Cooper v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 11 January 1897
• Citation: 55 N.J.E. 192,36 A. 575
• Parties: COOPER v. WALLACE et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

36 A. 575

55 N.J.E. 192

COOPER

v. WALLACE et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 11, 1897.

Bill by Howard M. Cooper, guardian of Christopher H. Bergen, a lunatic, against Susan Wallace and others, for instructions respecting plaintiff's duties, and for other relief.

This bill is filed by Howard M. Cooper, the guardian of Christopher A. Bergen, to obtain the instruction of the court respecting his duties as trustee, and for other relief. The bill sets out a decree, under date of September 18, 1895, made upon a commission of lunacy, declaring Christopher A. Bergen a lunatic, and the subsequent appointment by the orphans' court of Camden county of the complainant as guardian. It then sets out that Christopher A. Bergen, at the time of the making of the decree, was the administrator of the estate of one John Wallace, and that there was in the hands of the administrator of the estate of Wallace the sum of $1,930, which, under the will of Wallace, was to be held for the widow of Wallace, viz. Susan Wallace, for life, and after her death was to be paid to the children of John Wallace, in equal shares. It then sets out that the said Christopher A. Bergen was, with one Joseph J. Read, a joint administrator and trustee of one George V. Voles, and that, of the estate of said Voles, there was in the hands of the said Christopher A. Bergen the sum of $17,002.10. The bill charges that, so far as can be ascertained, a property known as "No. 584 Clinton Street, Camden," standing in the name of the said Christopher A. Bergen, belongs to the estate of said Voles; that there was and is in the hands of Joseph J. Read the sum of $13,620.76; and that the balance of the property of the estate of Voles is invested in property in Bridgboro, Burlington county, in the name of George V. Voles. The bill then states that the said Christopher A. Bergen was the guardian of his two children, George J. and Martin V. Bergen, and that there was in his hands, as guardian for said children, the sum of $787.34. The bill then sets out a list of properties standing in the name of Christopher A. Bergen. The bill then sets out the amount of personalty belonging to Christopher A. Bergen, within the knowledge of the complainant. The bill then sets out some real estate which it is alleged belongs to the firm of Bergen & Bergen, but the legal title to which stands in the name of Christopher A. Bergen. The bill then sets out certain properties which it is alleged belong to the firm of Bergen & Bergen, of which Christopher A. Bergen was one, but which stands in the name of Martin V. Bergen, the other partner. Among the lots of land standing in the name of Christopher A. Bergen, which, it is stated, belong to the firm of Bergen & Bergen, is one in Gloucester City, Camden county, which, it is alleged, was conveyed to Christopher A. Bergen by its owner, Jacob Koehler, to secure to the firm of Bergen & Bergen the amount charged by them for services in their profession rendered, and for money advanced by them, to Koehler, with a trust imposed upon Bergen & Bergen to reconvey the said property to Koehler upon payment of said amount; that there is due the sum of $72.47, with interest, upon the payment of which sum Koehler is entitled to a reconveyance. The bill then states that three properties, No. 528 West street, Nos. 337, 339, and 334 Pine street, were conveyed to Christopher A. Bergen to secure the firm of Bergen & Bergen for moneys paid by them in behalf of the estate of one Valentine Noll; that by an agreement dated September 22, 1887, entered into between Christopher A. Bergen and Margaretta Noll, the widow of Valentine, who is now dead, and who had a life estate under the will of her husband, and also by the beneficiaries, Charles Noll, Christina Subers, Clara A. Ogden, and John Noll, it was agreed that No. 528 West street was to be held in fee by Christopher A. Bergen in full payment for all advances upon that property and on the other two properties, and a deed was so made, that Christopher A. Bergen was to hold the other two properties subject only to future advances as trustee. The bill states that lots Nos. 26 and 40 on the T. H. Dudley plan in Atlantic City, Christopher A. Bergen, by his verbal agreement, agreed to sell to George M. Fisher for the sum of $6,850, and such other moneys as the said Bergen should thereafter expend thereon, and interest, and that Fisher is in possession of the said property under said agreement The prayers of the bill are that trustees may be appointed in the place of Christopher A. Bergen for the Wallace and the Voles estates; that an accounting may be had of the amount due from Christopher A. Bergen to the Wallace estate, and to the children of the lunatic; that the guardian may be directed as to the manner he may raise money to pay the said cestuis que trustent, or what property he may transfer to said trust estates, and that he may be decreed to convey the same; that, if it should be decreed that Fisher is entitled to purchase the property in Atlantic City, he may be decreed to pay for the same, and the guardian may be decreed to convey the same to Fisher; that the guardian, upon the payment by Koehler of the amount due from him to the firm of Bergen & Bergen, may be decreed to convey the Gloucester City property to him. Same prayer respecting the Roth property.

Howard M. Cooper, for complainant. J.E.P. Abbott, for George M. Fisher.

Philip Scovel, for estate of John Wallace. Martin L. Haines, for William G. Moles and Eliza S. J. Scilley.

REED, V. C. (after stating the facts). This bill is filed by the guardian of a lunatic, in his own name. The guardian puts his right to stand as complainant upon the ground that he is a trustee; that the duties which devolve upon him in dealing with the property of his ward are perplexing; that he therefore has the right to ask this court to instruct him concerning the course he shall pursue in adjusting the complication in which the estate of the non compos is involved. It is entirely settled that, where the duty of a trustee is a matter of doubt, it is his right to ask and receive the aid and direction of a court of equity in the execution of his trust. Kearney v. Macomb, 16 N. J. Eq. 189. Although the guardian of a lunatic has no title to the property of his ward, either in trust or otherwise, yet, as the care taker of the estate of the non compos, there may clearly occur occasions when the direction of a court of equity may be properly invoked concerning the line of conduct which the guardian should follow in his efforts to preserve the estate. Besides those duties which inhere in the nature of his...