Majority
Headnote
1. Trusts (§ 254[1] )—Suit by Testamentary Trustee—Jurisdiction .The plaintiff brings this action as a substituted testamentary trustee to procure a settlement and adjudication of his accounts for the receipt of rents of certain real estate. Under the provisions of the will in question the executors were directed to, keep
The right of the plaintiff to maintain his action in this court is* challenged on the ground that the Surrogate’s Court has power to grant all the relief necessary, and, consequently, that this court should not entertain the action. Post v. Ingraham, 122 App. Div. 738 , 107 N. Y. Supp. 737 ; Mildeberger v. Franklin, 130 App. Div. 860 , 115 N. Y. Supp. 903 ; Pyle v. Pyle, 137 App. Div. 568 , 122 N. Y. Supp. 256 ; Childs v. Childs, 68 Misc. Rep. 472 , 124 N. Y. Supp. 550 . In this case, I am by no means satisfied that the surrogate would have the powers necessary to a disposition of all the matters involved. The surrogate would undoubtedly have power to pass upon the plaintiff’s accounts so far as concerns the rents that he himself collected; but, when it comes to the rents which he permitted the defendants to collect, I am not aware of any power in the surrogate to require the defendants to make any accounting for the rents so collected by' them. As I construe the will, it created a -trust; not expressly, it is true, but by necessary implication, in order to effectuate the intention of the testator. Ward v. Ward, 105 N. Y. 68 , 11 N. E. 373 ; Morse v. Morse, 85 N. Y. 53 ; Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357 ; Close v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 121 App. Div. 528 , 106 N. Y. Supp. 329 . Consequently, the defendants, in collecting and disposing of the rents in place of the plaintiff trustee, acted in a fiduciary capacity, and can be required in a court of equitable powers to account for the rents so collected by them.
Even if it be assumed—although there is no allegation nor proof to that effect—that the defendant Ruford Franklin is the only child of the defendant Mary C. Franklin, and the only one at present interested in the remainder, it does not follow that he and his mother, the beneficiary for life of the net income, are entitled to administer the trust estate and dispose of the rents as they see fit. Under the provisions of the will repairs are to be made, and taxes, assessments, and other charges paid; and even if the defendant Ruford Franklin is at this time the only child, it may be at his mother’s death there will be others interested in or entitled to the remainder. It is the duty
There should be judgment for the plaintiff accordingly. A decision and judgment in conformity with the views above expressed may be submitted upon the usual notice of settlement. The question of costs will-be determined upon the settlement of the decision and judgment.
Cases cited
- Childs v. Childs 68 Misc. Rep. 472 p. 804
- Ward v. Ward 105 N. Y. 68 p. 804
- Morse v. Morse 85 N. Y. 53 p. 804
- Marx v. McGlynn 88 N. Y. 357 p. 804
- Close v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 121 App. Div. 528 p. 804