: A Surprise Trove about Louis Curdt and Family

One of the most enjoyable things about having a blog is having people contact you because they found one of your posts interesting.  When someone has a personal connection to the stories you've written, it's even better.

I have been posting since December of 2015 about the "treasure chest" of items I was given regarding Emma Margaret Schafer and her family members, including her mother, stepfather, first and second husbands, and children.  After last week's post about Louis Curdt, Emma's stepfather, Louis' great-granddaughter wrote to me.  She apparently found my blog while searching for Louis' name online.  She has told me a lot about Louis and shared several family photographs and documents!

In Emma's handwritten narrative, she mentioned almost in passing that her mother had divorced Louis Curdt.  I have now learned that at some point after that, Louis remarried, to Louisa Hulvey:

In light of the comments in the typed narrative about Louis molesting Emma when she was a young teenager, I find it interesting that Louis' second wife was under 18 years of age when they married.  Louisa's father had to give his "written consent" to the marriage.  Unfortunately, this clip of the marriage license doesn't include when Louis and Louisa were married, but Louis was born about 1849 and Louisa about 1878, and their first child was born about 1896, so my guess is 1895 or so for the marriage.

Louis and Louisa had four children:  Henry John (1896-1951), Katherine (1898-?), Mary Katherine (1899-1987), and John (1902-1927).  Deb, the person who wrote to me, is Mary's granddaughter.  Mary is in the photo at the top of this post, standing with her parents, Louisa and Louis (who looks like a grumpy old cuss).  In the photo below she is with her siblings Henry and Katherine (Katie); Mary is on the left.

This is Albert -- Deb's father, Mary's son, and Louis' grandson.

Deb also shared a few items related to Louis' marriage to Elizabeth, Emma's mother.  One is this copy of the January 22, 1874 marriage record for Louis Curdt and Elizabeth.  We already knew that Elizabeth was widowed, because Emma's father had died, but the marriage record indicates Curdt was also a widower.

I now know what one of Emma's half-siblings looked like.  Deb has two photos of Alvina, the youngest child of Louis and Elizabeth Curdt.  This is her as a fashionable young woman.  She was born about 1881, so my estimate for this photo is about 1897.

The second photo is Alvina and her husband, Edward Schulte.  (Emma's oldest daughter from her marriage to Emile Petit, Marie, married a William H. Schulte in Missouri.  I suspect the two Schultes are related.)

Even though it's cool to have photos of Alvina, I need to keep in mind that she was purportedly part of the conspiracy to deprive Emma of her inheritance.  So she also might have been a not-so-nice person.