Braley v. Spragins, 8 Div. 153.
Citation | 221 Ala. 150,128 So. 149 |
Decision Date | 17 April 1930 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 153. |
Parties | BRALEY v. SPRAGINS ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Paul Speake, Judge.
Bill in equity by Robert E. Spragins and Addison White, as trustees for Georgia May Harris and Lula H. Glant, against Joseph M Braley, for construction of the will of Ellen L. Weaver deceased. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondent appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
R. C. Brickell, E. D. Johnston, and Douglass Taylor, all of Huntsville, for appellant.
Watts & White and Robert E. Spragins, all of Huntsville, for appellees.
The cause is for decree of construction of the will of Ellen Weaver, deceased, for partition according to the construction as affecting the declared interests of the respective parties in said real property described. The trial court has aptly observed and held that the bill, if it may be maintained, was not multifarious, and Dent v. Foy, 204 Ala. 404, 85 So. 709; Lowery v. May, 213 Ala. 66, 76, 104 So. 5; Ford v. Boarders, 200 Ala. 70, 75 So. 398; Wilson v. Henderson, 200 Ala. 187, 75 So. 935; sections 6526, 9333, 9334, Code. See, also, Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171; 47 Corpus Juris, p. 365, § 230, and cases there cited.
-was the observation of the trial court.
Is it necessary, then, that her admitted equitable interest before the court be represented by her; or may not her trustees be relied on to protect her interest?
Is it apparent that all necessary parties in interest are before the court? It is apparent that all parties before the court are proper parties. As to necessary parties, it is declared generally that when a suit is by a trustee for the recovery of trust property, or to reduce it to possession, and it in no wise affects his relations with his cestui que trust, the latter need not be made a party. Section 5707, Code; Carbon Hill v. Marks, 204 Ala. 622, 86 So. 903; Teal v. Pleasant Grove Union, 200 Ala. 23, 75 So. 335; Lebeck v. Fort Payne Bank, 115 Ala. 447, 22 So. 75, 67 Am. St. Rep. 51; Carey v. Brown, 92 U.S. 171, 23 L.Ed. 469. The general rule is that in suits respecting and affecting the trust property, brought by or against the trustee, the cestui que trust, as well as the trustee, is a necessary party. See, also, 1 Daniell Ch. Pl. & Pr. (4th Ed.) p. 257; 47 C.J. 369; Modern Equity Proc. § 70, p. 884.
In Chattanooga Savings Bank v. Crawford, 206 Ala. 530, 91 So. 316, there is adherence to the established rule that in a court of law the trustee is regarded as the owner of the trust property and therein and thereby represents his cestui que trust; but in equity the cestui que trust is regarded as the owner and is a necessary party in suits affecting the trust estate. This is the rule followed in Town of Carbon Hill v. Marks, 204 Ala. 622, 86 So. 903, under the authority of Lebeck v. Fort Payne Bank, supra.
And in Carey v. Brown, 92 U.S. 171, 172, 23 L.Ed. 469, Mr. Justice Swayne observed of the rule and its exceptions: .
A question raised by the demurrer is whether Georgia May Harris is a necessary party. The demurrer indicates her absence in the pleading, and maintains that under the averred facts she is a necessary party. Hall v. Holly (Ala. Sup.) 127 So. 164; Nelson v. Wadsworth, 171 Ala. 603, 55 So. 120; Chambers v. Wright, 52 Ala. 444. Demurrer to the bill was overruled; hence this appeal.
The case made by the bill, briefly stated, is: Miss Ellen Weaver, who died January 1, 1915, owned at the time of her death a one-half undivided interest in the real estate situated in the city of Huntsville, which is the subject of this suit and specifically described in the bill; the other one-half interest being owned by her sister, Ida W. Braley. Miss Ellen L. Weaver died testate and her will was duly probated, by which she devised her said interest in the property to her two sisters, Lula H. Glant, one of the complainants (referred to in the will as Lula Weaver Johnson), and Ida Braley (referred to in the will as Ida Weaver Williams), for life. And the will further provided that upon the death of either sister, the other should take the interest of the deceased sister, and at the death of the last survivor, the property should go to Miss Weaver's niece, Georgia May Harris; provided that the life tenants, sisters of Miss Weaver, were given full power of disposition during the time of their lives. The pertinent provisions of that will are:
As to the rights of Mrs. Glant (and those formerly of Mrs. Braley deceased), it is averred: "Complainants are advised that by said will, the two sisters of testatrix, referred to as Ida Weaver Williams and Lula Weaver Johnson, each took a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rice v. Park, 8 Div. 253.
...... confused. Sections 6928, 6941, 6942, Code; Braley v. Spragins, 221 Ala. 150, 128 So. 149; Pierce v. Fulmer, 165 Ala. 344, 347, 51 So. 728; Byrne v. ......
-
Reid v. Armistead
...Charleston Railroad Co., 87 Ala. 633, 6 So. 140; Thorington v. Thorington, 111 Ala. 237, 20 So. 407, 36 L. R. A. 385; Braley v. Spragins et al., 221 Ala. 150, 128 So. 149; Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala. 478; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pages 431, 432; 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, page 751; 2 Wash. on ......
-
Mudd v. Lanier
......363 MUDD et al. v. LANIER et al. 6 Div. 363. Supreme Court of Alabama November 1, 1945 . . . ... Jr., and Mrs. Lanier are named trustees. In paragraph 8 it is. provided that the net income was to be payable to ... or injury in a case otherwise proper. Braley v. Spragins, 221 Ala. 150, 128 So. 149; Badham v. ...1206; Farrell v. Farrell, 243. Ala. 389, 10 So.2d 153. The only fraud which is effective for. present purposes ......
-
Bell v. Killian
...to give away the corpus under her power of disposition the intention of the testator would obviously be violated. Braley v. Spragins, 221 Ala. 150, 158, 128 So. 149; Yockers v. Hackmeyer, 203 Ala. 621, 622, 84 So. In Braley v. Spragins, supra, it is indicated that a life tenant, even though......