In re Chapman's Estate

• Decision Date: 02 March 1898
• Citation: In re Chapman's Estate, 41 L.R.A. 204, 39 A. 734, 70 Conn. 363 (Conn. 1898)
• Parties: In re CHAPMAN'S ESTATE. Appeal of CHAMBERLIN.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

39 A. 734

70 Conn. 363

In re CHAPMAN'S ESTATE. Appeal of CHAMBERLIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 2, 1898.

Appeal from superior court, Tolland county; Samuel O. Prentice, Judge.

Application by James F. Chamberlln, executor of the estate of Doremus D. Chapman, deceased, for the appointment of administrators de bonis non for the estates of Elijah S. Chapman and Eunice Chapman, deceased The applications were denied by the probate court, and applicant appealed to the superior court. The cases were tried together to the court, facts found, judgment rendered in both in favor of applicant, and appellees below appeal for alleged errors in the ruling of the court. No error.

The material facts found in both cases are the following:

In March, 1879, Elijah S. Chapman died, leaving a will, which was in the same month duly approved. The following is a copy of its material parts: "Second. I give, devise, and bequeath unto my beloved wife, Eunice Chapman, the use and improvement, rents, profits, and income of all my estate, real and personal, and wheresoever the same may be situated, to her during her natural life. Third. I give, devise, and bequeath all my said estate, at the decease of my said wife, unto such person or persons, and in such shares or portions, as my said wife, Eunice Chapman, by her last will and testament duly executed, shall name, designate, and appoint (provided she shall not give the same to Otis and Ambrose D. Snow, or either of them), to them and their heirs, forever."

Gelon W. West, who was named as executor in the will, accepted said office, and duly qualified as executor. In February, 1880, said executor filed an account, purporting to be a final account of his administration of the estate, which account, after due notice and hearing, was approved and allowed.

In April, 1884, Eunice Chapman, widow of Elijah S. Chapman, died, leaving a will, which was duly proved and approved, the material parts of which are the following: "Third. Whereas, my late husband, Elijah S. Chapman, did by his last will and testament, dated the 8th day of August, 1877, and admitted to probate in the probate court for the district of Ellington, on the 22d day of March, A. D. 1879, give, devise, and bequeath all 'his estate, at my decease, unto such person or persons, and in such shares or portions, as' I, by my last will and testament 'shall name, designate, and appoint,' therefore I, the said Eunice Chapman, do give, devise, and bequeath all said estate of my said husband, Elijah S. Chapman, and also all the rest and residue of my own estate not hereinbefore disposed of, unto Gelon W. West, of said town of Vernon, his heirs and assigns, forever, and do hereby name, designate, and appoint the said West as the person to receive all the estate of said Elijah S. Chapman, deceased, according to the provisions of said will of said Elijah S. Chapman, all of which said estate of said Elijah S., and said residue of my own estate, shall be to said West, his heirs and assigns, in trust, for the uses and purposes following, to wit: To have the sole care and management of all said property, real and personal, and to pay over and deliver to my son, Doremus D. Chapman, during his natural life, all the rents, profits, interest, and income of said trust estate, after deducting the expenses incident to said trust, for the use and benefit of my said son; and if said rents, profits, interest, and income shall at any time be insufficient to provide my said son with a good and comfortable support in sickness and in health, then and in that case I fully authorize and empower said trustee to use and expend so much of the principal of said trust estate as shall be necessary for that purpose, in his discretion. And I fully authorize and empower and direct said trustee, when in his judgment it shall be for the interest of said estate, to sell and convey any portion or all of said trust estate, real and personal, and to invest and reinvest the same in such manner as he shall deem best for the interest of said estate, and in like manner to invest and reinvest all moneys belonging to said estate. Fourth. If, upon the decease of my said son, Doremus D. Chapman, any portion of said trust estate shall be remaining in the hands of said trustee undisposed of, I authorize and direct said trustee to distribute, transfer, and convey all said remaining estate absolutely to such persons as would then be entitled to the same as heirs at law of the said Doremus D. Chapman, if said estate belonged to him, under the statute laws of the state of Connecticut then in force, if the same were intestate estate; that is to say, said trustee shall distribute said estate as aforesaid to those persons who are the natural heirs at law of my said son at the time of his decease."

In the will of Eunice, Gelon W. West was named as executor, as well as trustee, and he accepted said office and said trust, and duly qualified both as executor and trustee. In November, 1889, West filed an account of his administration of the estate of Eunice, as executor, and also as trustee under her will. These two last-named accounts are the only ones ever filed by West in any capacity in connection with the estate of Eunice, and after due notice and hearing they were approved and allowed by the court. Both accounts showed a balance of $15,885.88 belonging to the trust fund, which consisted of both real and personal estate. In November, 1889, George M. Paulk received from West said trust fund created by the will of Eunice, and has ever since continued to manage said fund, and to act as the trustee thereof, under the provisions of said will, and now has said fund in his hands. There is no record in the proper probate court of the resignation of West as executor of Eunice, nor as trustee under her will, nor of the substitution of Paulk for West in any capacity connected with said will, estate, or fund, except what is contained in said records in a certain bond executed by Paulk on the 23d of November, 1889, reciting that he had been appointed executor and trustee on the 18th of November, 1889, in place of West, resigned. In fact, Paulk was never appointed other than as trustee of said fund, and has never claimed or assumed to act otherwise than as trustee. West died in January, 1890.

Elijah and Eunice Chapman left, surviving them, three children, to wit: Adeline L., now the wife of Ambrose Snow; Mary E. now the wife of Otis Snow; and Doremus D Chapman, who was unmarried at the death of his mother. After his mother died, Doremus married, and in December, 1896, died, leaving a widow, Ella H. Chapman, but no issue. He left a will, which has been duly approved, by which he gave all of his property and estate of every kind to his wife, and appointed James F. Chamberlin as his executor, who has duly qualified and is now acting as such executor. No administrator de bonis non has ever been appointed, either upon the estate of Elijah or Eunice Chapman, and no executor or administrator upon either of their estates has ever been appointed, except as before stated. There is now in the hands of Paulk, acting as trustee as aforesaid, after deducting all rents, profits, interest, and income, during the life of Doremus, and all expenses incident to said trust, certain real and personal property, originally belonging to Elijah S. Chapman, which came into the hands of the trustee of Eunice under her will, and certain real and personal property, originally belonging to Eunice, which came into the hands of West, her executor and trustee.

In March, 1897, the executor of Doremus, claiming that said property in the hands of Paulk was Intestate property, belonging to the estates of Elijah and Eunice, respectively, which had never been administered, applied to the court of probate for the appointment of an administrator de bonis non upon each estate, and that court denied the applications. The executor of Doremus took an appeal to the superior court. In that court he made the following claims: "1) That the attempted exercise of a power of appointment by said Eunice Chapman, in said clause of her will above set forth, was in violation of the statute of perpetuities, which was in force at the time of the death of said Eunice Chapman, in so far as the gift over of the remainder upon the death of Doremus D. Chapman is concerned, and that said appointment is therefore to that extent invalid, and the attempted disposition of such remainder was of no effect in law. (2) That the estate remaining in the hands of said acting trustee, so derived from the estate of said Elijah S. Chapman, was by reason of the premises intestate estate, and must be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the statute law of this state. (3) That, in order that the property and estate in the hands of said acting trustee may be distributed among the persons entitled thereto, it was necessary that an administrator de bonis non with the will annexed be appointed on said estate."

The claims of the present appellants in the superior court were as follows: "1) That the issue involved in the appeal from the decree of the probate court refusing to appoint an administrator de bonis non with the will annexed on the estate of said Elijah S. Chapman was whether there was an administrator competent to act, and whether there was any property which had not been administered, belonging to said estate. (2) That, inasmuch as the only property in question was property which formerly belonged to the estate of Elijah S. Chapman, and that said estate, as well as the estate of Eunice Chapman, had been settled, and final account rendered by the executors thereof, and the property in question delivered to the trustee under the will of Eunice Chapman, the administration upon the estate was complete, and there was no property belonging to it which an administrator de bonis non with the will annexed would have any jurisdiction over, if...