Endicott v. University of Virginia
| Decision Date | 30 October 1902 |
| Citation | 65 N.E. 37,182 Mass. 156 |
| Parties | ENDICOTT et al. v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Loring & Coolidge, for Rector and Board of Visitors of University of Virginia and Mary A. Carroll.
Arthur Lord, for Henry W. Austin.
This is a petition for instructions brought in the Probate Court by trustees under a will, and coming here by appeal from a decree of a single justice of this court. By the will in question the residue of the estate was given in trust with remainder to the University of Virginia. Under this clause the daughter receives income amounting to about $15,000 a year, which, we presume, is more than she needs, and she has executed a deed purporting to convey to the University of Virginia her intesest in her life estate over the amount of $5,000 a year. Instructions are asked whether she has a right to make such a conveyance, and whether the trustees are bound by it. On appeal from the Probate Court it was decreed by a single justice of this court that the conveyance was valid and that the trustees should pay over the income in excess of $5,000 a year to the University, 'at such times and in such sums as they may deem judicious,' this qualification, it will be seen, being taken from the terms of the will. The appeal is taken by Henry Austin, a son of the testator, who was given an annuity of $1,200. It is objected on behalf of the University that he is not aggrieved and therefore has no standing to take the appeal, even if the decree were wrong, which is denied.
Obviously the standing of the appellant, if he has any, is on a needle's point, but we shall not discuss the matter because we are of opinion that the decree was right, and probably the parties would rather have a decision upon the merits, if it can be reached.
The whole income is given to the daughter. The provision that it shall be paid in such sums and at such times as the trustees deem judicious in no way cuts down or limits the absoluteness of the requirement that sooner or later it shall be paid. Her right during her life is unqualified and without alternative. Therefore on general principles her life estate is alienable unless words can be found which tie it up. There are no such words beyond those which we have quoted as to the sums and times of payment. But as these do not authorize the income or a part of it to be withheld altogether, they allow the trustees only a limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynchburg Trust & S. Bank v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
...all of the income to her use as long as she lived and to preserve only the corpus for her issue. See, also, Endicott v. Rector, etc., of University of Va., 182 Mass. 156, 65 N. E. 37; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Noyes, 26 R. I. 323, 58 A. 999; cf., Thurber v. Thurber, 43 R. I. 504, 1......
-
Perabo v. Gallagher
...in the income which can be assigned or reached by creditors. Nickerson v. Van Horn, supra; Berry v. Dunham, supra. Endicott v. University of Virginia, 182 Mass. 156, 65 N. E. 37, is plainly distinguishable. It follows that the decree which provides that if the plaintiff's claim is not satis......
-
Berry v. Dunham
...202 Mass. 133 88 N.E. 904 BERRY v. DUNHAM et al. WARREN et al. v. RECTOR, ETC., OF UNIVERSITY" OF VIRGINIA et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.May 21, 1909 ... \xC2" ... [202 Mass. 139] ... interest therein, is subject to this reduction. Endicott ... v. University of Virginia, 182 Mass. 156, 65 N.E. 37 ... But if ... what ... ...
-
Perabo v. Gallagher
...in the income which can be assigned or reached by creditors. Nickerson v. Van Horn, supra. Berry v. Dunham, supra. Endicott v. University of Virginia, 182 Mass. 156 is plainly distinguishable. It follows that the decree which provides that if the plaintiff's claim is not satisfied by the de......