Hepburn v. Winthrop
Decision Date | 16 March 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 6528.,6528. |
Citation | 65 App. DC 309,83 F.2d 566 |
Parties | HEPBURN et al. v. WINTHROP et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Swagar Sherley, F. DeC. Faust, and Francis L. Neubeck, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Edward Stafford, Arthur Hellen, Charles H. Bradley, Morgan H. Beach, and John S. Flannery, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, C. J., and ROBB, GRONER, and STEPHENS, JJ.
The appeal involves the interpretation of the will of Levi P. Morton, formerly Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States. Two questions are involved:
First, to what portion of the property held in trust for the benefit of Mary Morton, a daughter of Governor Morton, did the power of appointment conferred upon her by the will extend?
Second, should the federal estate tax paid by the executors of Governor Morton be apportioned between the realty and the personalty?
The will of Governor Morton was executed June 29, 1910, while he was a resident of the state of New York. Subsequently he became a resident of the District of Columbia and executed three codicils to his will; the second codicil, hereinafter set out in full, being executed on June 14, 1911. He died a resident of the District of Columbia on May 16, 1920.
At the time of making his will, his family consisted of his wife, Anna, and four daughters, Edith Eustis, Alice Rutherfurd, Helen Morton, and Mary Morton. Alice Rutherfurd died June 19, 1917, leaving surviving her six children, one of whom died without issue in the lifetime of Governor Morton. Mrs. Morton died August 14, 1918, so that upon Governor Morton's death there were surviving him three daughters, Mrs. Eustis, Helen Morton, and Mary Morton, and five children of his deceased daughter, Alice Rutherfurd. The gross estate consisted of personalty of a value of $8,000,000 and of realty, chiefly in New York, of a value of something under $3,000,000. All administration and other expenses incurred by the executors, and the federal estate tax of $1,736,886.47, were by them paid out of the personalty.
In 1922 the executors filed a bill in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for a construction of certain parts of the will and codicils. One of the questions submitted to the court was whether the portion of the residuary estate going to the Rutherfurd heirs should be paid over by the executors to the trustees and by them paid over to the guardian of the heirs, or whether it should be paid directly by the executors to the guardian of the heirs. Judge Hitz, then sitting in the Supreme Court of the District, decreed that the residuary estate be divided into four shares, and that one of the shares should be delivered to the trustees of Governor Morton's estate for the Rutherfurd children.
The question involved here, namely, whether the four shares into which the residuary estate was directed to be divided were "original shares," or original shares plus accretions, was not raised or passed upon at that time. The executors then turned over to the trustees all of the residuary estate in their hands, and the trustees divided it into four equal shares and set up four separate trusts bearing the names of the three daughters, Edith Eustis, Helen Morton, and Mary Morton, and delivered the fourth share, designated "the Alice Rutherfurd share" to the guardian of Mrs. Rutherfurd's children.
Mary Morton died on April 20, 1932, unmarried, but leaving two adopted minor children, Lewis Peter Morton and Miriam Morton, aged 9 and 3 years, respectively. She left a will disposing of her own estate, and by item 8 thereof exercised in part the power of appointment given her under her father's will for the benefit of her two adopted children.
Thereafter this suit was brought in part to determine whether the several trusts established by Governor Morton's will constituted the whole original shares of the daughters or whether four-fifths of each trust should be considered the original share and one-fifth of each trust considered an accretion arising from the distribution of the share that Governor Morton's widow would have taken for life had she survived her husband.
The first four paragraphs of Governor Morton's will concern bequests to his wife and to others, and have no relation to the question under consideration. The fifth, or residuary clause, and the second codicil are set out in full as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Evans v. Ockershausen
...facts of the particular case. Farmers Bank of Clinch Valley v. Kinser, 169 Va. 69, 192 S.E. 745, 747. In Hepburn v. Winthrop, 65 App.D.C. 309, 314, 83 F.2d 566, 571, 105 A.L.R. 310, we recognized this principle, stating, through Mr. Justice Groner, that "it has been aptly said that no will ......
-
Cuppett v. Neilly
...V. Davis, 264 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 291, 68 L.Ed. 558; Ericson v. Childs, 124 Conn. 66, 198 A. 176, 115 A.L.R. 907; Hepburn v. Winthrop, 65 App.D.C. 309, 83 F.2d 566, 105 A.L.R. 310; Central Trust Company v. Burrow, 144 Kan. 79, 58 P.2d 469; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Company, 233 Mass. 471, ......
-
Beals v. Magenis
...Hospital of New Bedford, 280 Mass. 229, 182 N.E. 290;Smith v. Livermore, 298 Mass. 223, 248, 10 N.E.2d 117;Hepburn v. Winthrop, 65 App.D.C. 309, 83 F.2d 566, 105 A.L.R. 310. The appellants do not now contend that they were not liable to pay the tax imposed by G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 65, § 1, as am......
-
Pearcy v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Bloomington
...Mass. 471, 124 N.E. 265, 7 A.L.R. 696; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 20 S.Ct. 747, 44 L.Ed. 969; Hepburn, Ex'r v. Winthrop, etc., 65 App.D.C. 309, 83 F.2d 566, 105 A.L.R. 310; New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963, 16 A.L.R. 660; Turner v. Cole, 118 N.J.Eq......