In my first post today, I had remarked that the 1920 census shows a Martha M. Gagley, living in the household of Elizabeth Gagley, and that if the age of that Martha was correct, and if she actually was Elizabeth (Kantner) Gagley's daughter, then she would have been born about two years before Joseph Gagley and Elizabeth Kantner were married. Plus there is a new inconsistency that comes to light. In the census, she has the middle initial M. whereas, the birth, marriage and death records of her children, where a middle name or initial is given, it is always Martha Jane or Martha J. or just Jane. Conclusion: Not ready to commit to this census's Martha being the Martha of the will. It could in fact be a daughter-in-law of Elizabeth, rather than her own daughter. But the 1927 Wapak phone directory, shows Elizabeth Gagley, widow of Joseph Gagley, living at 216 E. Auglaize St., Wapak which I believe, shows with virtual certainty that this is the Elizabeth Kantner who married Joseph Gagley.

It is interesting that the maiden name of the Martha is given as Kantner (or Kentner) as well as Gagley. Not only did this occur with her son, James H. McKibbin, but also with a daughter, Ancil (or Enzil) who married David A. Abbott. Ancil's marriage certificate states that she was born to William McKibben and Martha Gagely. But her death certificate gives her parents as Alexander McKibben and Martha Kentner.

Question: What does the fact that Martha's maiden name is sometimes given as Kantner, rather than Gagley suggest to you?

Question: Coming full circle, does any of this shed light on why, Martha, granddaughter (as I suppose) of Martin Kantner, receives interest on $400 until her husband dies and then receives the principal amt of Elizabeth Gagley's portion (who hasn't died) of Martin Kantner's estate? Seems strange to me, but perhaps a lawyer type might be able to shed some light on it.