Garrison v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 02 July 1945
• Docket Number: 39474
• Citation: 188 S.W.2d 644,354 Mo. 62
• Parties: Clark Garrison, Junior, v. Arthur C. Garrison and Mississippi Valley Trust Company, a Corporation, Trustees under the Will of Daniel E. Garrison, Deceased, Appellants, and Mary B. Lane, Reginald E. Garrison, Cornelia Garrison Turner, Clark Garrison and Dorothy S. Garrison
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

188 S.W.2d 644

354 Mo. 62

Clark Garrison, Junior, v. Arthur C. Garrison and Mississippi Valley Trust Company, a Corporation, Trustees under the Will of Daniel E. Garrison, Deceased, Appellants, and Mary B. Lane, Reginald E. Garrison, Cornelia Garrison Turner, Clark Garrison and Dorothy S. Garrison

No. 39474

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 2, 1945

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William H Killoren, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

T Percy Carr for appellants.

(1) This case, and the contentions raised by the respondents have been settled by the decision of this court, and by the prior decisions of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Lane v. Garrison, 293 Mo. 530, 239 S.W. 813; Garrison v. Garrison, No. 115,970 B, in the Circuit Court, Abstract, pp. 62-79; Garrison v. Garrison, No. 39,277 C, in the Circuit Court, Abstract, pp. 87-100. (2) The instant decree completely over-rides and disregards the rights of future possible beneficiaries, namely, such issue of Clark Garrison, Sr., as shall survive him and attain their majority. (3) The provision in the decree below which undertakes to provide, in paragraph 29 thereof, indemnity to the trustees is outside of the issues, is utterly ineffective, and constitutes a complete absurdity. (4) The decree of the court below constitutes a bald usurpation, byt he lower court, of the power to remake the will of the testator, as it plainly provides, and as it has heretofore been judicially interpreted. (5) The court below ought not to have rewarded a combination to overturn and remake the provisions of the will, creating the trust estate, by allowing counsel fees to the attorneys for the plaintiff, and the attorney for the alternative beneficiaries, Mary B. Lane, Reginald E. Garrison, and Cornelia Garrison Turner. Trautz v. Lemp, 334 Mo. 1085, 72 S.W.2d 104.

Henry A. Baker and Thos. S. Meng for plaintiff-respondent Clark Garrison, Jr.

(1) Where a future interest has been postponed merely to let in the preceding interest and the precedent interest is prematurely terminated, the rule is that the succeeding interest is accelerated and becomes effective as a present gift. This is true where acceleration has not been expressly directed, unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary. Here acceleration was expressly directed, and there was compelling reason why it should become presently effective, as clearly intended by the testator. (2) The doctrine of acceleration of future interests upon premature termination of preceding interest, the existence of which necessitated the postponement, is never applied where it would contravene the expressed intent of the testator. (3) Garrison v. Garrison is not res judicata. (4) A gift in a will to such of a class of persons as fulfill a certain condition does not vest until the condition is satisfied by at least one of the class. Where there is an immediate gift to children, and there is no object in esse at death of testator, the gift will embrace all children who may subsequently come into existence by way of executory bequests. The possibility of after born members of a class does not prevent the vesting of the gift in the existing members of such class. 28 R.C.L., sec. 240, p. 266; First Natl. Bank v. Dugan, 250 F. 510. (5) The beneficiary interest was the right to the entire trust fund. Catholic Missions v. Missoula County, 200 U.S. 118, 26 S.Ct. 197. (6) It was only by reason of the disability of infancy that actual distribution was postponed. It might seem that this still necessitated awaiting the death of Clark Garrison in order to include possible later born issue. However, it had been held that where there was an intent that the child first attaining majority should then obtain distribution, it was unreasonable to postpone distribution for a long and uncertain future period and the rule was adopted by the courts that under such circumstances the class closed and after born issue were excluded and distribution made among the issue then living. Thomas v. Thomas, 149 Mo. 426. (7) When Lane v. Garrison was decided (December 6, 1920, in circuit court and March, 1922, on appeal) and at date of circuit court decree in Garrison v. Garrison (February, 1928) there was no declaratory judgment law in Missouri. The prevailing rule was that: "Upon bill in equity by trustee for instructions the Court will not decide questions depending on future events, and affecting rights of persons not in being and unnecessary to be decided for present guidance of trustee." May v. May, 167 U.S. 310, 17 S.Ct. 824; Walker v. First Trust & Savings Bank, 12 F.2d 896. (8) Trusts for accumulation are never favored, and may be declared void on that account, if of large amount and for an unduly long period. (9) Lane v. Garrison is not res judicata. (10) The rights of possible future born issue are fully protected and provided for in the decree appealed from. (11) Plaintiff-respondent should not have to bear the expense of counsel fees in this case, where at least a partial construction of the will was so obviously required in view of the refusal of the trustees to make any distributive payment whatsoever out of income. The allowance was correctly and properly made. Kingston v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 Mo. 448, 154 S.W.2d 39; St. Louis v. McAllister, 302 Mo. 152, 257 S.W. 425.

Paul Bakewell, Jr., for defendants-respondents, Mary B. Lane, Reginald E. Garrison, Cornelia Garrison Turner and Clark Garrison.

(1) The trustees are not "parties aggrieved" by the decree and therefore may not appeal. State ex rel. v. Sartorius, 164 S.W.2d 356. (2) This court expressly decided that the interest of the children or issue of Clark Garrison had not lapsed and said the testator intended that the beneficiary or equitable interest in said trust should pass to his children, if any. Lane v. Garrison, 239 S.W. 813. (3) The beneficiary or equitable interest meant the right to the income. Melvin v. Hoffman, 235 S.W. 107; 69 C.J., p. 782, sec. 1884 (b). (4) The provision for the accumulation of income applied only to Clark Garrison and so long as his right to the annual stipend continued. Melvin v. Hoffman, 235 S.W. 107. (5) Under the decision of this court in Lane v. Garrison, supra, from and after Clark Garrison's assignment the rights of all beneficiaries were contingent upon future and uncertain events. (6) The beneficiary interest in the income vested in Clark Garrison, Jr., upon his birth, subject to opening up and to letting in after-born issue. If any such were born they would eo instanti become entitled to share therein. Buckner v. Buckner, 255 Mo. 371; Gates v. Seibert, 157 Mo. 254; Doerner v. Doerner, 161 Mo. 407; Thomas v. Thomas, 149 Mo. 426. (7) Future and contingent interests which depend upon the happening of a future event cannot be adjudged until the happening of that event. Before the happening thereof there is no jurisdiction to adjudge rights and interests which do not exist, but which may come into existence on the happening of the contingencies specified. Therefore, such prospective contingent interests were beyond the jurisdiction of the court to adjudge in the first case of Lane v. Garrison and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court to adjudge in this case the rights and interests in and to the corpus. Amer. Natl. Bank v. Saunders, 50 S.W.2d 87; Shaller v. Miss. Valley Tr. Co., 3 S.W.2d 726; Campbell v. Spotts, 331 Mo. 982.

Bohling, C. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur.

OPINION

BOHLING

This review, eliminating unessential features and considering the determinative issues presented, involves the net income of the Clark Garrison trust established by the 7th clause of the will of Daniel E. Garrison, who died in 1916. This trust estate, valued then at approximately $ 60,000 with an annual income approximating $ 3,000, was before this court in Lane v. Garrison (1922), 293 Mo. 530, 239 S.W. 813. It is now valued at over $ 100,000, and the accumulated income here in dispute exceeds $ 8,000. This appeal is prosecuted by the trustees of said estate; i.e., Arthur C. Garrison and Mississippi Valley Trust Company, a corporation, from a judgment and decree awarding the annual income to Clark Garrison, Jr. We think the trial court ruled correctly on the principal issue of the case, the disposition of the annual income; although the decree may be subject to some minor modifications.

A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed on the theory the rule announced in Love v. White, 348 Mo. 640, 643, 154 S.W. 2d 759, 760[4], and State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Sartorius, 350 Mo. 46, 55[2-7], 164 S.W. 2d 356, 358[3-7], is applicable, viz., that an executor, administrator or trustee is not "aggrieved" within the meaning of the statute authorizing appeals (Sec. 1184, R.S. 1939) ^[*] under a judgment or decree determining the rights of the beneficiaries and hence, generally, has no sufficient interest in such instances for the prosecution of an appeal, in that no beneficiary of the trust appealed and appellants are merely trustees and are not aggrieved by the judgment, which fully protects them. These cases are distinguishable on the facts, recognize the possibility of exceptions to the general rule, and do not control this review.

In Love v. White, an action seeking an adjudication that plaintiff was an adopted daughter, all possible beneficiaries of the decedent's estate had been made parties to the action and had abandoned any right to appeal and, with it, any claim to the estate. The court reasoned with respect to the real estate that since plaintiff would inherit as the sole and only heir, "the administrator had no interest in it whatsoever, since it does not appear that it is needed to pay debts, or even that...