Broadway National Bank v. Adams
Decision Date | 29 June 1882 |
Citation | 133 Mass. 170 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Broadway National Bank v. Charles W. Adams & another |
Bill dismissed.
The case was argued at the bar in November 1881, and reargued in March 1882, by J. R. Churchill, for the plaintiff; by R. D Smith & W. W. Vaughan, for the defendant Adams; and by E F. Hodges, for the trustee.
The object of this bill in equity is to reach and apply in payment of the plaintiff's debt due from the defendant Adams the income of a trust fund created for his benefit by the will of his brother. The eleventh article of the will is as follows:
There is no room for doubt as to the intention of the testator. It is clear that, if the trustee was to pay the income to the plaintiff under an order of the court, it would be in direct violation of the intention of the testator and of the provisions of his will. The court will not compel the trustee thus to do what the will forbids him to do, unless the provisions and intention of the testator are unlawful.
The question whether the founder of a trust can secure the income of it to the object of his bounty, by providing that it shall not be alienable by him or be subject to be taken by his creditors, has not been directly adjudicated in this Commonwealth. The tendency of our decisions, however, has been in favor of such a power in the founder. Braman v. Stiles, 2 Pick. 460. Perkins v. Hays, 3 Gray 405. Russell v. Grinnell, 105 Mass. 425. Hall v. Williams, 120 Mass. 344. Sparhawk v. Cloon, 125 Mass. 263.
It is true that the rule of the common law is, that a man cannot attach to a grant or transfer of property, otherwise absolute, the condition that it shall not be alienated; such condition being repugnant to the nature of the estate granted. Co. Lit. 223 a. Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 21 Pick. 42.
Lord Coke gives as the reason of the rule, that "it is absurd and repugnant to reason that he, that hath no possibility to have the land revert to him, should restrain his feoffee in fee simple of all his power to alien," and that this is "against the height and puritie of a fee simple." By such a condition, the grantor undertakes to deprive the property in the hands of the grantee of one of its legal incidents and attributes, namely, its alienability, which is deemed to be against public policy. But the reasons of the rule do not apply in the case of a transfer of property in trust. By the creation of a trust like the one before us, the trust property passes to the trustee with all its incidents and attributes unimpaired. He takes the whole legal title to the property, with the power of alienation; the cestui que trust takes the whole legal title to the accrued income at the moment it is paid over to him. Neither the principal nor the income is at any time inalienable.
The question whether the rule of the common law should be applied to equitable life estates created by will or deed, has been the subject of conflicting adjudications by different courts, as is fully shown in the able and exhaustive arguments of the counsel in this case. As is stated in Sparhawk v. Cloon, above cited, from the time of Lord Eldon the rule has prevailed in the English Court of Chancery, to the extent of holding that when the income of a trust estate is given to any person (other than a married woman) for life, the equitable estate for life is alienable by, and liable in equity to the debts of, the cestui que trust, and that this quality is so inseparable from the estate that no provision, however express, which does not operate as a cesser or limitation of the estate itself, can protect it from his debts. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429. Green v. Spicer, 1 Russ. & Myl. 395. Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Hare 475. Trappes v. Meredith, L. R. 9 Eq. 229. Snowdon v. Dales, 6 Sim. 524. Rippon v. Norton, 2 Beav. 63.
The English rule has been adopted in several of the courts of this country. Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R.I. 205. Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. Eq. 46. Dick v. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 480. Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. Eq. 131.
Other courts have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Mitchell
...The Massachusetts court has dealt frequently with this underlying principle beginning with the leading case of Broadway Nat. Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170, 43 Am.Rep. 504. Others in that jurisdiction treating the principle include Claflin v. Claflin, 149 Mass. 19, 20 N.E. 454, 5 L.R.A. 370, ......
-
Spann v. Carson
...attach to that gift the incident of continued use, of uninterrupted benefit of the gift, during the life of the donee." In Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170, 43 Am. Rep. 504, the court says: "We are not able to see that it would violate any principles of sound public policy, to permit a testator......
-
Heaton v. Dickson
...v. Hey, 122 Mo. 341, 26 S.W. 968.] Other authorities to the same effect are Hyde v. Woods, 94 U.S. 523, 24 L.Ed. 264; Broadway Nat'l Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170; Sears v. Choate, 146 Mass. 395, 15 N.E. Maynard v. Cleaves, 149 Mass. 307, 21 N.E. 376; Tilton v. Davidson, 98 Me. 55, 56 A. 215......
-
Davis v. Mitchell
... ... leading case of Broadway Nat. Bank v. Adams, 133 ... Mass. 170, 43 Am.Rep. 504. Others in that ... ...
-
FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES AND THE PROTEAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST.
...view). (65) See Claflin. 20 N.E. at 455 (Mass. 1889). (66) See id. (67) See id. (68) See id. at 456 (citing Broadway Nat'l Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170. 173 (69) See Claflin. 20 N.E. at 455; Ausness. supra note 43, at. 244. (70) See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TRS. [section] 337 (AM. L. INST. 1......
-
The New Direction of American Trust Law
...How.) 331, 376 (1855) (referring to alienability as “the essential attribute of property”). 19. See, e.g. , Broadway Nat’l Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170, 174 (1882) (“Under our system, creditors may reach all the property of the debtor not exempted by law . . . .”). Owning property that can ......