Hamilton v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 04 January 1941
• Docket Number: 37187
• Citation: 146 S.W.2d 601
• Parties: HAMILTON v. ROBINSON et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

146 S.W.2d 601

HAMILTON v. ROBINSON et al

No. 37187

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

January 4, 1941

Robert A. Hamilton, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Charles F. Hamilton, of St. Louis, for respondent.

OPINION

DALTON, Commissioner.

This is an action by the acting trustee under the will of George R Robinson, deceased, to secure a construction of the will, to determine whether a trust created thereby has terminated and, if not, to determine the duration thereof. Defendant Spencer Robinson, the beneficiary of the trust created by a particular provision of the will, claims to be entitled to the immediate possession of the corpus of the trust estate created for him and demands that said fund be distributed, transferred and turned over to him. From a decree construing the will adverse to his contentions, Spencer Robinson has appealed.

The sixth subdivision of the will of George R. Robinson, deceased, is as follows:

'I give and bequeath unto my wife, Elsie H. Robinson, and to my friends, Louis F. Booth and H. A. Hamilton, the sum of forty thousand dollars ($ 40,000.00) as trustees. To have and to hold the same and all earnings, income and increase thereof unto the said trustees, and to their successors in this trust.

'In trust, however, for the use, benefit and enjoyment of my son, Spencer Robinson. Upon the conditions and uses following, that is to say; to invest in solvent securities, and to hold, manage and control said property; to sell, invest and reinvest and to collect and receive all dividends, earnings and income arising out of the same, and to use such part of the income as may, in their judgment be necessary for the proper support, education and maintenance of my son, Spencer Robinson, until he reaches the age of twenty-one (21) years, at which time the said trustees shall pay to my said son, Spencer Robinson, the sum of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000.00).

'After my said son, Spencer Robinson, reaches the age of twenty-one (21) years, the entire income of the trust estate hereby created shall be paid to my said son, Spencer Robinson, until he reaches the age of twenty-eight (28) years, at which time the principal of the trust estate, and all accumulations thereto, shall be transferred and assigned to him by the trustees, and thereafter he shall own and control the same absolutely.'

By a further provision of the will the rest, residue and remainder of the estate was bequeathed to testator's children, including appellant, in equal shares.

All of the residuary legatees are parties to this proceeding. The first two trustees named in the will have resigned and only respondent is acting. The $ 5,000 payment provided by the will was made to appellant when he became of age. Appellant is now receiving the entire income of the trust estate in accordance with the terms of the will. The evidence discloses that the trust estate consists of notes, stocks, bonds and cash of the value of $ 37,137.49.

The court found that appellant had an absolute vested and indefeasible right, title and interest in and to the corpus of the trust estate created by the sixth clause of the will, subject to the trust defined in said clause; that appellant was entitled to the income of said trust estate and would be so entitled until he attained the age of 28 years, at which time the corpus of the trust estate, and all accumulations thereto, should be transferred and assigned to him; that in the event of his death before attaining the age of 28 years his interest in the trust estate would pass under the terms of his last will and testament, or, if he died intestate, his interest would pass to his heirs, according to law. The court further held that the trust created was an active trust; that it was the duty of the trustee to administer the trust according to the terms thereof; that the trustee had no power to transfer any further portion of the corpus of the trust estate to appellant until he attained the age of 28 years; and that the residuary legatees, other than appellant, had no right, title or interest in and to the trust estate created by this clause of the will.

The appeal presents but one issue, to wit: Appellant's right to immediate possession and absolute control of the corpus of the trust estate. Appellant says: 'The sole question over which there is any controversy is as follows: Where a beneficiary has a vested interest in the income of a trust and a vested interest in the corpus, and the payment of the latter is postponed to a certain date, is not the beneficiary entitled to receive the corpus as soon as he becomes sui juris, that is, reaches his majority?' Respondent says 'Appellant, in the case at bar, claims that, having an absolute vested...