Stevens v. Melcher

The plaintiffs are trustees under the will of Paran Stevens, deceased, for the benefit of Marietta R. Stevens, the appellant. To them for that object, the testator by the fifth paragraph of his will, gave and devised the sum of $1,000,000, including as part of it at its fair value, at the period of his decease a store known as No. 1 State street block on State street, in the city of Boston to hold, invest

' Issue was joined in the action chiefly by the answer of the appellant, and it was afterwards referred to a referee before whom the trial has been progressing. After evidence had been taken concerning the rights and obligations of the appellant, the referee made certain decisions which were believed to conform to and be required by the evidence.

But they were not made as finally and certainly declaring and defining these rights and obligations, but were left subject to be modified, or changed, as the future proceedings in the action, mainly involving the accounting, should indicate to be equitable, or necessary. The decisions made, therefore, by the referee in no manner stand in the way of the consideration of this application upon its merits. It was in form first made before the referee himself, the position being taken on behalf of the appellant that the action could not be certainly, or finally, decided without bringing in additional persons as parties interested in the disposition of the con

That motion was afterwards made, and the court, considering that the action was not defective for want of additional parties, denied the application for the stay. And the determination of this appeal depends upon the point whether the court was correct in taking this view of the situation of the litigation.

The testator, at the time of his decease, left the appellant, his widow, and one son, and two daughters, surviving him. After providing by his will for the payment to the appellant of a legacy of $100,000, which seems to have been paid, and for the creation and administration of this trust, and disposing of other property, and providing for the payment of other legacies he directed the remainder of his estate to he divided into three equal parts. And in each of these one-third parts, a trust was created for one of his children. For the daughters the trusts were required to continue during the period of their respective lives. At the decease of his eldest daughter Ellen, and in case she shall leave her husband surviving her, then one-third of the proceeds of the trust are to be paid over to him for the term of his natural life, and the other two-thirds of the trust estate are directed to be paid over to the children of that daughter, and the remaining third also to them on the decease of her husband.

And should there be no descendants of the daughter living, then the principal of the trust estate was, subject to certain contingent directions, directed to be disposed of as the capital of the million dollar trust for the benefit of the appellant was to he disposed of and distributed upon her decease. And as to that, the direction of the testator was that the, principal of the fund and estate should he divided •among his children in equal proportions, the issue of any child to take the share their parent would have taken if liv

The other third of the estate was devised in trust for the benefit of his son, Henry Leiden Stevens. The rents, income and profits of this third were to be applied, so far as should be necessary, for the support of the son until he attained the age of twenty-one years. And between that time and the attainment of the age of twenty-five years by

The eldest of the testator’s daughters intermarried with the defendant John L. Melcher, and they are stated to have had one son, John Stevens Melcher, who, however, for some unexplained reason, was not named as a contemplated party in the application made for the stay. The other daughter intermarried with Arthur Henry Fitzroy Paget, and as the result of this intermarriage they have four infant children. Neither the son of the oldest daughter, nor either of these children, was made a party to this ac

It has been made to appear that the personal estate of the testator, except that invested in the business of hotels, which is not to be appropriated to supply the residue of the trust fund, has been already exhausted in the payment of debts and legacies. And that the residue of the trust fund must be derived from the sale of real estate or the appropriation of it directly to the object of this trust. And that the capital of the trust itself is a charge upon the real estate has already been determined in an action brought for that purpose, and finally decided by this court. But the amount to be realized from the sale of real estate to supply the balance of the capital of the trust, or by the appropriation of real estate, itself, has in no manner been ascertained or determined. That is still an open subject of controversy in this action. And it is to be here tried and determined before' any appropriation of other property of the testator, or of its proceeds can be made for the establishment and administration of the trust, in favor of the appellant. Whatever the balance upon the accounting shall be found to be, which it will be necessary to raise for this object, is a subject, if not the controlling subject, • in this action. And when that has been ascertained, the residue of the testator’s estate, so far as it may be required for that object, must be sold, or appointed to provide for it.

And in that manner these respective thirds, into which the residuary estate has been divided, in trust for his

The property to which they would otherwise be entitled, is necessarily to be resorted to for the purpose of raising the fund for creating the capital of the trust. And they are, consequently, interested in contesting the amount asserted to exist in favor of the beneficiary under the trust to be capitalized through the result of the litigation. Persons who are so interested are not only entitled to be heard upon the amount which is to be charged against that property, but the ' charge cannot be regularly made until they shall have an opportunity to protect their own interests. The case in this respect appears to be within the language of section 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has required the court to direct other persons to be brought into the action, without whose • presence a complete determination of the controversy included in it cannot be made. This section, by this language, has embodied no more than the preceding rule observed and enforced by courts of equity. And under this rule it has uniformly been held that persons whose interests are to be injuriously affected by the litigation must be made parties to the action before a determination in it can be secured.

In the case of Holland v. Baker (3 Hare, 68), it was held that persons interested in property, as creditors, subject to an outstanding trust, should be brought before the court, before their interests could be impaired or declared by the result of the litigation. And the rule requiring interested persons to be made parties was defined and followed in Vetterlein v. Barnes ( 124 U. S. 169 ). And the principle.

The principle was then stated to be that, “ to a suit against trustees to enforce the execution of a trust, eestuis que trust, claiming present interests, directly opposed to those of the plaintiff, should be made parties, in order that they may have the opportunity themselves to defend their rights and not be obliged to rely upon the defense made by the trustees, or to resort to a subsequent suit against the trustees or the plaintiff, or to take the risk of being bound by a decree rendered in their absence.” Id. 172. And this is the extent of the principle which has been applied to the adjustment of controversies of this particular nature.

But it does not proceed so far as to require in this action that these children of the testator’s daughter shall be brought into it as parties, for they have not been vested with present • interests, and will not, in any event, be injuriously affected by the determination of the suit. The persons who are to be so affected are the trustees, and the beneficiaries in the trusts created for the benefit of the children of the testator. If the balance still remaining unappropriated to this trust for the benefit of the widow shall be larger, it will absorb only so much more of each of these thirds in trust in the remainder of the estate. If it shall be smaller, then correspondingly less. In no event will any other persons than these individuals be injuriously affected. For whatever may be the amount still remaining to be appropriated to the trust for the benefit of the widow, it will ultimately, after that trust shall be executed and ended, pass to these children of the testator’s children who shall be living at the time of the decease of the persons beneficially interested in the trusts. By the appropriation of the property to the trust, they will be deprived of no substantial right or interest. For in the event of their succeeding under the will to this property after the trusts shall be exhausted, the property will be wholly returned to them.

And as no injury can in any event come to them through the determination of this action, and they are vested with no present interests which can be affected or changed, they are not, either under the provisions of the Code, or of this rule in equity, necessary parties for the determination of this action. And the same is equally the case as to the persons contingently and finally entitled in remainder to this estate, in case of a failure of the immediate issue of the testator’s children.

The testator’s son was born on the 21st of October, 1858, and died on the 10th of July, 1885, after his attainment of the age of twenty-five years. He was unmarried and died without issue. And according to the will of the testator, his interest in the principal of the trust fund appropriated for lfis benefit, vested in equal shares in the testator’s two daughters. And in support of the application for the stay it was further objected that, as these daughters were not stated in the action to have taken these interests, the action was defective, and could not regularly proceed to the accounting until that statement should be made in the pleadings. But this objection is more specious than real, for each of these daughters in her own right is a defendant in the action. And a mere suggestion upon the record of the decease of the testator’s son without issue will exhibit the fact that the daughters have succeeded to his interest. And the same defense which will protect the interests of the daughters in the estate previously secured to them by the will of the testator, will also equally enure to the protection of these subsequently acquired interests. And when that is the result of the decease of a party, the action may be allowed to proceed without further pleadings, or statements of the additional interests in this manner acquired. This

And that appears to be sufficiently broad to include this part of the action. And Livermore v. Bainbridge ( 49 N. Y. 125 ) is, so far as this subject was there discussed, an authority sustaining this conclusion. There is, accordingly, no necessity for any amendment of the pleadings in the action presenting the fact that the two daughters, have in this manner acquired the capital of the trust estate appropriated for the benefit of the testator’s son.

A certain amount is claimed to have been left by the son as his own property to be disposed of under the directions contained in his will, and for that disposition Arthur Leary was appointed and is acting as his executor. But this executor is shown to have made no claim adverse to any of the rights of the widow so far as they are included in this action. Neither could he do so, for the amount to which he may be entitled will in no manner be diminished or affected by the disposition of this action. Whatever that amount may be, it is a distinct and independent demand against the executors of the estate, liable in no way to be prejudiced, injured or postponed by the decision of this action. And he for that reason is not required to be made, as executor, a party to it.

It further appeared that the testator’s second daughter, before her marriage with Arthur H. F. Paget, joined with him in a marriage settlement of her estate and property, and trustees were selected for its management and control. Four persons were named as such trustees, but two of them only accepted the .trust and entered upon the discharge of their duties under the «settlement. These trustees were the testator’s son, Henry Leiden Stevens and Alfred Henry

The estate may be considered to have been unfortunate in being made the object of so much litigation, when one action, comprehensive as it could well have been made in its character, would have settled the construction of the will, and these conflicting disputes, as to the residue still unappropriated to the trust for the widow, and then provided for raising the fund, or appropriating the property necessary for its complete establishment. That, however, was not the course which has been taken, but different actions have been brought, one of which has already been determined, and this, together, with another, are still pending for the completion of the dispute between these parties. But after the present suit shall be definitely completed and the amount ascertained still required to be added to the capital of the trust for the benefit of the widow, but little more than a formal proceeding will remain necessary to sell the property, or make a specific appropriation of such part of it as shall be required, to consummate this trust. And as the case has proceeded so far and so long without objection to the incompleteness of its scope, and a substantial right of action is involved in it, no embarrassment should be interposed in the way of its progress to the earliest practicable determination.. A stay under the circumstances has not become necessary to promote the just settlement of the remaining part of the controversy be

The order from which the appeal has been brought, should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and the disbursements.

Van Brunt, and Brady, JJ., concur.