Bieatt v. Echols
Decision Date | 03 March 1930 |
Docket Number | 193 |
Parties | BIEATT v. ECHOLS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, Southern District; A. L Hutchins, Chancellor; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Brundidge & Neelly, for appellant.
Bogle & Sharp, for appellee.
Dr. R R. James of Cotton Plant, Arkansas, was the owner in his lifetime of a large estate, consisting of lands and personal property, of the aggregate value of $ 200,000. He executed a will, and, having died in 1926, the will was duly probated in the probate court of the Southern District of Woodruff County, Arkansas. In this will the Bank of Cotton Plant & Trust Company was named as executor and trustee. The bank duly qualified as such executor, and proceeded to administer the estate until the 17th day of June, 1927, when it failed and was taken over by the State Bank Commissioner. On the 19th day of September, 1927, the chancery court of the Southern District of Woodruff County appointed D. H. Echols trustee in succession, who qualified and proceeded with the administration of the trust created by the terms of the will.
The will, after making a number of specific bequests, left the residue of the estate to the wife of the testator for life. By paragraph VI of the will, after the death of the wife, all of the remainder of the estate of whatever kind was devised and bequeathed to the Bank of Cotton Plant & Trust Company, as trustee, for the uses thereafter set forth, and the testator, after naming the trustee, made the following provision: "I hereby direct that the said trustee shall hold and manage said property for a period of twenty years, and that said trustee shall annually distribute all income derived from said property as follows:
Section VII of the will is as follows: "I direct that at the end of each year that the said trustee shall file with the chancery court for the Southern District of Woodruff County, State of Arkansas, a report showing in full all amounts received by it, and the amounts disbursed by it, with the proper vouchers therefor.
Section VIII of the will provided that:
"When any property held by such trustee shall be sold, as above provided, the said trustee shall make a report of such sale to the chancery court above designated, and shall set forth the reason for said sale."
Section IX of the will is as follows: "I request and desire that the Bank of Cotton Plant & Trust Company shall accept this trust and execute the same, but if the said Bank of Cotton Plant & Trust Company shall fail or refuse to accept and execute the same, or if, after having accepted the same, it should resign, it shall make a report to the said chancery court, and the said court shall appoint a trustee to carry out the purpose of this trust.
"I hereby nominate and request the Bank of Cotton Plant & Trust Company, of Cotton Plant, Arkansas, to act as the executor of this, may last will and testament."
After the failure of the bank, the probate court of Woodruff County appointed D. H. Bieatt administrator of the estate on the day of January, 1928. This case involves the power of the chancery court to restrain the administrator de bonis non from interfering with the trustee in the management of the estate. The chancery court of Woodruff County, on complaint of the trustee, rendered judgment enjoining the administrator from taking charge of any of the property belonging to said estate, or interfering with the trustee in the management of the same. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts which, as far as they are material to the question presented to this court, are as follows:
After reciting the execution of the will and the death of James the partial administration of the estate by the trustee and executor bank, its failure, the appointment of Echols trustee and successor, his giving bond, and that his appointment "was made by the chancery court over the objection of a majority both in number and interest of the legatees in said will," the appointment on January 17, 1928, by the probate court of Woodruff County of Bieatt, administrator, his qualifying and giving bond, the filing of suit by the trustee, and the issuance of a temporary injunction, the statement of facts continued as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James v. Echols
... ... of the chancery court, when properly exercised, to appoint a ... trustee in succession; ... [39 S.W.2d 291] ... and D. H. Echols, as such trustee, duly proceeded with the ... execution of the trust according to the terms of the will as ... he construed them. Bieatt v. Echols, 181 ... Ark. 235, 25 S.W.2d 431 ... The ... principal issue raised by the appeal in this case is the ... proper construction of the 6th clause of the will which reads ... as follows: ... "Sixth ... After the death of my wife, Carrie L. James, ... ...
-
James v. Echols, 287.
...as such trustee, duly proceeded with the execution of the trust according to the terms of the will as he construed them. Bieatt v. Echols, 181 Ark. 235, 25 S.W.(2d) The principal issue raised by the appeal in this case is the proper construction of the sixth clause of the will which reads a......
-
Bieatt v. Echols, 193.
... 25 S.W.2d 431 BIEATT v. ECHOLS. No. Supreme Court of Arkansas. March 3, 1930. Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor, Judge. Suit by D. H. Echols, trustee in succession of the estate of R. R. James, deceased, against D. H. Bieatt, administrator de bonis non of the ......
- Quinn v. Murphy