Bartlett v. Slater

• Decision Date: 28 August 1885
• Parties: BARTLETT v. SLATER et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

22 A. 678

63 Conn. 102

BARTLETT

v. SLATER et al.¹

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Aug. 28, 1885.

Case reserved from superior court, New Loudon county.

Action by Francis Bartlett, trustee under the will of John F. Sinter, against William A. Slater and others, executors of the will, for a construction thereof; it being claimed by plaintiff that the trust fund bore interest from the date of testator's death.

F. Bartlett, pro se. J. Halsey and W. A. Briscoe, for defendants.

PARK, C. J. The will of John F. Slater bequeathed the sum of $1,000,000 to his son-in-law, Francis Bartlett, the plaintiff in this suit, in trust to pay the income arising therefrom, or such portion thereof as he, the trustee, might consider best, to the testator's granddaughter, the daughter of Mr. Bartlett, during her natural life. In another clause of the will this bequest is made payable to the trustee, by the executors of the will, within one year after the death of the testator, at the convenience of the executors, and they are authorized to pay it in stocks or bonds belonging to the estate at their cash value, or in cash, as might be preferred. The sole question in the case is whether the trustee is entitled to interest on this bequest from the death of the testator, or from the end of one year thereafter. The general rule on the subject is thus stated in Williams on Executors: "When no time of payment of the legacy is fixed by the will, the executor is allowed one year from the death of the testator to ascertain and settle his affairs; at the end of which time the court, for the sake of general convenience, presumes the personal estate to have been reduced to possession. Upon that ground interest is payable from that time, unless some other period is fixed by the will. Nor will interest be payable from an earlier date, though there is a direction in the will to pay the legacy as soon as possible." 2 Williams, Ex'rs, 1424. See, also, 2 Redf. Wills, 465, 471; 1 Swift, Dig. 455.

There are some exceptions to this general rule. One is where a legacy is given in satisfaction of a debt. Another is where a legacy is given to the testator's minor child, or to one to whom the testator is in loco parentis, and there is no other provision for the maintenance of the legatee. Another is where the legacy is an annuity; and still another, where the bequest is of the residue of the testator's estate, or of some aliquot part thereof, in trust to pay the interest or income to the legatee for life, with remainder over at his death. In all these cases the rule is to allow interest from the death of the testator. But no one of these exceptions to the general rule applies to the case under consideration. It is claimed, however, that the legacy, being given to a third person to pay the income to the beneficiary during her natural life, is in the nature of an annuity, and that so the rule in relation to annuities should apply. The language of the bequest is as follows: "To pay the income arising therefrom, or such parts thereof as he [the trustee] may consider best, and at such times as he sees fit, to my granddaughter, during her natural life." This be quest grants discretionary power to the trustee to pay the beneficiary such portion of the income as he may consider best. He may pay over the whole, or any. portion thereof, or none at all, according to his discretion. The time of payment, too, is left wholly to the discretion of the trustee. The bequest has but few of the elements of an annuity, which is "a yearly payment of a certain sum of money granted to another in fee, or for life, or for a term of years, charging the person of the grantor only." 2 Williams, Ex'rs, 809. In the case of Booth v. Ammerman, 4 Bradf. Sur. 129, the court says: "The income or interest of a certain fund is not an annuity, but simply profits to be earned, and, although directed to be paid annually, that relates only to the mode of payment, and does not change the character of the bequest. In such a case it does not become the duty of the executor to invest the principal fund until the end of a year, and the interest does not become payable until the end of the second year." Redfield on Wills (volume 3, p. 186) says: "In the case of an annuity bequeathed, it begins from the death of the testator, and the first payment becomes due in one year thereafter; but, when the interest or net income of a certain sum is given, it will not begin to run till the end of the first year from the death of the testator, and the first payment consequently beomes due in two years from that date." Lord Eldon, in Gibson v. Bott, 7 Ves. 96, drew the distinction between...