Blunt v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 28 May 1918
• Citation: 119 N.E. 954,230 Mass. 303
• Parties: BLUNT et al. v. TAYLOR et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

230 Mass. 303

119 N.E. 954

BLUNT et al.

v.TAYLOR et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

May 28, 1918.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Essex County.

Bill for instructions by Wm. E. Blunt and others, executors of the will of Thomas J. Taylor, against Martin Taylor and others. From the decree of the probate court, the executors appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, a single justice of which reserved the case for the full court. Decree of probate court affirmed.

Sheldon E. Wardwell and Chester A. Wardwell, both of Boston, for Wm. E. Blunt and H. Clinton Taylor.

Ransom C. Pingree, of Haverhill, for Martin Taylor and others.

Frederick H. Tilton, Chas. E. Sawyer, and Willard G. Cogswell, all of Haverhill, for Herbert P. Coffin, minor.

Wilbur E. Rowell and Paul R. Clay, both of Lawrence, for Paul R. Clay, adm'r, etc.

CARROLL, J.

By the ninth clause of his will, Thomas J. Taylor disposed of the residue of his estate in these words:

‘All the remainder of my estate, both real purposes which I have made known to possessed and to which I may be in any way entitled at the time of my decease, I give, bequeath and devise to my executors and trustees, in whose honesty and discretion I have reposed especial trust and confidence, for certain purposes whihc I have made known to them and I hereby authorize and empower my said executors to make such distribution and division of my estate as I have indicated to them, and as they shall deem proper for the fulfillment of my wishes so well known to them, relying entirely upon their judgment in the premises.’

The executors contend that no trust was created by this clause, that there was in absolute gift of the residue to them. In the probate court it was held that the executors received the property upon a trust which was too indefinite to be carried into effect, and that a trust resulted for the heirs at law and next of kin of the testator; from this decree the executors appealed.

If the words expressing trust and confidence in the honesty and discretion of the trustees and executors, and reliance ‘upon their judgment in the premises,’ were omitted from the residuary clause, it probably would be undisputed that the testator did not intend an absolute gift to the trustees and executors, but to create a trust of the residue of his estate to be disposed of, they being authorized and empowered ‘to make such distribution and division.’

The words expressing trust and confidence in the executors and trustees did not show that the executors were to take the property absolutely as their own. These words are merely expressions of confidence that the trustees will carry out the trust and distribute the property and divide the estate according to the wishes of the testator-already ‘made known to them’-according to their best judgment. The gift was not to the petitioners by name, but was a gift to them as trustees and executors of the testator's will; and he clearly manifested his intention to give the estate to them for certain purposes,...