Lizzie Borden is remembered for one of the most notorious murder cases in American history. In 1892, her father, Andrew Borden, and stepmother, Abby Borden, were brutally murdered with a hatchet in their Fall River, Massachusetts, home. Lizzie was arrested and tried for the murders but was acquitted in 1893.
The murders were never solved. Lizzie lived the remaining 34 years of her life under a cloud of suspicion, despite her acquittal.
When she died on June 1, 1927, at age 66, she left an estate generally estimated at approximately $265,000, a substantial fortune at the time. This included real estate, investments, automobiles, jewelry, furniture, and other personal possessions.
Her will revealed a woman who was generous to friends, servants, and animals but who deliberately excluded her only sister. It also led to litigation that reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and delayed the settlement of her estate for nearly six years.
A will is usually thought of as a document that distributes property after death. However, it can also be a person’s last opportunity to explain decisions, relationships, and arrangements that might otherwise be misunderstood.
Lizzie used her will to explain some of her decisions. Unfortunately, she left other important matters unexplained.
The Sister Who Received Nothing
Perhaps the most striking provision of Lizzie Borden’s will was paragraph 28, which stated:
I have not given my sister, Emma L. Borden, anything as she had her share of her father’s estate and is supposed to have enough to make her comfortable.
Lizzie and Emma had inherited substantial wealth following their father’s death. They initially continued living together and eventually moved into an elegant house on French Street in Fall River, which Lizzie named Maplecroft.
However, their relationship deteriorated. In 1905, Emma moved out, and the sisters apparently never reconciled.
Lizzie’s will made clear that the estrangement continued until her death.
Under Massachusetts law, a person generally has no obligation to leave property to an adult sibling. Lizzie could therefore disinherit Emma without needing to explain her decision.
Nevertheless, she chose to explain it.
By specifically identifying Emma and stating why she would receive nothing, Lizzie made it difficult to argue that she had simply forgotten her sister.
Ironically, Emma died on June 10, 1927, only nine days after Lizzie. Neither sister benefited from the other’s estate.
$30,000 for the Animals
One of the largest individual bequests in Lizzie’s will was to the Animal Rescue League of Fall River.
She left the organization $30,000, together with her shares of stock in the Stevens Manufacturing Company.
Unlike most of the provisions in her will, Lizzie explained her motivation:
I have been fond of animals and their need is great and there are so few who care for them.
Lizzie had been involved in the organization’s early history. In 1913, she met with two women interested in establishing a shelter for abused horses. The Animal Rescue League of Fall River was incorporated the following year.
She was particularly fond of Boston terriers and reportedly enjoyed taking her dogs on automobile rides.
Her generosity was not limited to Fall River. She also left $2,000 to the Animal Rescue League in Washington, D.C.
There was another interesting coincidence. Although Lizzie left nothing to Emma, Emma’s own will provided $20,000 to the Fall River Animal Rescue League.
The sisters had become estranged, but they shared a lasting concern for animals.
Rewards for Loyalty and Friendship
Lizzie’s will contained numerous bequests to people who had remained close to her.
Her longtime adviser, Charles C. Cook, received $10,000 and a parcel of land on French Street. She also appointed him executor of her estate.
Her housekeeper and qualifying longtime servants were each to receive $3,000. She made additional gifts to her chauffeur’s family, including money and land.
Friends and former schoolmates received gifts ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.
Lizzie also distributed personal possessions, including diamond rings, a diamond and sapphire brooch, a jeweled watch, furniture, books, rugs, and china.
Helen Leighton, a close friend, received valuable jewelry, furniture, and the first opportunity to select household possessions. Lizzie’s cousin Grace H. Howe received jewelry and the second opportunity to select household items.
Leighton and Howe also received interests in the A. J. Borden Building in Fall River.
After payment of the specific bequests, the remaining estate was divided equally between Helen Leighton and Grace Howe.
These provisions suggest that Lizzie placed considerable importance on the people who remained part of her life after the murder trial.
The Executor Who Claimed a House for Himself
Although Lizzie left a detailed will, the administration of her estate became entangled in litigation involving Charles C. Cook, the man she had appointed executor.
In December 1926, approximately five months before her death, Lizzie purchased a house and land on French Street, next to Maplecroft. Historical accounts identify the property as the Henry House at 328 French Street.
The purchase was made with Lizzie’s money, but title was placed in Cook’s name. Cook had been Lizzie’s trusted financial adviser for many years.
After Lizzie died, Cook claimed that she had intended the property as a gift to him.
Cook subsequently sold the property and did not include the sale proceeds in his accounting as executor.
Helen Leighton and Grace Howe, the principal beneficiaries of Lizzie’s estate, challenged his claim. They maintained that the property belonged to Lizzie and that the proceeds should be included in her estate.
The Probate Court agreed with the beneficiaries. It found that Cook held the property in trust for Lizzie, that the property remained hers, and that she had never given it to Cook.
Cook appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. His principal argument concerned whether the Probate Court could require him to account for the property proceeds in his capacity as executor when his obligation technically arose from holding the property as trustee.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument. Because all interested parties were before the court and the ownership issue had been fully litigated, the court concluded that requiring a separate proceeding would serve no useful purpose.
The court upheld the requirement that Cook account for the proceeds of the sale, together with interest.
The decision is reported as Cook v. Howe, 280 Mass. 325 (1932).
The property itself was not returned to the estate because Cook had already sold it. The court recognized that the purchaser had likely obtained good title and that the beneficiaries were willing to accept the sale price as the property’s fair value.
Cook also sought substantial compensation for administering the estate. Historical accounts indicate that his requested $10,000 executor’s fee was reduced to $5,000.
The administration of Lizzie’s estate continued until 1933, nearly six years after her death.
The Explanation Lizzie Never Gave
Lizzie used her will to explain why she was leaving nothing to Emma and why she wanted to support the Animal Rescue League. Yet she did not provide a similar explanation concerning her financial relationship with Cook.
Lizzie apparently wanted to preserve her anonymity when purchasing real estate. By placing title in Cook’s name, she could acquire property without publicly identifying herself as the owner.
However, that arrangement created uncertainty after her death.
Lizzie could have explained in her will that she sometimes purchased real estate with her own money but placed title in Cook’s name to preserve her anonymity. She could have identified which properties, if any, she intended Cook to keep and which properties belonged to her estate.
Alternatively, she could have stated that all property held in Cook’s name but purchased with her money was to be included in her estate.
Because her will would not ordinarily become public until after her death, such an explanation could have preserved her anonymity during her lifetime while providing valuable evidence of her intentions after her death.
Although the statement would not necessarily have been legally conclusive, it might have prevented the litigation that followed.
The dispute is particularly striking because Lizzie had already rewarded Cook generously in her will for his long and faithful service. Yet he claimed ownership of additional property that the courts determined belonged to her estate.
Her silence about the arrangement left her beneficiaries to establish her intentions through litigation.
One Final Obligation to Her Father
Lizzie’s will also contained a provision concerning the family burial plot.
She left $500 to the City of Fall River, with the income to be used for the perpetual care of her father’s lot in Oak Grove Cemetery.
The provision is particularly interesting because Andrew Borden was one of the two murder victims, and Lizzie had been accused of killing him.
Despite the accusations and the notoriety surrounding his death, she made arrangements to maintain his burial place.
Her stepmother, Abby, was buried in the same family lot, but Lizzie’s will referred specifically to her father’s lot.
Whether that wording reflected any lingering feelings toward her stepmother is impossible to determine.
A Will Signed Under Two Names
Lizzie’s will was executed on January 30, 1926, approximately 16 months before her death.
At the beginning, she identified herself as Lizzie A. Borden, otherwise known as Lizbeth A. Borden.
At the end, she signed both names.
After her acquittal, Lizzie had adopted the name Lizbeth, apparently preferring it to the name that had become associated with the murders.
Signing both names helped establish that the woman known publicly as Lizzie Borden and the woman who called herself Lizbeth Borden were the same person.
From an estate-planning perspective, identifying alternative names can help avoid confusion about the identity of a testator, particularly when property or financial records use different names.
What Lizzie Borden’s Will Teaches Us
A will can do more than distribute property after death. It is also a person’s last opportunity to provide information, explanations, and messages to the people who survive.
Lizzie Borden’s will demonstrates both the value of those explanations and the consequences of leaving important matters unexplained.
She explained why she excluded her sister. She explained why she wanted to help animals. She rewarded friends and employees who had remained loyal to her.
However, she did not explain why she had purchased property in Cook’s name or whether she intended him to own it.
That omission contributed to years of litigation.
A carefully drafted will can explain unusual decisions, clarify relationships, identify important financial arrangements, and communicate intentions that might otherwise be misunderstood. Although such explanations cannot resolve every legal dispute, they may help prevent unnecessary litigation.
Lizzie Borden never publicly explained what happened in her father’s house on August 4, 1892. Her will did nothing to solve that mystery.
It did, however, tell us something about how she wanted to be remembered.
The woman whose name became synonymous with a brutal double murder chose to leave much of her fortune to friends, loyal employees, and the care of animals.
Perhaps the most revealing lesson of Lizzie Borden’s will is that what a person leaves unexplained can be just as important as what the person chooses to say.
Read the complete text of Lizzie Borden’s Last Will and Testament:
Read the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, Cook v. Howe, 280 Mass. 325 (1932):
https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/280/280mass325.html
