Over the course of Rochester’s almost 350 years of history, it has been home to many illustrious men and women. Some served in town, state and federal governments, while others stood out in the fields of religion and education. One resident, however, who fits in none of these categories, has had an enduring hold on the imagination of those who have chronicled Rochester history.
Eugenia Haskell, daughter of Nathaniel Haskell, was a lovely woman who won the hearts of many suitors but never married. She was a delightful hostess and an intelligent conversationalist who was up to date on world affairs and popular literature. She also capably ran the family homestead and farm with the help of her “hired man”.
While we know quite a bit about Eugenia’s life and her death in her late 80’s, what is less well known is the controversy that swirled around the disposition of her last will and testament. That will was contested by heirs of Nathaniel Haskell in the case of Harriet E. Little et al vs. George H. Silveira.
To go back, Nathaniel Haskell owned considerable property, including a house built in 1771 on Walnut Plain Rd. When he wrote his will in 1837, he left his sons certain swamp lands. He left his wife, as long as she remained his widow “the use of all the rest of his estate and in any event the use of one third thereof for her life, together with $500.00.
As a concerned father, he saw to the future of his three daughters. His will states,” to them (the daughters) and their heirs as tenants in common, all the residue and remainder of my estate, real and personal, so long as they shall remain sole and unmarried, and if either of them should marry, my will is that those who remain single shall have the portion so devised to the one who is marrying”.
The will went on to explain what money would change hands in the event of any marriage. However, these clauses were never enacted as for some reason, none of the three daughters, Charlotte, Julia and Eugenia ever married. Julia and Charlotte died “testate” which meant all the real estate and any interests went to their surviving sister, Eugenia. She carried on living in the home and maintaining the farm with the help of George H. Silveira, her “tenant, a Portuguese who had been in her employ for many years”. It was to this man, often referred to as the “hired man” that she left the farm, homestead and the bulk of her personal property in her 1901 will.
The Haskell heirs in their attempt to overthrow the will made the argument that the daughters were only given a life estate in their father’s will. It was therefore, the construction of Nathaniel’s will, written in 1837 and probated in 1941, that came into question.
Judge C. T. Davis disagreed with their interpretation of that will. Concluding that when Nathaniel included the words “and their heirs”, he meant to give the property to his daughters” in full”. After two years of litigation, George H. Silveira became the owner of the Haskell homestead which he, along with Eugenia, had tended for many years.
By Connie Eshbach