Cent. Trust Co. of New York v. Egleston

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Citation: 77 N.E. 989,185 N.Y. 23
• Parties: CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. EGLESTON et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

185 N.Y. 23

77 N.E. 989

CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK

v.EGLESTON et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 24, 1906.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by the Central Trust Company of New York against Amy D. Egleston and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (96 N. Y. Supp. 1117,110 App. Div. 893), affirming a judgment in Special Term (95 N. Y. Supp. 945), Amy D. Egleston and certain other defendants appeal. Reversed.

See 98 N. Y. Supp. 1055.

This action was brought in order that the will of George W. Egleston might be judicially construed. The testator, a resident of this state, died in England, in 1904, and the instrument is in his own handwriting. He left an estate of considerable size, which is disposed of, wholly, among his widow and three sons. The will, after directions for the disposition of the testator's body, commences with this provision: ‘I appoint the Central Trust Company of New York City (now at 54 Wall St.) to be my trustee and my administrators under this will, committing the family interests to their kind care and supervision.’ Then are given some instructions concerning securities and the will continues: ‘My brother William C. Egleston having signified his intention of benefiting my sons in his will I have thought it advisable to place all property in trust for my sons, so that it may pass on to my grandchildren. My most earnest desire is to perpetuate the name, which it is trusted may be for a good name in all generations.’ Certain instructions and directions follow, which relate to guardianships for the minority of his children and to advances pending adjustment of ‘family affairs.’ And the testator proceeds: ‘In the event of the death of my wife, and my children without issue, I bequeath to my brothers, or brother equally; if they are not alive, to the children or children's children of my late sister Sarah Elizabeth Lanier of New York City, to be used by them for life and still deeded on to their children.’ In the following paragraphs are found the dispositions of his estate, made in favor of his wife and three sons, as to which construction is asked that their meaning and effect may be adjudged:

‘I give and bequeath to my wife Amy Dorinda Egleston, so long as she remains my widow-for the first year, or year and one-half as explained after, while the estate is provided for, two thousand dollars per annum, and when the estate is settled after the above time four thousand dollars each year for life, this to include all due on the annuity for life, if unmarried, of four thousand pounds, but if she prefers the annuity or marriage settlement only then as much more as will make the whole four thousand dollars per annum.

‘I give and bequeath to my sons Thomas Buchanan MacLean Egleston-Harold Paterson MacLean Egleston-Vivian Hector MacLean Egleston during the year of one, or one and a half years during settlement, the sum of two thousand dollars each at least one hundred pounds going with their mother to maintain the home if called for. After that I give to each of my sons an income of three thousand dollars per year for education and expenses, but two hundred pounds shall be passed over for the maintenance of the home, without which the income will remain two thousand dollars instead of three thousand dollars ($3,000). Any sums of this amount not drawn to go to their credit at the trust company separately.

‘At the age of twenty-five years (25) when each child shall reach that age, not before, or when the three children are twenty-five or the youngest twenty-five years old-I donate and give to the three sons Thomas, Harold and Vivian seventy-five per cent. of the income of the estate after payments to my wife and deductions for charges-the balance of twenty-five per centum of the net income being held and invested, until each child has arrived at the age of thirty years of age (30) when I bequeath to them after all deductions ninety-eight per cent. (98%) of the net income-the balance of two per cent. keeping the estate in heart and to be invested. My son Vivian Hector MacLean to attain the age of twenty-five, and thirty years, before the divisions, making my two eldest boys several years older.

‘But so as to make some provision for my sons Thomas and Harold, waiting for their brother to reach the ages of ‘twenty-five’ and ‘thirty years'-I give to Thomas and Harold five hundred dollars each extra from the time they arrive at twenty-five years old till Vivian arrives at the same when all shall have as usual till they come to thirty-years of age, when I give the same five hundred dollars a year to each till Vivian arrives at thirty years when they shall share alike.’

No further provisions of the instrument need be recited, as bearing in any way upon the attempted testamentary disposition of the estate. At the Special Term it was adjudged, in effect, that three valid trusts were created for the sons, subject to the annuity for the testator's widow during her widowhood; that the income of each son's share should contribute to the payment of the widow's annuity; that the accumulation of income from each son's share beyond his minority was void and should cease upon attaining his majority, and that the testator, not having disposed of the corpus of the estate, died intestate as to the same and the remainders attendant upon the termination of the trust estates, vested in interest, one-third in Mrs. Egleston and one-third of two-thirds, or two-ninths, in each of the three sons, subject to the provisions for the annuity and the beneficial trust interests. The Appellate Division in the First Department affirmed the judgment of the Special Term, and the widow, an adult son, and the guardian for the infant sons appeal to this court.

Edward T. Bartlett, J., dissenting.Lucius H. Beers and Herbert C. Lakin, for appellant Amy D. egleston.

E. B. Smith and Daniel Nason, for appellant Thomas B. M. Egleston.

Albert Stickney, for appellant Harold P. M. Egleston and others.

Arthur H. Van Brunt, for respondent.

GRAY, J. (after stating the facts).

This will, written by the testator himself, evidences, in the confusion of its language, an effort to make a definite testamentary disposition of his estate, without the aid, or the advice, of legal counsel; which might be ascribed to an exceeding confidence in his own ability, or, as may be gathered in some expressions, to an unhappy distrust of lawyers. The result, in my opinion, has been disastrous to the instrument. We cannot hold that the intended testamentary disposition is sanctioned by our statutes. The court below has made a commendable, if not an heroic, effort to uphold it in part; but, when analyzed, the result is to reveal the purpose of the testator to tie up his estate in a trust, which might suspend the absolute ownership beyond the statutory period. He intended to place it in a trust for the three lives of his sons; subject to an annuity for his widow. It is the very plain duty of the court to find out what a testator has meant to do with his property after his death and, then, if it be possible to give his plan effect by a construction which will validate it, to do so. But the court cannot make a new will for him; nor should it be expected to resolve into lawfulnessof disposition some tangle of desires to provide for future contingencies. The inquiry, in each case, must be what provisions has the testator intended to make for the disposition of his estate and not whether he intended to dispose of his estate according to the statutory rules governing testamentary dispositions. When the provisions are ascertained and understood, then is their legality to be determined. Colton v. Fox, 67 N. Y. 348. Take this will as an illustration of what has been done by the judgment. The court below has made three separate trusts for the testator's sons and has directed the accumulation of income to cases upon each attaining his majority. A very simple expedient, effecting lawful results, as far as the court was able to go; but it is exactly what the testator did not wish to have done with his estate and it, totally, upsets his testamentary plan.

Each will must be read and considered with reference to its peculiar provisions and to the circumstances attendant upon its making, and precedents are, rarely, of avail. In this will, we can see that a trust was intended. So much is clear. No particular formula of words, or terms, is ever necessary to constitute a trust and it suffices for the plan, if, upon a consideration of the instrument, the purpose of a trust is manifest. Nor will it militate against the constitution of several trusts that the capital of the estate is to be kept together and administered as one fund for convenience; provided that it shall appear that the shares and interests of the beneficiaries are made, or, clearly, intended to be made, distinctly several. Tobias v. Ketchum, 32 N. Y. 319;Morse v. Morse, 85 N. Y. 53;Ward v. Ward, 105 N. Y. 68, 11 N. E. 373;Vanderpoel v....