Harmon v. Smith
Decision Date | 09 May 1889 |
Citation | 38 F. 482 |
Parties | HARMON et al. v. SMITH et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
On May 16, 1863, George K. Swift, a citizen of the state of Ohio made his last will and testament, as follows:
GEORGE K. SWIFT. (Seal.)
'Signed, sealed, and published in presence of us, James Dana and Frederick Kinsman, Jr., who signed our names hereunto in presence of each other.
'JAMES DANA.
'FREDERICK KINSMAN, JR. (U.S. Rev. Stamp.)'
The testator died June 30, 1865, and the will was admitted to probate by the proper court, and Frederick Kinsman, the executor and trustee therein named, duly qualified and accepted the trust.
The testator owned real estate in St. Paul, Minn.; and prior to December 15, 1865, Kinsman having fully complied with the laws of the state of Minnesota, (chapter 16, Laws 1865,) was authorized to execute the will in Minnesota. On February 13, 1868, J. Rebecca Harmon, the sole legatee of Swift's estate, died intestate, leaving surviving her Julian Harmon, her husband, and three minor children,-- Cornelia, born November 10, 1861; Julian D., born July 23, 1863; and Olive R., born March 16, 1865. At the time of her death Kinsman had paid for the monuments, and had on hand a large sum of money belonging to the Swift estate over and above debts. Ten years after the death of Mrs. Harmon, claiming authority under the Swift will, and without an order of court, he sold and conveyed on June 18, 1878, certain city lots in St. Paul, Ramsey county, Minn., including lot 24, block No. 8, Nininger's addition, to the defendant Robert Smith, and executed the deed as executor and trustee of the estate of C. K. Swift. Smith sold to defendant Twohy, and the latter to defendant Dow. The defendant Armstrong is alleged to be interested in the land with Smith. Kinsman died October 16, 1886, and the complainants bring this suit to set aside the deed from Kinsman to Smith, as a cloud upon their title; and those claiming under Smith are made parties defendants, and other relief is prayed. The land in controversy is vacant and unoccupied.
Frank Ford and John W. Pinch, for complainants.
John D. O'Brien, Homer C. Eller, and I. V. D. Heard, for defendants.
(after stating the facts as above.) The defendants claim that upon a proper construction of the will the power of sale was not limited to the life-time of Mrs. Harmon, but could be exercised by Kinsman at any time prior to a final distribution of the property to Mrs. Harmon during her life, or afterwards to those succeeding to her rights. It is also claimed that the real estate as well as the personalty was charged with the payment of debts, and when the lots were sold Smith was not bound to inquire whether there were debts which justified a side of real estate, or see to the disposition of the proceeds. It is also urged that the complainants, and each of them, are estopped from bringing this suit for the reason that the sale has been ratified by the acceptance of part of the purchase money. The facts are substantially undisputed, and the cause has been elaborately and ably argued by counsel.
1. The sale cannot be upheld on the theory that the debts were a charge upon the real estate. The debts are not directed to be paid out of any particular fund. The personalty, as appears from the testimony, was ample to discharge all debts and pay for monuments, and it was so applied. The testator manifestly intended that the executor should pay the debts from the personal estate, in the exercise of his duty, as the law required. There was no trust created by the will, or expressed therein, by virtue of which the executor and trustee could accomplish this object. A mere general direction to pay debts is not a charge upon the lands for that purpose, and furnishes no evidence of an intention to charge the real estate. The latest authority found (Balls v. Dampman, 16 Atl.Rep. 16, Md....
To continue reading
Request your trial- Greer v. Fontaine
-
O'Day v. O'Day
... ... Cases cited ... supra; Wright v. Dunn, 10 Wheat. 205; Archer v ... Deneale, 1 Peters 585; Harmon v. Smith, 38 F ... 482; Appeal of Thompson (Pa.), 11 A. 455. (2) The will of ... John O'Day does not in express terms charge the residuary ... ...
-
Myers v. McGavock
...after becoming of age, does not estop them from disputing its validity. Their attention must be called specially to the point. (Harmon v. Smith, 38 F. 482; Schnell v. City Chicago, 38 Ill. 382; Messinger v. Kintner, 4 Binn. [Pa.], 97; Good v. Norley, 28 Iowa 188; Brant v. Virginia Coal & Ir......
-
Tufto v. Koebel (In re Koebel's Estate)
...628, 8 Am.St.Rep. 717;Cunningham v. Parker, 146 N.Y. 29, 40 N.E. 635, 48 Am.St.Rep. 765;White v. Kauffman, 66 Md. 89, 5 A. 865;Harmon v. Smith (C.C.) 38 F. 482. As there is nothing in the above-quoted provisions of the will which expressly charges the real estate with the payment of Koebel'......