Johnstone's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 15 November 1965
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 50147
• Citation: 212 N.E.2d 143,64 Ill.App.2d 447
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Robert B. JOHNSTONE, Jr., a Minor. Eloise JOHNSTONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Elizabeth W. JOHNSTONE, Guardian of the Estate of Robert B. Johnstone, Jr., a minor, and Rebert B. Johnstone, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 143

212 N.E.2d 143

64 Ill.App.2d 447

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Robert B. JOHNSTONE, Jr., a Minor.

Eloise JOHNSTONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Elizabeth W. JOHNSTONE, Guardian of the Estate of Robert B.

Johnstone, Jr., a minor, and Rebert B. Johnstone,

Jr., Respondents-Appellees.

Gen. No. 50147.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Nov. 15, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1965.

Ira D. Schultz, Chicago, for appellant.

Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, for appellees.

BURMAN, Presiding Justice.

This suit arises out of a claim filed by petitioner, Eloise Johnstone, against the minor's estate of her stepson, Rebert B. Johnstone, Jr., from amounts expended by her and obligations incurred by her in financing his college education. She based her claim upon the contention that in modern society and under the circumstances of this case a college education falls within the legal definition of a 'necessary'; and that since she furnished the only funds available for her stepson's college education he is liable to her under established principles of law. The court specifically found that petitioner's expenditures were not for 'necessities', and dismissed her claim. Petitioner has appealed from this ruling.

Upon the minor's graduation from high school, he indicated his desire to continue his education at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. His father, Robert B. Johnstone, Sr., who was living at the time, approved of his son's plans, and in order to meet the costs of this education applied to the La Salle National Bank for a loan under the Bank's Assured College Education Plan. As an integral part of this plan, the Bank requires the Applicant Sponsor to purchase an insurance policy on his own life, naming the Bank as beneficiary. It appears from the record in this case that the poor health of the minor's father made him unable to qualify for such a policy, thereby preventng him from signing the loan as Applicant Sponsor. The application was signed by petitioner, the minor's stepmother, as Applicant Sponsor and the Minor's father signed as 'Spouse of Applicant Sponsor.'

Semi-annual payments of $750.00 by the Bank direct to Dartmouth College began in September of 1961, and continued through the sixth payment in December of 1963, at which time the minor's father died and payments by the Bank ceased. Prior to his death, Robert B. Johnstone, Sr., had made regular repayments to the Bank in the amount specified in the terms of the loan. At his death, the balance due the Bank was $2,101.50 for which the Bank had held petitioner responsible and which she has reduced by further payments. She seeks recovery from the minor's estate for this amount.

Two life insurance policies were left by the minor's deceased father. The first was a policy in the amount of $5,000, which named the petitioner as beneficiary. The other policy was in the amount of $10,000, and named petitioner and the minor as beneficiaries, each in the amount of $5,000. Petitioner seeks to recover against the minor's share of the preceeds of this policy. The record reveals that the father's estate is insolvent, and petitioner claims that all the monies she received from the policies will be sued to pay claims against the estate.

It is well-established, as a general rule, that a minor or his estate may be liable for necessaries furnished him. Pelham v. Howard Motors Inc., 20 Ill.App.2d 528, 156 N.E.2d 597. As to the definition of a 'necessary', our Supreme Court stated in McKanna v. Merry, 61 Ill. 177:

There is no positive rule by means of which it may be determined what are, and what are not, necessaries. Whether articles are of a class or kind for which infants are liable, or whether certain subjects of expenditure are necessaries, are to be judged of by the court. Whether they come within the particular class, and are suitable to the condition and estate of the infant, is to be determined by the jury as a matter of fact. * * * Blackstone defines necessaries to be 'necessary meat, drink, apparel, physic,' and says that an infant may bind himself to pay 'for his good teaching and instruction, whereby he may profit himself afterwards.' The articles furnished, or money advanced, must be actually necessary, in the particular case, for use, not mere ornament, for substantial good, not mere pleasure; and must belong to the class which the law generally pronounces necessary for infants. (61 Ill. 177, at 178-179).

In Crandall v. Coyne Electrical School, 256 Ill.App. 322, the court cited the McKanna case, and went on to say:

It is recognized that a proper education is a necessary. But what is a proper education depends on circumstances. *...