Indus. Trust Co. v. Harrison, 1556.
Decision Date | 10 July 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 1556.,1556. |
Citation | 21 A.2d 254 |
Parties | INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO. et al. v. HARRISON et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case certified from Superior Court, Newport County.
Suit by the Industrial Trust Company and James T. Kaull, executors and trustees against Irene Dorothy Harrison and others for construction of a will and instructions. When the cause was ready for hearing, for final decree, it was certified to the Supreme Court for decision.
Decree in accordance with opinion.
Huddy & Moulton, F. Harlan Flint, and Edward Winslow Lincoln, all of Providence, for complainants.
Burdick, Corcoran & Peckham, William A. Peckham, and Alexander G. Teitz, all of Newport, for respondent Irene Dorothy Harrison.
Henry M. Boss, of Providence, guardian ad litem, pro se.
Harvey S. Reynolds, of Providence, guardian ad litem, pro se.
This is a bill in equity brought in the superior court for the construction of a will and instructions to trustees. When the cause was ready for hearing for final decree it was certified to this court for decision in accordance with General Laws 1938, chapter 545, § 7.
All necessary parties are before the court and have filed answers. A guardian ad litem was appointed by the superior court for minor respondents, and also a representative for persons not in being and for unascertained and contingent interests. Testimony was taken in the superior court. From the evidence it appeared that Herbert P. Harrison, late of Newport, died on April 4, 1938, leaving surviving him his widow, Irene Dorothy Harrison, and their two minor children, one eleven years of age and the other about five years of age at this time. His will, portions of which are before us for construction, was dated December 20, 1934. A codicil thereto, which is not involved in these proceedings, was executed by the testator on November 23, 1937. An error in numbering the paragraphs in the will is obviously merely typographical, and no question has been raised concerning it. This will and codicil were duly admitted to probate in Newport on May 16, 1938. Letters testamentary were thereupon issued to the complainants as executors of said will and they are now acting in that capacity. In that instrument the complainants were also named as trustees of certain trusts. On January 2, 1940, the testator's widow was duly appointed by the probate court of Newport as guardian of the persons and estates of the abovementioned two minor children.
By the fifth paragraph of his will the testator devised and bequeathed all the residue of his estate to the complainants in trust, giving them broad powers in connection with the management of the trust estate. The fifth paragraph then continued as follows:
Because of certain demands formally made upon the complainants by the testator's widow in connection with his estate and with said trusts, and because of certain doubts which said complainants had concerning the proper construction to be placed upon portions of the will now before us, we are asked by the bill of complaint to answer twelve questions to which we shall refer more fully hereinafter.
In considering these questions, it is necessary for us to set out certain facts appearing in evidence. The testator's estate was appraised at $80,865.07, of which $14,000 was realty and $60,000 was a 40% interest held by him in a partnership of two members, of which he was one, located in Newport and known as the Sanitube Company, which manufactured and marketed a venereal prophylactic from a so-called secret formula. The other partner held the remaining interest of 60%. In accordance with the provisions of the partnership agreement, which provided for incorporation of the business upon the death of either partner, such business was incorporated in this state on September 12, 1938, under the same name, and all the assets of the partnership were transferred to the new corporation, which is now conducting the business in question.
The complainants, as executors of the testator's will, in exchange for his partnership interest, received 200 shares or 40% of the capital stock of said new corporation. According to a provision of its bylaws, the salaries of the officers of the corporation were fixed so as not to exceed certain reasonable amounts. These amounts could be increased only if the net income of the corporation for a calendar year exceeded $31,500, in which case the board of directors could then declare a dividend authorizing the payment of salary bonuses within certain limits. This portion of the by-laws could be amended only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the stock issued, outstanding, and entitled to vote.
All of the known debts of the estate have been paid. However, certain charges, including appraisers', executors' and attorneys' fees, which amounted altogether to approximately $10,000, have not been paid, and are now due. The realty above referred to was sold and, after the payment of expenses incident to that sale, miscellaneous administrative charges, the testator's debts, and the distribution of specific legacies, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoffa v. Fitzsimmons
...between beneficiaries and trustees regarding the amount of the particular entitlement have been upheld. In Industrial Trust Co. v. Harrison, 67 R.I. 131, 21 A.2d 254 (1941), for example, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld a "compromise agreement" between trustees and a beneficiary tha......
-
Rice Estate
... ... the survivor and survivors of them, IN TRUST, NEVERTHELESS, ... for the uses and purposes and with the powers ... R.I. 277, 160 A. 465, and Industrial Trust Co. v ... Harrison, 67 R.I. 131, 21 A.2d 254. Those cases are ... inapposite. The former ... ...
-
Indus. Trust Co. v. Flynn
...give effect thereto if it is not contrary to positive law. That is the cardinal rule in construing wills. Industrial Trust Co. v. Harrison, 67 R.I. 131, 21 A.2d 254, 135 A.L.R. 1312; Washington Trust Co. v. Arnold, 69 R.I. 121, 31 A.2d 420; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Thomas, 73 R.C.......
-
Balke's Estate, In re
...the income is to be used for some other purpose. The rule quoted above has been recognized by many courts. Industrial Trust Co. v. Harrison, 67 R.I. 131, 21 A.2d 254, 135 A.L.R. 1312; In re Williamson's Estate, 38 Wash.2d 259, 229 P.2d 312; In re Schiffmann's Estate, 86 Cal.App.2d 638, 195 ......