Haskell v. Haskell

• Citation: 125 N.E. 601,234 Mass. 442
• Parties: HASKELL et al. v. HASKELL et al.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1920
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

234 Mass. 442

125 N.E. 601

HASKELL et al.

v.HASKELL et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 9, 1920.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Essex County.

Petition for instructions by Adeline M. Haskell and others, executors and trustees of Jacob M. Haskell, against Edmund M. Haskell and others. From a decree, the unnamed respondents appealed to a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court who affirmed the decree and respondents appeal to the full court. Decree affirmed.

Clarence L. Newton, of Boston, for appellant Carey.

J. B. Studley, of Boston, for appellee Haskell.

PIERCE, J.

Jacob M. Haskell of Beverly, Massachusetts, died in 1906 testate, leaving him surviving a widow, Adeline L. Haskell, and two children, Adeline M. Haskell and Edmund M. Haskell. His will was duly proved and allowed in the probate court for the county of Essex on December 3, 1906. Albert C. Manson, the widow (Adeline L. Haskell), and the daughter (Adeline M. Haskell) were nominated and appointed executors and trusteesunder the first clause of the will, and they have administered the estate. The executors' inventory now on file in the probate court shows real estate of small value and personal property of large value. Under the fifth clause of the will (s. b) the wife is ‘allowed the use of such parts of my real estate as she may desire rent free’; and under the same clause (s. c) the ‘executors and trustees' are authorized to ‘sell any real and personal estate without any order or decree of court and no purchaser shall be bound to see to the application of the purchase money.’ The second and third clauses gave respectively to his daughter and to his son all indebtedness which she or he ‘may owe to me at my decease.’ The fourth clause reads as follows:

‘I give devise and bequeath to my said trustees and the successors and survivor of them all the rest residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, but in trust nevertheless for the following and no other purposes. To hold, repair, manage, sell, lease, rent and let the same, and to invest and reinvest the proceeds thereof, collect and receive the income and pay all necessary outgoes thereon, and during the life of my said wife pay over to her in quarter yearly payments or oftener as they shall see fit all the net income of the trust for her own use and disposal and if at any time during my wife's life the net income from this trust shall in the judgment of the trustees be insufficient for the comfort and care of my said wife, they are authorized in their discretion to pay to her out of the principal of the trust from time to time so much as they may think proper.

‘At the decease of my said wife the trust is to cease and the remainder thereof including all income increase and increment that has not been actually paid over to my wife is to go in equal shares to my two children Adeline M. Haskell and Edmund M. Haskell free and discharged from any trust.’

On April 25, 1908, January 31, 1911, June 6, 1912, November 24, 1913, and May 1, 1914, the son, Edmund M. Haskell, made several and distinct assignments of his interest in the estate of Jacob M. Haskell, to secure his indebtedness to the individual respondents George B. Brown, Arthur A. Carey, Thomas J. Broderick, Samuel S. Curry and Charles H. Warren; and notice of such assignments came to the knowledge of the executors and trustees.

On January 31, 1917 the son, Edmund M. Haskell, filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the District Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts; on said petition he was duly adjudged a bankrupt, and on December 12, 1917, was discharged. The respondent Rebert W. Hill was duly appointed trustee of the bankrupt.

The life tenant, Adeline L. Haskell, died on January 4, 1918, leaving her surviving Edmund M. Haskell and Adeline M. Haskell, the children of the testator named in clause four of the will. At the death of the life tenant the accounts of the executors and trustees show personal property only remaining to be distributed, one half to the son and one half to the daughter, unless other parties are entitled to the whole or part of the share of the son under the assignments above referred to.

The son has made claim to his share of the unexpended fund. He relies upon the seventh clause of the will which provides that--

‘No part of any trust under this will principal income or increment shall be attachable assignable trusteeable or liable to be taken at law or in equity for or on account of any debt obligation or contract of any beneficiary hereunder; but the share I have herein provided such beneficiary...