Garfield v. State St. Trust Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1947 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | JAMES GARFIELD, trustee, v. STATE STREET TRUST COMPANY& another, administrators, & others. |
May 10, 1946.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., LUMMUS, DOLAN RONAN, & WILKINS, JJ.
Power.
The donee of a general power of appointment may effectively exercise the power by creating a new power which does not offend the rule against perpetuities.
The will of a son of the donor in an indenture of trust, construed as a whole and in the light of the circumstances known to him at the time of its execution, required conclusions that his wife was the chief object of his testamentary bounty and that provisions of the will, purporting to exercise a power of appointment by will, given him in his father's indenture of trust over certain income and principal, by placing the property which was subject to the power, if his wife survived him, in trust for her benefit during her life and directing that on her death it should be paid over to such persons as she by her will should appoint, constituted a valid exercise of the power and not a mere attempted delegation thereof.
In the will of a wife, considered as a whole and with the provisions of the will of her husband, who had predeceased her, giving her a life interest in and a general power of appointment by will of both principal and income of certain property over which he himself had had a power of appointment by will under an indenture of trust executed by his father, an intention to exercise, and a valid exercise of, the power thus given her were manifest by certain provisions disposing of "all the rest, residue and remainder" of her "property including all property over which" she might "have any power of appointment under" her husband's will or under the indenture of trust of his father.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Suffolk on February 14 1945.
The case was heard by Dillon, J. J. Garfield, stated the case.
R. H. Wiswall, (C.
Y. Wadsworth with him,) for State Street Trust Company and others, administrators, and others.
E. G. Fischer, (H.
B. Powers with him,) for Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and others.
R. Wait, for administrator with the will annexed of Rose L.
Dexter, and others.
F. T. Doyle, for the guardian ad litem, submitted a brief.
By this petition brought by the trustee under an indenture of trust of William S. Dexter, late of Boston, dated April 12, 1898 the trustee seeks instructions as to the proper distribution of the income from the trust estate subsequent to the death of Evangeline Hope Dexter, and as to the distribution of the principal of the trust estate at the termination of the trust -- the latter a question as to future duties when the case was argued before us, but now a question as to a present duty, the trust having since terminated by reason of the death, which has been suggested to us, of the respondent Rose L. Dexter, whose administrator with the will annexed has been permitted to appear and represent her interests in the proceeding. The judge entered a decree instructing the petitioner that one half of the net income of the trust fund was payable to the then respondent Rose L. Dexter and one half to the trustees under the will of William Dexter, and that no persons claiming as legatees, devisees or appointees under the will of Evangeline Hope Dexter have any interest in the principal of the trust property in question, by reason of the will of George T. Dexter, late of
Sherborn (a son of the creator of the trust), or by reason of the will of Evangeline Hope Dexter (the widow of said George). From this decree appeals were taken by the administrators with the will annexed of the goods not administered of the estate of Evangeline, by the trustees under her will, and by four charitable corporations to which were devised and bequeathed the balance of her estate upon the termination of the trust created by the residuary clause of her will. The case was heard in the court below upon the petition as amended, the facts set forth therein having been admitted by the answers of the respondents, and upon a stipulation of the parties to the effect that Evangeline Hope Dexter, and Thomas W. Ross, Westanna Lyon Ross and George Burton Ross who are named in the will of Evangeline, were all living prior to the creation of the trust indenture on April 12, 1898.
The material facts may be summed up as follows: By the indenture of trust William S. Dexter, hereinafter referred to as the donor, transferred certain personal property to trustees for the following purposes:
Elsie Dexter died September 3, 1905, leaving no husband or issue. Philip died July 25, 1934, survived by his wife, Edith W. Dexter, who died February 17, 1942, one son, William, who died February 8, 1943, and four grandchildren, Constance V. R., Nathaniel, Philip and Mary Ann. [1] The donor's son George died March 5, 1927, leaving a wife, Evangeline Hope Dexter, but no issue, and the donor's daughter Rose died September 17, 1946, leaving no husband or issue. Upon her death, as noted before, the trust under the indenture terminated.
The issues presented for determination are whether the donor's son George T. Dexter duly exercised the power of appointment given him by the terms of the indenture (a) as to income, and (b) as to principal, and whether his widow, Evangeline, effectively exercised the power of appointment given her by his will.
By his will the donor's son George provided as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial