Green v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 07 July 1910
• Citation: 31 R.I. 1,77 A. 188
• Parties: GREEN v. EDWARDS et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

77 A. 188

31 R.I. 1

GREEN

v. EDWARDS et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 7, 1910.

Case certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties. Willard B. Tanner, Judge.

Suit by Theodore Francis Green against Stephen O. Edwards and others. Certified from Superior Court under Court and Practice Act 1905, § 338. Cause remanded with directions to dismiss bill.

Theodore Francis Green (Frederick W. Tillinghast, of counsel), pro se.

Gardner, Pirce & Thornley (William W. Moss, Charles R. Haslam, and William H. Camfield, of counsel), for respondents.

PARKHURST, J. This bill of complaint is filed by Theodore Francis Green to compel a conveyance and transfer to him of two-fifths of the trust estate now held by Stephen O. Edwards, Nicholas Sheldon, and Charles Edward Paine, the present trustees, under the will of Daniel Paine, late of Providence, deceased. The respondents include the trustees named and all persons in any way interested in the trust estate. A copy of the will is attached to the bill as an exhibit and the complainant's claim is based upon a conveyance to him by Emma L. Sackett of all her right in the trust estate, made for the express purpose of barring the entail created by the will in her favor.

The interest of Emma L. Sackett under the will was created by the eighth clause thereof, whereby Daniel Paine devised and bequeathed all the rest and residue of his real and personal estate to trustees in the following manner: The trustees are directed to stand seised of the trust property and estate during the lives of his wife, Louisa Paine, his daughter Martha E. Griswold, his daughter Emma Louisa Paine (now Emma L. Sackett), and his son Charles Edward Paine, and of the survivor and survivors of them upon the following trusts: The trustees are to manage and improve the estate with powers of sale, lease, and investment. Directions are given for the appointment of new trustees when necessary, and for the keeping of accounts. Then follows a provision that the trustes shall hold in trust for the testator's wife, Louisa Paine, a specified sum, and that at her death they shall convey and transfer the same equally to the testator's children then living, or their lineal descendants, if any there shall be.

The will proceeds as follows:

"The remainder of the said rest and residue of my estate over and above the said sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), my said trustees shall hold equally for the benefit of my children, Martha E. Griswold, Emma L. Paine, and Charles Edward Paine.

"They may and shall from time to time, upon request in writing of either of my said daughters, pay to her such sums as she may desire on account of her portion of my said estate, the whole amount to be paid to her not to exceed in any event one-half of her portion of my estate. They may and shall from time to time, upon request in writing of my son, pay to him such sums of money as he may desire on account of his portion of my said estate, the whole amount to be paid to him not to exceed three-fourths of his portion of my estate.

"They shall hold the remainder of the property and estate herein devised to each of my said children after payment to them of the sums called for as aforesaid, and pay to each of them the rents, profits, and income of his or her portion of said property and estate during his or her natural life and at his or her death shall transfer and convey the same to his or her lineal descendants, if any there shall toe, and if there be no lineal descendants, then equally to the survivors of my said children, or their lineal descendants, if any there be; the descendants of any child to have the portion which their parent if living would have taken." * * *

"In case of the death of all my said children without issue, they shall transfer and convey the estate held by them in trust to my heirs at law according to the statutes of descent and distribution then in force in the state of Rhode Island."

The undisputed facts as shown by bill, answer, and proofs are that Daniel Paine died on the 28th day of May, 1866, leaving a will as above stated (and the devolution of title to the present trustees is shown); that Daniel Paine left surviving him the beneficiaries above named; that Louisa Paine, his wife, died in 1880; that Martha E. Griswold, his daughter, died in 1884, leaving two sons, one of whom died in 1906, leaving a will, a copy of which is annexed to the bill; that Emma L. Sackett (nee Paine) is still living; that Frederic M. Sackett, Jr., Henry W. Sackett, Elizabeth P. Hazard, and Franklin P. Sackett are all of her children, and, with Elizabeth Hazard, her grandchild, are all of her lineal descendants; and that John Fiske Paine and Louisa Paine Tingley are all the children and lineal descendants of Charles Edward Paine; that of the estate now held by the trustees, Emma L. Sackett, prior to making the conveyance to the complainant referred to below, was entitled to an interest in two-fifths, and the property is described by reference; that the effect of the eighth clause of the will above set forth was to vest in Martha E. Griswold, Emma L. Sackett, and Charles Edward Paine an undivided equitable estate in fee tail in his or her share of the property and estate, as was decided by the Supreme Court of this state in the case of Charles Edward Paine v. Emma L. Sackett et al., reported in 27 R. I. 300, 61 Atl. 753; that Emma L. Sackett, by her deed of October 1, 1908, conveyed to the complainant, in fee simple, all of her interest in the trust property in which deed the grantor expressly stated her intention to bar the entail in her estate, conformably to the provisions of chapter 1346 Pub. Laws 1906, whereupon the complainant claims that he became vested with the full equitable title in fee simple to the share of property referred to; that the complainant has requested the trustees to convey to him in fee simple the legal title to two-fifths of the trust estate, which they have declined to do.

The complainant accordingly prays that the trustees may be directed to convey to him in fee simple the legal title, free from the trust, to two-fifths of each parcel of the trust real estate and to transfer to him two-fifths of all personal property held by the trustees.

The answers of two of the trustees, Stephen O. Edwards and Charles Edward Paine, admit the allegations of the bill and aver willingness of the two trustees named to make the conveyance prayed for, provided they can lawfully and properly do so. That of Stephen O. Edwards in addition expresses a doubt upon the point, and asks the opinion of the court upon the question whether chapter 1346 of the public laws is constitutional; whether it applies to equitable estates tail created prior to February 1, 1896, and if so, whether it is the duty of the trustees to make such a conveyance as is requested. The answer filed by Abbott Phillips, guardian ad litem, states the minority of Elizabeth Hazard and calls for proof, which has since been furnished, and will be found embodied in the report of the Master in Chancery as confirmed by the superior court.

The answers of all the other respondents, except Nicholas Sheldon, trustee, Frank F. Tingley, and his wife, Louisa Paine Tingley, admit the allegations of the bill, and either join in the prayer thereof or submit the rights of the respondents to the care and protection of the court.

A decree pro confesso has been entered against John Fiske Paine and Ida J. Paine.

Tbe answers of Nicholas Sheldon, trustee, and of Frank F. Tingley and Louisa Paine Tingley raise the two broad questions which this court is called upon to decide. They respectively deny the right of the complainant to relief on the following grounds:

(1) That the estate devised and bequeathed to Emma L. Sackett under the will of Daniel Paine was not an equitable estate tail, but an equitable life estate with a contingent equitable interest in the nature of a remainder, in the event of her death leaving issue her surviving, to her surviving children, and the issue of such of her children as should have previously deceased leaving issue them surviving, and with a concurrent, contingent equitable interest in the nature of a remainder in the event of her death without leaving issue her surviving, to the other children of Daniel Paine then surviving; * * * and lastly, with another equitable interest in the nature of a remainder in the heirs general of Daniel Paine, in the event of her death without leaving any of his issue her surviving. The answers further aver that even if Emma L. Sackett and the other children of Daniel Paine took by said will an equitable estate tail, yet it would not be vested before her or their death, but would remain contingent until she died, at which time it would vest if she died leaving issue her surviving, but would otherwise fall.

(2) That in any event the conveyance by Emma L Sackett to the complainant did not vest in him the whole equitable title in fee simple to two-fifths of the trust property, and that chapter 1346 can have no effect upon any interest acquired previously to the time of the passage of the act, because (a) the act should be construed to relate only to estates tail thereafter created; (b) the act, if otherwise construed, is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the state of Rhode Island, and is also in violation of article 14 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

In general, the lastmentioned answers admit the other allegations of the bill. The questions raised by the answers last mentioned are as follows: (1) Was Emma L. Sackett, on the 1st of October, 1908, vested with an equitable estate tail under the trust created by the said will? (2) Did the conveyance by Emma L. Sackett to Theodore Francis Green vest in him an equitable estate in fee simple in the said trust property, either (a) at common law, or (b) under the ...