Hoadley v. Beardsley

• Citation: 93 A. 535,89 Conn. 270
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 26 March 1915
• Parties: HOADLEY v. BEARDSLEY et al.

93 A. 535

89 Conn. 270

HOADLEY

v. BEARDSLEY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 26, 1915.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; William S. Case, Judge.

Suit by Carleton E. Hoadley, as administrator and trustee under the will of Cynthia B. Merrill, deceased, against Ella Treat Beardsley and others, for construction of the will. Reserved on the facts alleged in the complaint for the advice of the Supreme Court on questions submitted. Questions answered.

Cynthia M. Merrill, late of New Haven, died August 29, 1887, leaving an estate consisting of both real and personal property, and a will and codicil duly probated. By the earlier portions of her will, dated July 28, 1885, she disposed of her household effects and wearing apparel. All the "remainder" of her estate she gave in trust. By the terms of this trust the trustee was directed to pay $200 every six months to each of three sisters and one brother, with a substitute provision for the payment of $100 every six months to a daughter of one of these sisters in the event of the latter's death, and also to the daughter of the brother in like event. This daughter, now Ella Treat Beardsley, is the only one of these persons now living. The trust clause further provided that 15 years after the testatrix's decease the trustee should pay to each of four of her nephews designated, and to the wife of a fifth, the sum of $100 every six months to help educate and support their children. It was further provided that 10 years after the testatrix's death, "or as soon after the expiration of ten years as sufficient funds accumulate there should be paid to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church on Great Hill in the town of Seymour the sum of $4,000 to be held by it for the support of the ministry in that church," and further that "after the payment of the aforesaid $4,000 as soon as sufficient funds accumulate the trustee shall pay" to the trustee of said church a further sum of $4,000 to be held by the church in trust for purposes indicated. The trust clause then proceeds to direct that "as soon as sufficient funds accumulate after the payment of" the $4,000 last named there should be paid to Hart Munson the sum of $500 in compensation for services to be rendered in connection with the $4,000 gift last named. Following this provision is one that: "Next in order as soon as sufficient funds accumulate the trustee shall pay to the wardens and vestrymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Quakers Farms in the town of Oxford the sum of $4,000 to be held in trust for the support of the ministry in that church."

Next comes the following provision:

"And twenty-five years after my decease all the remainder of my estate both real and personal including any funds arising from the failure of any of the above objects shall be equally divided by the trustee between the legal issue of my said nephews and of my said niece Ella A. Treat to be theirs to have and to hold forever."

The will concludes with an expression of desire that the accounts of the trustee be at all times open to inspection, and the appointment of an executor. The codicil, dated March 4, 1886, aside from its formal paragraphs, is as follows:

"In case of the death of any one of my nephews mentioned in said will the portion of $200 required to be paid as mentioned in said will for the benefit of their lawful issue shall be paid directly to said issue or their guardian for the purpose mentioned in said will for their benefit."

The said nephews and niece referred to in the gift over above recited were named in the early provisions of the will. The nephews were five in number; two of whom are now living, and all of them survived the testatrix. Each of these nephews had from 1 to 4 children, 17 in all. Of these 13 were living at the time of the execution of the will and codicil and of the testatrix's death. Four were born subsequently. All of the 17 children survived the 25-year period. Three have deceased since that time, and administrators have been appointed upon their respective estates. The niece, Ella A. Treat, now Mrs. Beardsley, is still living. She has no children or descendants, and had none at the date of either the will or codicil. Within a period of 15 years after the testatrix's death all of the trusts had been fully executed save those involved in the payment of annuities, and all annuities due at that time had been fully paid. These annuities have since been paid down to the end of the 25-year period, but none since. The trust fund, including both real and personal property, now in the hands of the plaintiff, amounts to more than $100,000. What it was when originally received by the trustee does not appear in the record, save as it appears that the personal estate amounts to slightly more than it did at the time of the testatrix's decease. At the time of Mrs. Merrill's decease her estate yielded an annual income slightly in excess of $4,000.

The following questions are presented for the advice of the superior court:

"First. Whether any legal effect can be given to the residuary clause of said will referred to in paragraph 20, and whether all or any part of said section is or is not void.

"Second. Whether the trust created, or which it was attempted to create, in and by said residuary clause, is valid, legal, and operative, and capable of being carried out in any legal manner, and, if so, how; and whether the trust thereby created, or which it was attempted to create, is now a valid and subsisting trust, and whether the same is not void by the statute of perpetuities in existence at the time of the death of said testatrix.

"Third. Whether the trust created, or which it was attempted to create, is not void by reason of the general equitable rule against perpetuities.

"Fourth. What is the meaning of the words 'legal issue' in said residuary clause of said will?

"Fifth. Whether, if said residuary clause in said will is valid, and not void, the 'legal issue' of said niece and nephews referred to in said clause take under the same per stirpes or per capita.

"Sixth. Who are entitled to said residuary estate and in what share or proportions, and to whom shall the same be conveyed or distributed, and in what proportions?

"Seventh. Whether, if said residuary clause is valid, legal, and operative, the plaintiff has power as trustee, for the better distribution of said property, to sell the real estate of which the estate of the said testatrix in part consists.

"Eighth. For how long is the plaintiff required to make the payments provided for in the following clause of said will, to wit: 'Fifteen years after my decease the trustee shall pay to each of my aforesaid nephews, excepting R. Edward Treat, the sum of one hundred dollars, every six months, to help educate and support their children; and he shall pay the sum of one hundred dollars every six months to Ida, wife of R. Edward Treat, to help educate and support the children of R. Edward Treat'—and when is the duty imposed on said trustee to make the said payments recited in said clause to cease?

"Ninth. Under the clause providing that if Ella A. Treat survives her father, William E. Treat, the trustees shall pay to her the sum of $100 every six months during her life or until the final settlement of the estate of the testatrix, is said Ella A. Treat, known also as Ella Treat Beardsley, entitled to payments beyond the period of 25 years after the death of the testatrix, and, if so, for how long?"

Carleton E. Hoadley and Philip Bond, both of New Haven, for plaintiff. William B. Arvine and George E. Beers, both of New Haven, for Florence G. Treat and others. John W. Bristol and David L. Daggett, both of New Haven, for Carrie E. Taylor and others. Robert L. Munger and Arthur B. McOrmond, both of Ansonia, for Atlanta Smith Haines and others. Charles G. Root, of Waterbury, for Ella Treat Beardsley. Edwin S. Pickett, of New Haven, for estates of Eunice E. Munson and Betsey A. Downs. John S. Pullman, of Bridgeport, for estate of Harriet E. Sanford. William F. Henney, of Hartford, and Louis M. Rosenbluth, of New Haven, for Ruby M. Coburn and estate of Rutherford S. Treat.

PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). The plaintiff, as trustee under the will of Cynthia M. Merrill, has in his hands property of her estate amounting to upwards of $100,000 in value. It is in part real and in part personal, and is made up of the residue of her estate originally given in trust and accretions thereto by reason of the net income having been in excess of the amounts thereof required to be expended in the execution of the trust.

The questions presented for advice all relate to the disposition of this property. The heirs at law of the testatrix contend that all of it is her intestate estate ready for distribution as such. The children of certain nephews claim to be entitled to it under a provision of the will which reads as follows:

"And twenty-five years after my decease all the remainder of my estate both real and personal including any funds arising in the failure of any of the above objects shall be equally divided by the trustee between the legal issue of my said nephews and of my said niece Ella A. Treat to be theirs to have and to hold forever."

The answers to all the questions propounded, save only a few of minor importance, are to be determined by the construction and legal effect to be given to this testamentary provision.

The contention of the heirs at law rests upon two propositions: (1) That the provision is void as being in contravention of the statute against perpetuities; and (2) that it is invalid as embodying a trust for accumulation covering a period not confined within the limits of the common-law rule against perpetuities.

The first of these propositions depends upon the meaning to be attached to the descriptive title "legal issue" as used in that portion of the will. Following the English rule,...