Bateson v. Bateson
Decision Date | 06 September 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
Citation | 294 Mich. 426,293 N.W. 705 |
Parties | BATESON v. BATESON et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Samuel R. Bateson against George R. Bateson, individually and as trustee, and others to set aside a trust deed, on ground that it was procured by fraud, and on ground that one of its provisions suspended power of alienation beyond two lives in being, and, therefore, was void by statute. From an adverse decree, the defendants appeal.
Decree in accordance with opinion.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Homer Ferguson, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Atkinson, Donnelly & Lyon, of Detroit, for appellants.
Charles F. Meyler and Leo F. Covey, both of Detroit, for appellee.
This is a bill by a father to set aside a deed of trust to his son, defendant George F. Bateson, on the ground that it was procured by fraud and one of its provisions suspended power of alienation beyond two lives in being, and, therefore, void by statute. Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 12934, 12935, Stat.Ann. §§ 26.14, 26.15.
The circuit judge found no fraud and that the deed expressed the then intention of plaintiff but inasmuch as one provision was void and the full purpose of plaintiff was rendered abortive thereby set the deed aside.
Upon review we do not find the alleged fraud established by the proofs, and in that respect the decree is affirmed. The court was in error in holding the valid provisions in the deed void by reason of the invalid provision.
Defendants, granted claimed valid rights in the deed of trust, appealed and claim the rule applied to testamentary trusts applies in this case, and grants in the deed, not in violation of the statute, are separable and not rendered void by the invalid provision.
Plaintiff was 76 years of age at the time he executed the deed in December, 1936, was a widower, and practically blind, but of sound mind, had two living sons of mature years, and a grandson, the son of a deceased son, and was desirous of disposing of his real estate, with retention of the income during his lifetime. December 14, 1936, plaintiff, by deed, conveyed his real estate holdings to his son George F. Bateson, trustee, who was to pay the net income from the trust property, after provision for charges and expenses, to the grantor for and during his life. At the death of the grantor the deed provided that the trustee:
The grant in the deed of trust to his son Samuel R. Bateson was as follows:
The grant in the deed of trust to the grandson, James Bateson, was as follows:
‘If however the said James Bateson should die within the above referred to period, 15 years from date of grantor's death, leaving a wife and/or child or children, then the fee of 2/10 interest upon which income only was therefore paid to him, shall thereupon be by the trustee hereunder conveyed in equal shares to such wife and/or child or children or survivors of them outright.'
If the needs of the grantor so required, the trustee was empowered to sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise deal with the trust property to the same extent as the grantor could if still the owner thereof.
The trust deed grant of the 2/10 interest suspended the power of alienation during the lifetime of the grantor and for 15 years thereafter. The grantor is still living. Upon execution of the deed there were no persons in being by whom an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armington v. Meyer
...of the execution of the trust instrument is controlling on the question of whether one grant is severable from another. Bateson v. Bateson, 294 Mich. 426, 293 N.W. 705. The general rule favors severability. As the court said in Bristol v. Bristol, 53 Conn. 242, 257, 5 A. 687, 'But the princ......
-
Kunce v. Robinson
...of the execution of the trust instrument is controlling on the question of whether one grant is severable from another. Bateson v. Bateson, 294 Mich. 426, 293 N.W. 705. The general rule favors As the court said in Bristol v. Bristol, 53 Conn. 242, 257, 5 A. 687, 692: "But the principle to b......
-
In re Dingler's Estate
...264. Plaintiffs, however, contend that the will confers upon the trustee a mere right and not a power of sale, and cite Bateson v. Bateson, 294 Mich. 426, 293 N.W. 705, as authority for the proposition that the power of alienation has here been suspended. Even so, the suspension cannot exce......