Hale v. Bowler

• Decision Date: 18 June 1913
• Citation: 102 N.E. 415,215 Mass. 354
• Parties: HALE v. BOWLER et al.; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. v. BOWLER et al. STEVENS v. BOWLER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

215 Mass. 354

102 N.E. 415

HALE

v.BOWLER et al.;

OLD COLONY TRUST CO.

v.BOWLER et al.

STEVENS

v.BOWLER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 18, 1913.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Bills by Richard W. Hale, by the Old Colony Trust Company, and by Angelina M. Stevens against George P. Bowler and others. Cases reserved by single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Plaintiffs in first two cases instructed that spendthrift provision in trusts in favor of Bowler were valid, and bill of Stevens dismissed without prejudice to an action at law against defendant Bowler.

Robert Dickson Weston, of Boston, for plaintiffs Hale and Old Colony trust co.

Augustus N. Hand, of New York City, for defendant R. P. Bowler.

Frank E. Bradbury and Clarence A. Barnes, both of Boston, for defendants Stevens and Little.

SHELDON, J.

[1] Each one of these cases depends upon the question whether the trust funds mentioned in the first two cases respectively are held upon valid spendthrift trusts in favor of George P. Bowler, so that the income could not be disposed of or alienated by him, and could not be attached at law or reached in equity by his creditors, before it should be received by himself. This again, as to each one of the trusts under consideration, depends upon whether that trust was created by himself out of his own property or whether it was created by another out of property in which George had at the creation of the trust no interest, and acquired no interest other than the strictly limited one created by the terms of the trust instrument. This is the rule which was settled in this commonwealth by the leading cases of Broadway National Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170, 43 Am. Rep. 504,Pacific National Bank v. Windram, 133 Mass. 175, and the cases collected by Loring, J., in Lathrop v. Merrill, 207 Mass. 6, 9, 92 N. E. 1019.

[2] The property included in the ‘Cincinnati trust,’ so called, which is the subject of the first suit, was conveyed by George Bowler to Hale, the plaintiff in that suit, in trust to pay the income thereof during the life of George to his mother, and after her death to such person or persons as she might by will appoint. There were equitable remainders after the death of George, which are not now material. This transfer, it has been found, was executed by George in good faith while he was solvent, was not upon any trust for his benefit, and was valid against any creditors of his or any others subsequently claiming under him. His mother died, leaving a will by which she appointed the income to her son Robert, and purposely omitted to make any provision for George. George contested the probate of this will; but his contest was not made in good faith or with any honest belief that it was well founded. On the contrary he made the contest with no expectation of success, but solely for the purpose of forcing a settlement from his brother Robert. Thereupon Robert, after some negotiations, though denying the validity of any of George's claims or the existence of any ground for opposing the probate of the will, paid a sum of money to George, provided that the income of the ‘Cincinnati trust’ should be paid to George during his lifetime, but without its being liable to interference or control by his creditors and without power of alienation thereof, and also established the trust which is the subject of the second suit, by paying the amount thereof to the Old Colony Trust...