Bancroft v. Russell
| Citation | 31 N.E. 710,157 Mass. 47 |
| Parties | BANCROFT v. RUSSELL. |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1892 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bill by Solon Bancroft against Arthur H. Russell to determine what disposition should be made of certain funds which plaintiff holds as the proceeds of life insurance policies on the life of William Proctor, payable to plaintiff as “trustee for Harriet Prescott,” who died before said Proctor.S. Bancroft, for plaintiff.
A.H. Russell, for respondent.
St.1887, c. 214, § 73, and Pub.St. c. 119, § 167,1 do not control this case. Although undoubtedly in the event which has happened Mr. Bancroft is the person to whom the money was payable, yet by the terms of the policy it was payable to him as “trustee for Harriet Prescott,” and the question is, what is the nature of the trust? It is settled that a trust in personal property can be shown by oral testimony, and the word “trustee” does not conclusively define the nature of the trust. Chase v. Perley, 148 Mass. 289, 19 N.E.Rep. 398; Chace v. Chapin, 130 Mass. 128;Davis v. Coburn, 128 Mass. 377. On the face of the policies, the money was not to be paid, in any event, by the insurance company to Harriet Prescott. It was to be paid to the assured, William Proctor, on June 17, 1904, if he lived till that time; but, if he died before that time, then to “Solon Bancroft, trustee for Harriet Prescott.” William Proctor survived Harriet Prescott, who was his mother, and died on October 23, 1889. There is no written declaration of the nature of the trust, and it does not appear that William Proctor made any statement of the nature of the trust to Harriet Prescott, or even that she knew of the existence of the policies. It is agreed, if it is competent, that the plaintiff would testify “that said Proctor in his lifetime made oral statements that his design in creating said trust was that, from the proceeds of said policies, the care and support of his mother should be continued after his decease, which evidence shall be taken as true;” and that for many years before and up to the time of her decease he had been accustomed to furnish a large part of “all that was needed for her comfort.” We are not required to consider whether, if the trust when created had been declared to be of certain nature, and this had been communicated to and accepted by the cestui que trust, and no power to revoke or modify the trust had been reserved, it could be modified or revoked by subsequent declarations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. N. Life Ass'n
...the wife and daughter the property reverted to Mr. Helwig [the assured], and at his death became a part of his estate.” In Bancroft v. Russell (Mass.) 31 N. E. 710, the insurance was payable to a trustee, for the benefit of the wife of the assured. The wife died before the husband, who was ......
-
Schmidt v. The Northern Life Association
... ... reverted to Mr. Helwig [the assured,] and at his death became ... a part of his estate." In Bancroft v. Russell, ... 157 Mass. 47 (31 N.E. 710), the insurance was payable to a ... trustee, for the benefit of the wife of the assured. The wife ... ...
-
Finnell v. Franklin
... ... subject to administration and bequest. Such, also, is the ... principle recognized and applied in Bancroft v. Russell, 157 ... Mass. 47, 31 N.E. 710, and in Haskins v. Kendall, 158 Mass ... 224, 33 N.E. 495, 35 Am.St.Rep. 490, also relied upon by ... ...
-
Russell v. Meyers
...arrangement with his wife with reference to his funds could be considered in determining whether any trust was created. Bancroft v. Russell, 157 Mass. 47, 31 N.E. 710;Atkins v. Atkins, 279 Mass. 1, 8, 180 N.E. 613;Rock v. Rock, 309 Mass. 44, 47, 48, 33 N.E.2d 973;Harrington v. Donlin, 312 M......