Henderson v. Williams
| Decision Date | 07 February 1896 |
| Citation | 25 S.E. 395,97 Ga. 709 |
| Parties | HENDERSON et al. v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, by will, property was bequeathed and devised to named trustees for the sole and separate use of a daughter of the testator for life, which property at her death was to vest absolutely in fee simple in such child or children as she might have then living, and the will conferred upon the trustees large powers as to making sales of the trust property and reinvesting the proceeds thereof, and also the power to use the corpus of the estate for certain specified purposes, the trust created by the will was for the benefit of those entitled to take in remainder, as well as for the life tenant, although the trustee was not invested with the legal title to the estate in remainder, beyond what was involved in the execution of those powers.
2. Where a successor of the original trustees (who, by the terms of the will, was clothed with the same powers which were thereby conferred upon them) invested money arising from the trust property in land, and took the title thereto to himself as trustee for the life tenant only, "to have and to hold for her and her heirs and assigns forever," this did not, although the will was made after the passage of the married woman's law of 1866, execute the trust, or vest any title to the land absolutely in the life tenant, but the property thus acquired became immediately impressed with the trusts imposed by the will upon the property originally belonging to the trust estate for which the land purchased by the trustee was thus substituted.
3. In such case a trustee, who, in the event it should "become desirable to use any part of the corpus of said trust estate for the improvement thereof, or for the more comfortable support of said cestui que trust" (the life tenant), had "power and authority to allow the corpus thus to be used, upon the written application and consent of said cestui que trust," and who, in the proper exercise of this power, executed a promissory note, and secured the same by a deed to land, represented, in a suit brought for the collection of that note, both the life tenant and the remainder-men; and, though they were not made parties to the action, a judgment therein against him bound them all.
Error from superior court, Newton county; R. H. Clark, Judge.
Action by W. L. H. Henderson and others against A. G. Williams. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Where property was bequeathed to trustees for the separate use of a daughter of testator for life, and at her death was to vest absolutely in fee simple in such child or children as she might have then living, and the will conferred upon the trustees large powers as to making sales of the trust property and reinvesting the proceeds thereof, and also the power to use the corpus of the estate for specified purposes the trust was for the benefit of those entitled to take in remainder, as well as for the life tenant, although the trustee was not invested with the legal title to the estate in remainder, beyond what was involved in the execution of those powers.
The following is the official report:
W. L H. Henderson and Ida F. and Mary L. Henderson, minors, by their next friend, W. L. H. Henderson, on February 27, 1894 brought complaint against Williams to recover a tract of 150 acres in Newton county, the south half of 300 acres deeded by Ira E. Smith, administrator, to W. L. H. Henderson, trustee for his wife, Mary E. Henderson, of whom the plaintiffs claimed to be the heirs at law. By amendment, plaintiffs alleged: On January 4, 1884, W. L. H. Henderson, as trustee for Mary E. Henderson, and in her life, made a note for $1,500, payable January 1, 1885, to Swann, Stewart & Co. copy of which is attached. The consideration of this note was supplies to be furnished the trustee by Swann, Stewart & Co. for 1884, to enable him to make a crop, by himself and tenants, for that year. To secure the payment of this note, Henderson, trustee, with the written consent of his wife, Mary E., on January 4, 1884, deeded to Swann, Stewart & Co. the land now sued for. Copy of the deed is attached. Bond to reconvey was given by Swann, Stewart & Co., copy of which is attached. The note, deed, and bond constitute an equitable mortgage, and the heirs at law of said Mary E. have the right to redeem the same, if the same were not already redeemed in her lifetime by said trustee, as hereinafter set forth. The consideration of the note and deed did not pass to Henderson, trustee, on the date of the note, but was to pass to him, by Swann, Stewart & Co., in supplies to make a crop for 1884, as needed and called for by him and his tenants; and at said date it was not known by the trustee and Swann, Stewart & Co. that the trustee would need and call for the amount of the note in supplies for 1884. The trustee did not call for the receive from Swann, Stewart & Co., on the note and deed, in supplies for 1884, more than $606.60; and hence the consideration of the note and deed has failed to the extent of $893.40, which amount is not chargeable to plaintiffs on the note and deed. Said $606.60 has been fully paid, in cotton delivered to Swann, Stewart & Co. at various dates stated, by reason of which the note should be canceled. On March 6, 1888, Swann, Stewart & Co. were put into possession of the land by virtue of a void decree against said trustee, and a void judicial sale thereunder, against his consent, and have since that date, by themselves and assigns, possessed and occupied the land. On February 14, 1889, they conveyed to J. W. Roberts, and on August 14, 1890, Roberts conveyed to Williams. Plaintiffs prayed that Williams be decreed to reconvey the land to them in the terms of the bond; that the note be canceled; that Williams be compelled to account for rents, etc.; and that he be compelled to deliver to them said land.
Williams answered: The consideration of the note was the delivery by Swann, Stewart & Co. to Henderson, trustee, of four promissory notes for $100 each, dated January 30, 1882, and due, respectively, October 1, November 1, and December 1 1882, and the delivery to Henderson, trustee, of a mortgage on a house and lot belonging to the trust estate, which notes and mortgage were signed by Henderson, trustee, and his cestui que trust; also, balances on accounts incurred by the trustee, for 1883, for his tenants or farm hands, aggregating $322.75, besides interest; for supplies furnished by Swann, Stewart & Co. to the tenants to make crops on the land of the trust estate, to raise an income for the benefit thereof, and also for supplies, etc., to be furnished for the comfortable support of the cestui que trust for 1884, and which were furnished by Swann, Stewart & Co. for said purposes, to the amount of $576.75; and for supplies, etc., to the tenants, for 1884, to make crops on the trust estate and raise an income therefrom, and which supplies were furnished by Swann, Stewart & Co. to the amount of $___. It is probably true that at the date of the notes the parties did not know how much supplies, etc., the maker would call for and...
To continue reading
Request your trial