Albright v. Albright
| Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
| Citation | 91 N.C. 220 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGE B. ALBRIGHT v. JAMES W. ALBRIGHT and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
MOTION for an injunction heard at Fall Term, 1883, of GUILFORD Superior Court, before MacRae, J.
The plaintiff moved for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver, and for an account of the rents and profits of the estate named in the deed of trust, which is sufficiently set out in the opinion of this court. His Honor sustained the motion and the defendants appealed.
Messrs. Scott & Caldwell, for plaintiff .
Mr. John N. Staples, for defendants .
It appears that George Albright, deceased, in his life-time, executed two deeds of conveyance, one bearing date the 29th day of June, 1866, and the other the 9th day of January, 1867, whereby he conveyed to his son, the defendant James W. Albright, three lots of land of considerable value, situated in the town of Greensboro, for the purpose and upon the trusts therein provided and specified. The following is a copy of so much of each as provides and declares such trusts:
The plaintiff George B. Albright, is the son of the defendant James W. Albright, and the cestui que trust of that name mentioned in that part of the deed set forth above.
The defendant Clara P. Albright, is the daughter of the defendant James (by his present wife the defendant Martha S.) and she and the plaintiff are his only children.
The court below, in construing the clauses of the deeds above specified, “adjudged that the plaintiff is entitled to his share of the rents and profits of the estate named in the deed of trust, during the life of his father James W. Albright, and Martha S. Albright, wife of James W. and step-mother of plaintiff; and that the amount of the plaintiff's share is determined by the number of children born, or hereafter to be born to the said James W. Albright, and plaintiff's share is now one-third of said rents and profits.”
The defendant trustee insists that such interpretation is erroneous.
The construction thus placed by the court upon the deeds creating the trust is substantially correct. The donor expressed his purpose too clearly to give rise to any serious question as to his meaning.
It is plain that he retained first, a life estate in the property conveyed, and secondly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heyer v. Bulluck
...678, 137 S.E. 875; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Alexander, 188 N.C. 667, 125 S.E. 385; Fisher v. Fisher, 170 N.C. 378, 87 S.E. 113; Albright v. Albright, 91 N.C. 220; v. Jordan's Ex'r, 4 N.C. 292. The income, as it accrues, is to be paid in equal proportions, first, to the respective guardians, ......
-
Greer v. United States
...manner in which discretionary powers of trustees have been exercised, it has not hesitated to do so in an appropriate case. Albright v. Albright, 91 N.C. 220 (1884); Carter v. Young, 193 N.C. 678, 137 S.E. 875 (1927); Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 67 S.E.2d 639 (1951); Dillon v. North ......
-
Woodard v. Mordecai
...of San Antonio v. Zogheib, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 333. The court will always compel the trustee to exercise a mandatory power. Albright v. Albright, 91 N.C. 220. It is otherwise, however, with respect to a discretionary power. The court will not undertake to control the trustee with respec......
-
Keating v. Keating
...92 Ala. 537, 9 South. 195;Butler v. Badger, 128 Minn. 99, 150 N. W. 233;In re Norton, 97 Misc. Rep. 289, 161 N. Y. Supp. 710;Albright v. Albright, 91 N. C. 220. In the language of the New York court in Re Van Decar, supra: “When it appears that any trustee, no matter how broad the discretio......