Thackara v. Mintzer
| Decision Date | 02 October 1882 |
| Citation | 100 Pa. 151 |
| Parties | Thackara <I>versus</I> Mintzer. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ. PAXSON, J., absent
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2 of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1882, No. 243.
John G. Johnson (with whom was W. A. Manderson), for the plaintiff in error.—The trust created by the will of William G. Mintzer, and the protection of the income to his children from liability for the payment of debts is such as has always been sustained in this state, and the decisions have been uniform form: Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle 33; Holdship v. Patterson, 7 Watts 547; Ashhurst v. Given, 5 W. & S. 323; Vaux v. Parke, 7 W. & S. 19; Eyrick v. Hetrick, 1 Harris, 491; Brown v. Williamson, 12 Casey 339; Girard Trust v. Chambers, 10 Wright 485; Barnett's Appeal, 10 Wright 392; Shankland's Appeal, 11 Wright 113; Rife v. Geyer, 9 P. F. S. 393; Keyser v. Mitchell, 17 P. F. S. 473; Overman's Appeal, 7 Norris 283.
The testator has declared, as clear as words could express his intention to secure to his children, for their sole and exclusive use, that portion of the income of his estate directed to be paid to them free from all liability for any debts, and in so doing used words general and comprehensive in their meaning.
The mere fact that the plaintiff's claim was for alimony gives her no peculiar right.
Albert B. Guilbert (with whom was Daniel Dougherty), for the defendant in error.—It was not the intention of the testator to exempt the income of the estate from attachment in a case like the present. His design was to protect it from the debts of the cestui que trust but to provide for his family during his life. An intention, even if expressed, to exempt an income payable to the cestui que trust from liability for the support of his family would be contrary to the policy of the law: Earp's Appeals, 25 P. F. S. 119; Sidney v. Sidney, 17 L. T. (N. S.) 9. The accumulated or accrued income in the hands of the trustee became the absolute property of defendant and was liable to attachment: Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. Monroe 56; Claydon v. Finch, L. R. 15 Eq. 266. The Act of February 26th 1817, § 1, provides that the court may award alimony to be paid by the husband out of "the annual profit or income of his estate."
The cases settling the law in regard to spendthrift son trusts nowhere indicate any different doctrine than that here claimed to be the true one. To the same effect are the cases in other states: Hill v. McRae, 27 Ala. 175; Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. Monr. 56; White v. Thomas, 8 Bush 661; Braman v. Stiles, 2 Pick. 464; Van Amee v. Jackson, 35 Vt. 173; White v. White, 30 Vt. 338.
If there is any doubt, it should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. The courts have always stretched a point to enforce payment of alimony: Grove's Appeal, 18 P. F. S. 145; Dransfield v. Dransfield, 23 Leg. Int 229.
The plaintiff in error is the executor and testamentary trustee of William G. Mintzer, under whose will this contention arises. After several specific legacies the testator devised to the plaintiff in error, the residue of his real and personal estate in trust inter alia, to let, lease and demise the real estate, and to keep invested the personal estate, to collect the rents, interest, income and profits thereof and after paying therefrom all the expenses necessary to keep the real estate in repair, and all charges and expenses, to make distribution of the remaining net income, and to pay over the one-third part thereof to his son George for and during all the term of his natural life, and on his death remainder over to others named. The testator proceeds to declare: "it is expressly my will that the income which I have heretofore directed to be paid to my children respectively, is to be for their respective sole, separate and exclusive use and benefit . . . . so that the same shall not be in any manner pledged, appropriated, disposed of or parted with by anticipation or before the same shall have accrued and become payable; nor be subject to execution, attachment, or sequestration, for any debts or liabilities whatever."
It is now attempted to collect by attachment execution, against the plaintiff in error, as garnishee of George, the sum now due to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schreiber v. Kellogg
...interference with the right of another individual to dispose of his own property as he may see fit."); see also Thackara v. Mintzer, 100 Pa. 151, 154-55 (Pa.1882). Yet, over the next several decades, the Pennsylvania courts did an "obvious about-face in the law" and began to permit attachme......
-
Bucknam v. Bucknam
...In re Moorehead's Estate, 289 Pa. 542, 137 A. 802, 52 A.L.R. 1251;Thomas v. Thomas, 112 Pa.Super. 578, 172 A. 36; compare Thackara v. Mintzer, 100 Pa. 151;Board of Charities v. Lockard, 198 Pa. 572, 48 A. 496,82 Am.St.Rep. 817. In New Hampshire the law is laid down in Eaton v. Eaton, 81 N.H......
-
Duvall v. McGee
...Id. at 1027. This is the minority position, which the Sligh court admitted. See, Sligh, 704 So.2d at 1026, citing Thackara v. Mintzer, 100 Pa. 151, 1882 Pa. Lexis 34, (1882); Kirk v. Kirk, 456 P.2d 1009, 254 Or. 44 (1969). See also, Davies v. Harrison, 3 Pa. D. & C. 481 (Pa.1923); Kirkpatri......
-
Watterson v. Edgerly
...state, and rests on the donor's right of dominion over his own property for a reasonable time." 88 Pa. at 281. Later, in Thackara v. Mintzer, 100 Pa. 151 (1882), the court again upheld the spendthrift trust without ever referring to it as such.2 The dictum in Nichols v. Eaton, supra, is cre......