Appeal of Havens

• Decision Date: 03 November 1897
• Citation: 38 A. 795,69 Conn. 684
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Appeal of HAVENS et al.

38 A. 795

69 Conn. 684

Appeal of HAVENS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 3, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; William T. Elmer, Judge.

Accounting by the Security Company and others, executors, of Leonard Daniels, deceased. Prom the order of the court of probate, allowing their account, Owen R. Havens, administrator of Laura P. Daniels, deceased, widow of said Leonard Daniels, and her heirs appealed to the superior court, which rendered judgment for said appellants, and the executors appeal in error. Affirmed.

The material facts as they appear in the record, and the finding of the superior court, are as follows:

Leonard Daniels died in January, 1892, leaving an estate appraised at one and a quarter million dollars. By his will, as modified by three codicils, he gave to five persons legacies amounting to $6,500; to two persons each a life interest in $5,000; and to a grandson and nephew his mills and stock on hand, appraised at $90,000. He provided three trust funds of $100,000 each; the income of one to be paid semiannually to his wife during her life, and the income of the other two funds to be paid during life in the same manner to his two daughters, Catherine Fisk and Abby D. Ellis, respectively. The principal of each fund, after the termination of the life interest, was to be divided between his daughters and their children. This life interest in the trust fund of $100,000 was the only provision made for his widow, except a gift of personal property appraised at $350. The rest and residue of his estate he gave to his said two daughters and their children, the portion going to his grandchildren being given to trustees upon a specified trust. He appointed the Security Company and Lewis E. Stanton, Esq., trustees of each of the trust funds under the will and codicils, and these trustees were also constituted two of the four executors. The will was proved January 27, 1892, and on that day, or a day or two afterwards, the court of probate made an order limiting 12 months for the settlement of the estate, which order remains unchanged. The estate was not settled in 12 months, and is still unsettled. On February 19, 1892, Mrs. Daniels (the widow) brought a petition to the court of probate, asking "that this court allow such amount as it may deem necessary for the support of your petitioner out of said estate during the settlement of the same." Upon this petition the court made an order of notice, which was duly served upon the executors, and in February, 1892, the court granted the prayer of said petitioner for an allowance during the settlement of the estate by an order recorded as follows: "Ordered, that four hundred sixteen and sixty-six one hundredths dollars ($416.66) be, and the same are, allowed per month for the support of the widow." This was the only order of allowance for Mrs. Daniels which appears of record as passed by said court, and said order was never appealed from, nor revoked, nor modified in any manner. Mrs. Daniels died April 28, 1896. The executors paid Mrs. Daniels to the time of her death the monthly allowance for her support during the settlement of the estate, as granted by order of court,—51 monthly payments, amounting in all to $21,252.17. On November 18, 1893, the executors presented an account, which was allowed by the court of probate November 23d. The account showed the payment of all debts, legacies, and expenses, and, reserving $2,500 for future expenses, showed a "balance on hand for distribution" of $1, 187,289.02. The account, as adjusted and allowed by the court, contained among the payments this item: "To payment to Mrs. Daniels per Schedule D $8,750.05." Schedule D was an itemized statement of 21 payments of $416.67 each, from February 25, 1892, to October 21, 1893, inclusive, as "allowance to Mrs. Daniels." Some time after Mrs. Daniels' death, to wit, on July 2, 1896. The administrator on her estate made demand of the executors for the amount due Mrs. Daniels at the time of her death, on account of the income of the trust fund, under her husband's will. On July 23, 1896, the executors replied, denying that anything was due Mrs. Daniels' estate. Afterwards the executors filed another account with the court of probate, claimed by them to be their final account, which was adjusted and allowed by the court October 10, 1896. This account showed a balance on hand for distribution of $1,323,782.94, as follows:

Cr.

Balance on hand, per account rendered

$1, 187,289 02

Amount reserved for future expenses

2,500 00

Gain on inventory sale of N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. rights

$ 23,788 95

Income received per Schedule A

137,925 81

Interest on balance from Security Co.

6,144 64

Amount paid Mrs. Daniels from Jan. 2 to Oct., 1893 (referring to monthly payments of $416.67 each), erroneously charged in former account as "allowance of court"

3,750 02

171,609 42

$1,361,398 44

Dr.

Bills paid, per Schedule B

$ 1,851 47

Legal expenses, per Schedule C

4,530 56

Annuities paid, per Schedule D

750 00

Loss on inventory on uncollected account

2,633 61

Services of executors

11,500 00

Payment to Mrs. Daniels of income on $100,000 given her under will, computed from Jan. 18, 1893 (referring to thirty-nine monthly payments of $416.67 each, made to Mrs. Daniels from Jan. 18, 1893, to time of her death), when order for payment of allowance to her as widow expired, and erroneously receipted for as "an acct. of allowance of court"

16,249 84

Reserved for probate fees, etc.

100 00

Balance on hand for distribution, viz.:

137,331 59

Cash

1,178,451 37

Personal estate

8,000 00

Real estate

$1,361,398 44

From the order of the court of probate allowing this last account Mrs. Daniels' administrator (Owen R. Havens) and the heirs at law of Mrs. Daniels (the present appellees) appealed to the superior court, and assigned the following reasons of appeal: "(1) Because the court allowed in said account, upon the credit side thereof, the item of $3,750.02 as 'amount paid Mrs. Daniels from January to October, 1893, income on $100,000, erroneously charged in former account as "allowance of court.'" (2) Because the court allowed in said account, upon the debit side thereof, the item of $16,249.84, as 'payment to Mrs. Daniels of income on $100,000 given her under will computed from Jan. 18, 1893, when order for payments of allowance to her as widow expired, and erroneously receipted for as "an account of allowance of court.'" (3) Because, as to said item of $3,750.02, the same was not the income received by said executors on $100,000 of said estate for the period named, from January to October, 1893, and was not paid as such to Mrs. Daniels. (4) Because said sum of $3,750.02 was paid to the said Mrs. Daniels out of the general assets of said estate, and not from the income of any particular portion or fund of said estate. (5) Because said sum of $3,750.02 was not erroneously charged in the former account of said executors as 'allowance of court.' (6) Because said sum of $3,750.02 was paid by said executors to the said Mrs. Daniels as allowance, under the order of said probate court. (7) Because said sum was paid to the said Mrs. Daniels by said executors knowingly and intentionally as allowance, and was received by her and receipted for by her as such in good faith, and was so charged by the executors against said estate. (8) Because as to said item of $16,249.84, the same was not the payment of income on $100,000 given the said Mrs. Daniels under the will of Leonard Daniels, her husband. (9) Because said sum of $16,249.84 was paid the said Mrs. Daniels out of the general assets of said estate, and not from the income of any particular portion or fund of said estate. (10) Because, under the order of said court of probate, said allowance was to be paid the said Mrs. Daniels during the settlement of said estate, and was paid to her as such during her life, and while said estate was in settlement. (11) Because said sum of $16,249.84 was paid by the executors of said estate as 'widow's allowance,' and in accord with the order of the court of probate, and was paid by them understandingly as such, and was received by the said Mrs. Daniels as such allowance, and so receipted for by her. (12) Because said sum was charged against said estate by the said executors knowingly and properly as allowance, and not as income. (13) Because the allowance of said items in said account as stated therein would deprive the said Mrs. Daniels and her estate of the legacy provided for her in the will of her husband, Leonard Daniels. (14) Because said will provides that the sum of $100,000 should be converted into a fund, and be held in trust by certain trustees named in said will; the income, dividends, rents, and profits thereof to be paid over each six months to the said Mrs. Daniels, wife of the testator, during her life, and that said sum of $100,000 has never been set apart or converted into a fund, and placed in the hands of trustees, as provided in said will, and no income on such fund has ever been paid to the said Mrs. Daniels, or to her legal representatives. (15) Because, under the terms of said will, the executors as such had no legal right to pay the said Mrs. Daniels the income on $100,000 of said estate. (16) Because said item of $3,750.02 has already been legally allowed by said court as 'widow's allowance' in said former account, understandingly both on the part of said court of probate and on the part of said executors, and was so received by Mrs. Daniels, and the same cannot now be changed from 'widow's allowance' and allowed as income."

The parties went to trial on a general denial of the facts alleged in these reasons of appeal. The superior court found the issues for the appellants, "and that all moneys paid to the said Laura P. Daniels by the executors were in fact, as they should have been, paid to her as the wife of said Leonard Daniels, out of his estate, as an allowance for her...