Green v. Gaskill
| Decision Date | 28 February 1900 |
| Citation | 56 N.E. 560,175 Mass. 265 |
| Parties | GREEN et al. v. GASKILL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. Green and Frank P. Goulding, for complainants.
Herbert Parker, for defendants.
One John Green, who died in the year 1865, left by his will one-fifth of the residue of his estate in trust. The first trustee was Meltiah B. Green, who during his life was entitled to apply the income of the fund for the benefit of himself and his family, keeping the principal unimpaired. From the time of his death without issue, on May 24, 1888 his widow, Mary S. Green, was entitled to the whole income of the fund during her life. After the death of Meltiah B. Green the defendant Gaskill was appointed trustee of the fund, a position which he still holds. Mary S. Green, the widow, was appointed as executrix of the will of Meltiah B. Green on October 2, 1888. She died on January 7, 1896, and upon her death the plaintiffs became, under the will of John Green entitled, as remainder-men, to one-half of the principal of the trust fund. Mary S. Green, as executrix of Meltiah B., on September 28, 1895, filed in the probate court an account of Meltiah B. as trustee of this trust fund, and that account has never been allowed. On June 29, 1896, Gaskill, as trustee of the fund, filed an account of his trust in the probate court. On January 29, 1896, Gaskill was also appointed executor of the will of Mary S. Green. On March 3, 1896, the defendant Parker was appointed administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Meltiah B. Green. In January, 1898, the plaintiffs filed upon the equity side of the probate court the present bill in equity against Gaskill as executor of the will of Mary S. Green, and as trustee under the will of John Green, and against Parker as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Meltiah B. Green. The bill alleges, in addition to the facts already stated, that the trust fund first placed in the hands of Meltiah B. Green as trustee was of about $30,000 in amount, and that during his life he appropriated to his own use a large part of the principal of the fund, amounting to about $10,000, impressed with the trust, and which at his death formed part of his estate; that by his will he gave all of his estate to his widow, who knew that he had appropriated the $10,000 of the trust fund to his own use, and that in her hands it was still impressed with the trust; that upon her death this property, still impressed with the trust, has come into the hands of Gaskill as executor of her will; that the plaintiffs are entitled, the trust being now ended by the death of Mary S. Green, to one-half of all the principal of the trust fund, including the part of the fund appropriated by Meltiah B. Green in his lifetime to his own use, and now in the hands of Gaskill as executor. The prayer is that an account may be taken of all the funds which came to the hands of Meltiah B. Green as trustee of the fund, and of the proceeds thereof, if the same have ever changed in form; also an account of all funds belonging to the trust fund which came to the hands of Mary S. Green as executor of her husband's will, with knowledge by her of their misappropriation by her husband to his own use, and of all which came to the hands of Gaskill as executor of her will; and also an account of all funds, if any, belonging to the trust estate which have come to the hands of the defendant Parker as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Meltiah B. Green; 'and that one-half of the same may be decreed to be paid over by the parties now holding the same in any of their said capacities to the plaintiffs according to their interests therein;' and for other relief. There are also allegations that Meltiah B. Green never filed in the probate court an inventory of the trust estate, and never filed in that court an account of the trust, and that Gaskill has never filed an inventory of the trust estate, and that he has not included in his trustee's account filed on June 29, 1896, the part of the trust fund which Meltiah B. in his lifetime wrongfully appropriated to his own use. In the probate court Gaskill appeared as trustee and as executor, and answered denying any misappropriation of any part of the trust fund by Meltiah B. Green, and denying that, as executor of the will of Mary S. Green, he has any funds belonging to, or impressed with, the trust, and alleging that he has duly filed in the probate court his final account as trustee of the fund, and that the same has been finally and conclusively allowed in the probate court; and also demurring to the bill because the plaintiffs have a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law by proceedings in the probate court upon the accounts of the defendants, and by suits, as well as because of the laches of the plaintiffs, and because the bill is multifarious.
The cause was heard upon the demurrer in the probate court upon its equity side, and the demurrer was there sustained, and a decree entered, dismissing the bill with costs, in favor of the defendant Gaskill as trustee and as executor. From this decree the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme judicial court, and the case was then heard by Mr. Justice Knowlton upon the bill and the demurrer of the defendant Gaskill, and was reserved for the consideration of the full court.
It is to be noticed that the bill contains no allegations stating the nature of that part of the trust property alleged to have been misappropriated by the first trustee to his own use, and to be now in the hands of Gaskill as executor of the will of Mary S. Green, nor does it allege that that property was so earmarked as to be capable of identification; nor does the bill allege that any part of the trust property is in fact now in the hands of Parker as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of the first trustee.
While the probate courts of the several counties have equity jurisdiction over all cases and matters relating to trusts created by will (St. 1891, c. 415, § 1), and have long had equity jurisdiction over all matters relating to the termination of such trusts (St. 1880, c. 163; Pub. St. c 141, § 27), this is a concurrent jurisdiction shared by the superior court and by this court. While the fact that in the records and files of the probate courts are found the wills under which such trusts arise, and the inventories and accounts of the trustees, with their official bonds, the proceedings under which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial