Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Humphrys
Decision Date | 02 July 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 7694.,7694. |
Citation | 121 ALR 163,97 F.2d 849 |
Parties | CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION et al. v. HUMPHRYS et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John D. Fackler, Howard F. Burns, and John Adams, all of Cleveland, Ohio (Newton D. Baker, Howard F. Burns, Baker, Hostetler, Sidlo & Patterson, John D. Fackler, Trafton M. Dye, and Fackler & Dye, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
Thomas B. Gilchrist and Edward Abbe Niles, both of New York City (Day, Young & Veach, of Cleveland, Ohio, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Thomas B. Gilchrist, all of New York City, Luther Day, and George B. Young, both of Cleveland, Ohio, and Edward A. Niles and Arthur H. Barker, both of New York City, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Appellants and appellee, the Central National Bank of Cleveland, Trustee, were defendants below and appellee, Ethel Tod Humphrys, was plaintiff, and they will thus be referred to in this opinion.
This controversy relates to an equitable claim of the plaintiff against a trust created by her for the benefit of her daughter, Sarah Tod McBride and to the ownership and control of income arising from a trust created by the will of J. H. McBride, life-long resident of Cleveland, Ohio, who died August 2, 1913. He executed his will in 1910 and at that time had four living children. A son, Herbert McBride, had died in 1907, leaving the plaintiff, his widow, and two infant daughters, Sarah Tod McBride and Elizabeth McBride. The elder McBride, by his will, divided his residuary estate into five equal parts, giving to each of his four living children one part and leaving the other in trust to his grand-children, the daughters of Herbert.
The clause of his will establishing the trust is as follows:
The trustees named in the will qualified and served until the death of Donald McBride, who was succeeded by appellee, Central National Bank of Cleveland.
Elizabeth McBride died at the age of fifteen, and when Sarah Tod McBride reached her twenty-fifth birthday the corpus of the McBride trust was conveyed to her and that trust terminated.
At the time the testator made his will, he knew the plaintiff had an annual income sufficient to maintain herself and her children luxuriously and her income continued throughout the period of the trust. Shortly after his death, plaintiff established a comfortable home for herself and daughters in New York and thereafter maintained and educated them in the manner and according to the standards to which they had been accustomed, using her own income.
On February 15, 1916, the contingent remaindermen, under the trust, transferred all of their present or future interest in its accumulated income to the plaintiff and in April, 1916, she made formal demand upon the trustees for payment to her of its annual income. On May 5, 1916, the trustees appointed the Superior Savings Bank & Trust Company, hereafter called the Bank, predecessor of the defendant, the Central Union National Bank, their agent for safekeeping and administration of the trust. It was directed by the trustees to pay to the plaintiff all the income until otherwise notified in writing by them. On May 9, 1916, the Bank advised the plaintiff of the agency agreement and that it had transferred all the income accruing to the estate from October 25, 1915, to May 1, 1916, to an account separate from the estate and called it "The Ethel Tod McBride Trust" and on May 24, 1916, this agreement was ratified and approved by the plaintiff but was modified by her in December, 1916 and March, 1918.
On June 30, 1920, plaintiff converted the agency agreement into a formal trust and in its preamble referred to the following facts:
1. The death of her daughter, Elizabeth, April 2, 1920.
2. That she (plaintiff) was authorized to expend all or any part of the net annual income derived from the McBride trust as she chose.
3. That instead of expending the income as authorized under the McBride trust, she had expended her own funds for the education and support of her daughters and had caused the income arising from the trust to accumulate in a separate account known as the "Ethel Tod McBride Trust."
4. That she proposed to continue the expenditure of her funds for the education and support of her daughter, Sarah, and to permit the income from the J. H. McBride trust to accumulate as it had theretofore.
In the sixth paragraph she named the beneficiaries and stated the life and termination of the trust, which reads as follows:
Early in 1924, Sarah, who was afflicted with an incurable and aggressive disease, went to Cleveland and became a patient in the hospital of the defendant, The Cleveland Foundation, which was managed by George W. Crile, one of the trustees of the McBride trust, and a son-in-law of J.H. McBride. Sarah remained in Cleveland, or its vicinity, until her death, except for a few brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc.
...then anyone discharging that obligation, if not a volunteer, can look to the fund for repayment. (Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Humphrys, 97 F.2d 849, 856 (6th Cir. 1938), cert. den. 305 U.S. 628 (1938).) There is no question that there is an identifiable res upon which an equitable lien c......
-
Am. Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc.
...then any-one discharging that obligation, if not a volunteer, can look to the fund for repayment. Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Humphrys, 97 F.2d 849, 856 (6th Cir. 1938), cert. den., 305 U.S. 628, 59 S.Ct. 93, 83 L.Ed. 403 There is no question that there is an identifiable res upon which ......
-
Slay v. Burnett Trust
...Ins. Co., 322 U.S. 408, 64 S.Ct. 1075, 88 L.Ed. 1356; Fleishhacker v. Blum, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 543; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Humphrys, 6 Cir., 97 F.2d 849, 121 A.L.R. 163; Scott's, The Law of Trusts, Vol. 2, pp. 856, 857, Sec. 170, pp. 909, 910, Sec. 170.25; Restatement of the Law of Tr......
-
United States v. Adamant Co.
...1191. The limitations of the doctrine are stated by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Humphrys, 1938, 6 Cir., 97 F.2d 849, 850, 856, 121 A.L.R. 163: "The doctrine of `equitable lien\' is akin to that of subrogation. Both are expressed in `equality ......