Ketcham v. International Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 15905. |
| Citation | 192 P.2d 426,117 Colo. 559 |
| Parties | KETCHAM v. INTERNATIONAL TRUST CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Francis J Knauss, Judge.
Proceeding by Arthur C. Ketcham against the International Trust Company as trustee under the will of Albert H. Ketcham to compel the trustee to pay certain sum of money to plaintiff. To review an adverse judgment, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Charles T. Mahoney, Harold B. Wagner and Carl A. Wyers, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Percy S. Morris, of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is a proceeding by a beneficiary to compel a trustee to pay a certain sum of money to him direct instead of investing it in an annuity policy for his benefit as provided by the express terms of testator's will. The judgment being against him, the beneficiary brings the case here contending: defendant's motion for summary judgment defendant for summary judgment; (2) that plaintiff, as a matter of law, is the only person beneficially interested in this fund, and (3) that plaintiff, as a matter of law, may demand and receive payment of his proportionate share of the trust estate without being required to accept an annuity policy. After careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the first two specifications are without merit, and therefore discuss only the third. The parties appear here in the same order as in the trial court, and we hereinafter refer to them as plaintiff and defendant.
Testator's will was admitted to probate, his estate administered, and the residue paid over and transferred to the International Trust Company, trustee, defendant herein. It provided that the trustee pay to plaintiff, named in the will as beneficiary, one-fourth of the trust fund created thereby in quarterly installments until he attained the age of fifty years; also, section ten (f) provides inter alia:
Plaintiff contends that he has a right to demand that defendant pay to him in cash his proportionate share of the trust estate instead of investing the same in annuity insurance for his benefit as specifically directed by testator in his will.
This is a case of first impression in Colorado. The courts of six states only, so far as disclosed by our research, have had the question under consideration Two of them, Massachusetts and New York, have followed the rule for which plaintiff herein contends. Accordingly, it was said in Parker v. Cobe, 208 Mass. 260, 94 N.E. 476, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 978, 21 Ann.Cas. 1100:
'It is the settled law of England that a bequest of money to be used in the purchase of an annuity gives the legatee a right to the money and he can insist that the annuity shall not be bought.
* * *
* * *
'This rule has found its most frequent application in case of bequests to be laid out in the purchase of annuities.
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maytag v. United States
...of the settlor is to prevail unless that intent is in violation of public policy or statutory enactment. Ketcham v. International Trust Co., 117 Colo. 559, 192 P. 2d 426 (1948). Each trust is unique, requiring that it be examined independently in ascertaining the intent of the Based upon th......
-
Morgenthaler v. First Atlantic Nat. Bank of Daytona Beach
...provides that an assignable annuity be purchased.'8 In re Benziger's Estate, 61 Cal.App.2d 628, 143 P.2d 717; Ketcham v. International Trust Co., 117 Colo. 559, 192 P. 426; In re Johnson's Estate, 238 Iowa 1221, 30 N.W.2d 164; Gilbert v. Findlay College, 195 Md. 508, 74 A.2d 36; Bedell v. C......
-
First Nat. Bank of Denver v. U.S., 78-1339
...to prevail unless that intent is in violation of public policy or statutory enactment." Id. at 998, citing Ketcham v. International Trust Co., 117 Colo. 559, 192 P.2d 426 (Colo.). The Government strenuously argues that there is no explicit limitation preventing the decedent from appointing ......