Kenneth Glad
In 1936, four Toronto mothers each claimed a share of a millionaire’s fortune after a ten-year contest followed closely by newspapers. Each had given birth to nine children. The rules had been set years earlier in a will that many readers found unsettling. The case still surfaces in debates about how far personal wealth can shape private lives.
A decade after Charles Vance Millar’s death in 1926, his estate’s most controversial clause was settled.
According to Historienet, four women tied after each having nine children within the set period and received $110,000 apiece.
The competition had unfolded during the Great Depression, when economic hardship was widespread. For families already struggling, the promise of such a sum was not abstract, it was a potential way out.
Canadian estate records indicate that some of the winners were later required to repay public relief funds they had received, a detail that hints at how narrow their margins had been during those years.
A will built to last
Millar, a Toronto lawyer and financier, left no direct heirs. Contemporary probate records valued his estate at more than CA$300,000 in 1926, with investments that increased its value over time.
His will included several unusual provisions, but one clause stood apart: The remaining fortune would go to the Toronto woman who bore the most children within ten years.
He acknowledged the nature of the document himself, writing: “This Will is necessarily uncommon and capricious because I have no dependents or near relations and no duty rests upon me to leave any property at my death and what I do leave is proof of my folly in gathering and retaining more than I required in my lifetime.”
Relatives contested the will, but Ontario courts upheld it, confirming that its conditions were legally enforceable despite their controversial design.
When headlines followed births
The contest, later known as the “Great Stork Derby,” became a recurring newspaper story. The New York Times featured an article about it in 1936. Historienet writes that 11 women took part, with publications tracking births as if they were standings in a competition.
That coverage exposed intimate details of family life to public scrutiny. It also fed a broader debate at the time about whether financial incentives should influence decisions as personal as childbirth.
Today, the case is often cited in legal discussions about testamentary freedom. Modern inheritance laws in many jurisdictions still allow wide discretion, but cases like Millar’s are frequently used to illustrate where legal rights and public acceptance begin to diverge.
For the families involved, the outcome meant financial stability. Yet the story they were drawn into continues to raise a more difficult question: not whether it was legal, but whether it should have been.
Sources: Historienet; New York times (article from 1936)
