Eaton v. Lovering
| Decision Date | 01 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 1952.,1952. |
| Citation | 125 A. 433 |
| Parties | EATON v. LOVERING. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Branch, Judge.
Suit by Emma M. Eaton against Perry A. Lovering, trustee. Decree for plaintiff, and case transferred on defendant's exception. Exception sustained.
Tuttle, Wyman & Starr, of Manchester, for plaintiff.
Warren, Howe & Wilson, of Manchester, for defendant.
The test to determine whether the plaintiff can reach the funds in the hands of the trustee to satisfy her judgment against Perry, Jr., is to inquire what his father intended to give him; that is to inquire whether his father intended to give him this fund or any part of it, or whether what he gave him was the right to demand such assistance from the fund as the trustee thinks his needs require. Wolfman v. Webster, 77 N. H. 24, 86 Atl. 259.
The evidence relevant to this issue consists of the words the testator used read in the light of the situation of the parties, together with his knowledge of his son's habits. The testator, after giving his son something more than $17,000, said:
certain persons.
The testator knew that his son was a spendthrift, and that he had a wife and daughter dependent on him for support. It is clear, therefore, that, when the words of the will are read in the light of these facts, the testator intended to create what is known as a spendthrift trust and that what he gave bis son was the right to require the trustee to use this fund for his benefit and the benefit of those dependent on him for support, for, as the needs of a married man are sometimes construed, they include not only his needs, but also the needs of his family (Gardner v. O'Loughlin, 76 N. H. 481, 84 Atl. 935; Wetmore v. Wetinore, 149 N. Y. 520, 44 N. E. 169,33 L. R. A. 708, 52 Am. St. Rep. 752), and when we consider Perry, Jr.'s, habits it is probable that that was the sense in which his father used that word, for it is hardly probable that be intended to take care of Perry, Jr., and let his wife and child starve.
In other words, the evidence tends to prove that the testator wished to take care of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frensley v. Frensley
...in the manner of life to which he has been accustomed. The restrictions upon alienation apply to claims for alimony. Eaton v. Eaton (N.H.) 125 A. 433, 35 A. L. R. 1034; anno. 35 A. L. R. 1035. The surplus of the income over and above such amount can, of course, if no valid provision is made......
-
Bucknam v. Bucknam
...Other decisions have denied relief in such cases, treating a divorced wife for this purpose as an ordinary creditor. Eaton v. Eaton, 81 N.H. 275, 125 A. 433, 35 A.L.R. 1034;Id., 82 N.H. 216, 132 A. 10;De Rousse v. Williams, 181 Iowa, 379, 382, 164 N.W. 896;Gilkey v. Gilkey, 162 Mich. 664,12......
-
Shelley v. Shelley
...former wife. Eaton v. Eaton, 1926, 82 N.H. 216, 132 A. 10, commented upon in 35 Yale L.J. 1025 (1926). See also, Eaton v. Eaton, 1924, 81 N.H. 275, 125 A. 433, 35 A.L.R. 1034. A majority of the cases, however, hold that a spendthrift provision will not bar a claim for alimony. England v. En......
-
Brahmey v. Rollins
...it. "* * * What he gave his son was the right to require the trustee to use this fund for his benefit. * * *" Eaton v. Eaton, 81 N. H. 275, 276, 125 A. 433, 35 A. L. R. 1034. The right is not a credit making the trustee a In none of these cases was there a provision of the trust instrument ......