Davis v. Kerr

The controversy in this case arises out of a trust of $4,000, established by the will of Catharine E. Sinclair. In order to understand the questions to be considered it is essential to set out the trust clause in full. It is in these words:

“I give and bequeath to A. Smith Ring and Cornelia S. Fenton, the sum of four thousand dollars upon the following trusts, viz.: To invest the same

and keep the same invested upon bond and mortgage upon real estate, during the lives of my son, Hyatt Sinclair, and his wife, and of the survivor of them, and to pay over the interest and income thereof, as they shall receive the same, to my said son, Hyatt Sinclair, during his natural life, for the support of himself and his family. And in case said I-Iyait Sinclair shall die leaving his wife surviving him, then and from that time I direct the said trustees to pay the interest accruing from said fund to the widow of my said son, for the benefit of herself and her children, as long as she shall live and remain the widow of my said son. At and upon the death or marriage of the widow of my said son, whichever shall first happen, or upon the death of my said son, if his wife shall not survive him, I give and bequeath the said principal sum of four thousand dollars to the children then living of my said son, Hyatt Sinclair, to be paid to them in equal shares upon their respectively attaining the age of twenty-one years. And in case no child of my said son, Hyatt Sinclair, shall be living at the time above appointed for the distribution of the said principal sum, then and in such case I give the said principal sum of four thousand dollars to my two daughters, Cornelia S. Fenton and Kitty R. Wood, to be equally divided between them. And in case either of my said children be then dead, without leaving children living,then the share of the one so dying shall be paid to my surviving child or children.’’

Catharine E. Sinclair, the testatrix, died in August, 1868. The executors, A. Smith Ring and Cornelia S. Fenton, qualified in the following September. - At the time when the will was made and proved the wife of Hyatt Sinclair was Zelia B. Sinclair. They were divorced on March 22, 1879. Hyatt Sinclair subsequently married Sarah J. Haight, and died on April 7, 1888, leaving her surviving him. She is still living. His first wife, Zelia B. Sinclair, also survived him, but is now deceased, having died on- January 10, 1890. The plaintiffs are the children of Hyatt and Zelia B. Sinclair. Cornelia S. Fenton and A. Smith Ring, the trustees of the $4,000 fund, are both dead. Mrs. Fenton died first. The defendant is the executor of A. Smith Ring, and is sued for the amount of the trust fund, which his decedent, as sole surviving trustee, is alleged to have received under the will of Catharine E. Sinclair.

The first objection urged against the right of the plaintiffs to recover is that the testatrix died intestate as to the $4,000 trust .'und in question. The plaintiffs sue as beneficiaries' under the will, claiming to be entitled to the $4,000 in remainder. The appellant contends that they are not beneficiaries under the will at all. This was not his original position. In the brief used at the time of the oral argument, it was expressly conceded that the plaintiffs were to take the money, by the terms of the will, on the death of the widow of Hyatt Sinclair; and the contention was .that the widow intended was the second, instead of the first, Mrs. Hyatt Sinclair, and, as the second Mrs. Hyatt Sinclair was still alive, the time of payment had not arrived. In the additional points for the appellant, submitted subsequently by leave of the court, his modified proposition appears to be that the time for payment to the plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the $4,000 trust fund, will never arrive, although they may ultimately receive some part of it, when it comes to be distributed as a portion of Mrs. Sinclair’s property which she did not dispose of by her will. The argument by which it is sought to reach this result may be briefly stated thus: Conceding that the word “wife,” where-

But the vice of the argument lies in the assumption as to the meaning of the word “widow” in the will. In Schettler v. Smith, supra, the direction in the will was to convey, “on her decease, if he leave a widow, or, if he leave no widow, then on his decease,”—referring to a son of the testator. This provision, in connection with other clauses of the instrument, was construed to refer to any wife the son might subsequently marry, though possibly not in being at the time of the testator’s death, and hence the clause was adjudged to be void. The words “a widow” and “no widow,” however, are much more general in their scope than the expression “the widow of my said son,” in the will before us here. Furthermore, in the Schettler Case another portion of the will was mentioned, in the opinion of Judge Grover, as indicating an intention to make the direction to convey dependent upon the death of any person who might become the son’s widow. This was a clause making provision for the wife of a son not yet married. There is nothing of the kind in the will of Mrs. Sinclair from which it can be inferred that she had in mind any other person than her son’s first wife, when she referred to his widow. Taking the whole trust clause together, it seems to me clear that, whether she spoke of the wife or the widow of her son, she meant Zelia B. Sinclair, who was his wife at the time the will was made. There is nothing in the language of the will anywhere to suggest that the testatrix ever contemplated that her son might enter into any other marriage than that which then existed. To construe the word “widow” as applicable to any widow is to invalidate a provision of the will which is perfectly good, if it applies only to the first wife; and this, of itself, would seem to be reason enough for adopting the latter interpretation.

An English case, cited in behalf of the appellant, is In re Lyne’s Trust, L. R 8 Eq. 65. There the testator bequeathed a fund to trustees to invest and pay the dividends to his son for life, and after his son’s death to divide the principal equally between the wife of his said son, in case she should happen to survive him, and all his son’s lawful children. At the date of the will the son had a wife and child. The wife died, and the son married a second time. This second wife survived him, and the question was whether she was entitled to share in the principal of the trust fund. Vice Chancellor Malins held that she was so entitled, declaring that there was quite as much to be said in favor of the intention being to benefit a future as an existing wife. But I do not think this decision should

“It is impossible to say what the testator would have done if he had been asked whether he intended any future wife to take.”

The second objection of the appellant to the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this action is that, under the fourth article of the will of Mrs. Sinclair, her son-in-law, John B. J. Fenton, was appointed trustee to succeed Mr. Ring and Mrs. Fenton, in the event of their death; and, as both have died, Mr. Fenton has become the sole trustee, and no recovery can be had, except in a suit to which he shall be a party. A sufficient answer to this point is that, the trust under the first article having terminated, as has been shown, upon the death of Zelia B. Sinclair, there was no longer any trust for a new trustee to discharge under that clause, and to that extent the' appointment of Mr." Fenton was inoperative.

The third point upon which the appellant relies is that the evidence was insufficient to charge his decedent, A. Smith Ring, with liability for any portion of the trust fund of $4,000. The plaintiffs proved that on October 28, 1869, an account of the proceedings of A. Smith Ring and Cornelia S. Fenton, as executors of the will of Catharine E. Sinclair, was presented to the surrogate’s court in Orange county, in which account the executors, over their signatures and under oath, credited themselves with $4,000, “invested in name of A. Smith Ring and Cornelia S. Fenton, trustees of Hyatt Sinclair and his wife.” On the same day the surrogate made a decree settling their account, and allowing them a credit of $4,000 for this investment. There was also put in evidence a mortgage by one Faulkner to A. Smith Ring and Cornelia S. Fenton, trustees of Hyatt Sinclair, to secure the payment of $1,500. This mortgage was dated October 25, 1869, and recorded October 26, 1869. Here was ample proof to warrant the inference that the trustees had received the trust fund. They acknowledged its receipt by their sworn account, and the mortgage indicated where $1,500 of the money had been invested.

As opposed to this there is the testimony of John B. J. Fenton, the husband of Cornelia S. Fenton, one of the trustees. He was' an attorney, and appears to have acted for his wife and Mr. Ring in reference to the estate of Mrs. Sinclair. He prepared the account which was presented to the surrogate’s court. He swears that, when it was made out and filed, neither the trust fund of $4,000 nor any part of it was invested in the names of the trustees under the will; that the allegation in the account to that effect was untrue; and that A. Smith Ring never had in his possession or under his control the said $4,000, or any part of it, or any security for it. The same wit

I do not think the trial judge was bound to believe the statements of this attorney, as against the evidence furnished by the documents already mentioned. The witness admitted that he had been engaged in a deceitful course of conduct, by putting upon the records of the surrogate’s court statements, prepared by himself, which he says he knew to be untrue, and which purported to be verified, although his recollection now is that the certificate that they had been sworn to was also false. These admissions were enough to discredit him. No explanation was offered of the taking by the trustees of the Faulkner mortgage of $1,500, in which they were expressly designated as trustees of Hyatt Sinclair. It did appear that, in the early part of 1870, they had assigned this mortgage to one William E. Peck; but why it was thus assigned, or for what consideration, was not disclosed. It is extremely unlikely that this matter would have been allowed to go unexplained, unless it were true that the mortgage represented the investment of a part of the trust fund. Indeed, the testimony of Mr. Fenton tended to prove, rather than disprove, Mr. Ring’s liability for the loss of the $4,000. It indicated that he did not exercise any care or diligence whatever in respect t© the joint trust, but delivered over the whole management to others, with complete indifference to the interest of the beneficiaries. This made him responsible to them for the loss of the fund. Earle v. Earle, 93 N. Y. 104 , 113. Even if Mrs. Fenton did not have $4,000 •with which to constitute the trust fund, as Mr. Fenton declares was the case, the husband admits that he owed the Sinclair estate $5,000 at the time; and an effort on the part of Mr. Ring to collect that debt, and thus provide for the trust, might well have been successful, if he had attended to his duties as trustee, instead of grossly neglecting them. It is true, Mr. Fenton says his own financial circumstances were such that the amount could not have been collected from him by legal proceedings; but this statement is qualified by the fact that he appears, on March 25, 1870, with his wife as the co-grantee, in a deed of Newburgh property, where the consideration recited is $17,000, subject to a mortgage of $4,000. This does not look like insolvency.

But, without regard to this view of the evidence given by Mr. Fen-ton, I think the liability of Mr. Ring was clearly made out. The account in the surrogate’s court was proof of the receipt and joint pos

The result of this examination of the case is the conclusion that it was properly disposed of on the merits, and without legal error, in the court, below. I can see no reason, however, why the defendant should not be allowed the trustee’s commissions, to be deducted from the amount of the judgment. With this modification, I am in favor of affirmance. All concur.