Kingston v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1941
• Docket Number: 37122
• Citation: 154 S.W.2d 39,348 Mo. 448
• Parties: William Kingston (James V. Frank, as Administrator Cum Testamento Annexo of the Estate of William F. Kingston) et al., Appellants, v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, a Corporation, as Surviving Trustee Under the Will of Eliza McMillan et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

154 S.W.2d 39

348 Mo. 448

William Kingston (James V. Frank, as Administrator Cum Testamento Annexo of the Estate of William F. Kingston) et al., Appellants, v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, a Corporation, as Surviving Trustee Under the Will of Eliza McMillan et al

No. 37122

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 25, 1941

Rehearing Denied September 25, 1941.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Eugene J Sartorius, Judge.

Reversed (with directions).

Hugo Monnig for appellants.

(1) Where there is doubt as to the nature of a remainder interest it will be presumed to be vested rather than contingent. Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 362, 13 S.W. 395; Melvin v. Hoffman, 290 Mo. 464, 235 S.W. 107; Byrne v France, 131 Mo. 639, 33 S.W. 178. (2) A will should be so construed as to impute to the testatrix a sensible and logical intention rather than an absurd intention. Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 580, 46 S.W.2d 135. (3) Where property is devised or bequeathed to a person with a gift over to another conditioned upon the death of the first taker, the death referred to is death during the lifetime of the testatrix, so that if the first taker survives the testatrix he takes a vested interest. Owens v. Men & Millions Movement, 296 Mo. 110, 246 S.W. 172; Palmer v French, 326 Mo. 710, 32 S.W.2d 591; Gardner v. Vanlandingham, 334 Mo. 1054, 69 S.W.2d 947; Evans v. Rankin, 329 Mo. 411, 44 S.W.2d 644; Laird v. Lust, 98 S.W.2d 768; Ewart v. Dalby, 319 Mo. 108, 5 S.W.2d 428; Huntington Real Estate Co. v. Magaree, 280 Mo. 41, 217 S.W. 301; Howard v. Howard, 184 S.W. 993; Henderson v. Calhoun, 183 S.W. 584; Northcutt v. McAllister, 297 Mo. 475, 249 S.W. 398; Painter v. Herschberger, 340 Mo. 347, 100 S.W.2d 532; Stevenson v. Stearns, 325 Mo. 646, 29 S.W.2d 116. (4) The rule stated in point (3) is a subordinate rule of construction which must yield to a controlling intention on the part of the testatrix; but such intention, to control, must be expressed in "definite, clear and certain" language. Carter v. Boone County Trust Co., 338 Mo. 629, 92 S.W.2d 647; Dameron v. Lanyon, 234 Mo. 627, 138 S.W. 1; Ewart v. Dalby, 319 Mo. 108, 5 S.W.2d 428. (5) An estate is vested in possession only where there is a right of present enjoyment; it is vested in interest where there is a present fixed right to future enjoyment. Gates v. Seibert, 157 Mo. 254, 57 S.W. 1065. (6) Adverbs of time, and like expressions, do not make a contingency, but merely denote the commencement of the enjoyment of an estate. Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 362, 13 S.W. 395. (7) The intention of a testatrix must be gathered from the words actually used in the will. Pommer v. Catholic Church, 316 Mo. 1016, 292 S.W. 417; Wooley v. Hays, 285 Mo. 566, 226 S.W. 842; Crowson v. Crowson, 323 Mo. 633, 19 S.W.2d 634. (8) A dry or inactive trust may be terminated upon the request of the parties interested therein prior to a time fixed for its termination; and this is true even though the trustee has a power of investment coupled with a duty to make periodical distributions of income. Peugnet v. Berthold, 183 Mo. 61, 81 S.W. 874; Carter v. Long, 181 Mo. 701, 81 S.W. 162; Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 580, 46 S.W.2d 135; Dado v. Maguire, 71 Mo.App. 641; Rector v. Dalby, 98 Mo.App. 189, 71 S.W. 1078; Saunders v. Vautier, 4 Beav. 115; Jones v. Jones, 223 Mo. 424, 123 S.W. 29; Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215, 249 S.W. 601. (9) An active trust is a subsisting continuing trust where something has not yet been accomplished which was the original purpose giving rise to its creation. Rector v. Dalby, 98 Mo.App. 189, 71 S.W. 1078. (10) An active trust may be terminated prior to the time fixed for its termination if all the beneficiaries consent, and the continuance of the trust is not necessary to carry out a material purpose of the trust so that the wish and intention of the person creating the trust is not thwarted by such termination. Amer. Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Trusts, sec. 337; Shaller v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., 319 Mo. 128, 3 S.W.2d 726; Evans v. Rankin, 329 Mo. 411, 44 S.W.2d 644. (11) The material purpose of a trust must be gathered from the whole of the trust instrument, and not necessarily from any particular provision or provisions thereof. Harlow v. Weld, 42 R. I. 234, 104 A. 832; Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Birch, 121 N.J.Eq. 132, 186 A. 816. (12) The right to terminate a trust estate should not be denied merely because of an implication concerning its duration. Eastman v. First Natl. Bank, 87 N.H. 189, 177 A. 414. (13) The consent of the trustee is not required for the termination of an active trust. 3 Scott on Trusts, p. 1835, sec. 337. (14) The right of a beneficiary of a trust to a judicial construction of the trust instrument to settle an uncertainty as to his interest therein is absolute, and is not dependent upon whether further relief is requested or can be granted. Declaratory Judgment Act, Art. 14, Ch. 6, Secs. 1126-1140, R. S. 1939; Evans v. Rankin, 329 Mo. 411, 44 S.W.2d 644.

Isaac C. Orr for St. Louis Union Trust Company.

(1) In construing the will of Eliza McMillan her intention must be gathered from the four corners of the will, and her intention will govern if no rule of law would be violated in carrying it out. R. S. Mo. 1939, sec. 568; Norman v. Horton, 126 S.W.2d 187, 344 Mo. 276; Krause v. Jeanette Inv Co., 62 S.W.2d 890, 333 Mo. 509; Long v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 57 S.W.2d 1071, 332 Mo. 288; Winget v. Gay, 28 S.W.2d 999, 325 Mo. 368; Ewart v. Dalby, 319 Mo. 108, 5 S.W.2d 428; McMillan v. Barnard Free Skin & Cancer Hospital, 304 Mo. 635, 264 S.W. 410; Drake v. Crane, 127 Mo. 85, 29 S.W. 990; Dahlgren v. Pierce, 270 F. 507, cert. denied 256 U.S. 692; Philbert v. Campbell, 317 Mo. 556, 296 S.W. 1001. (2) The gift to the appellants, or their predecessors in interest, under the will of Eliza McMillan, was a gift to a class to be determined at a future time, namely, the time of termination of the trust, as words of futurity are annexed to the words of gift, and appellants can take nothing under Eliza McMillan's will until the termination of the trust and the definite ascertainment of who then comprise the class. In the Matter of Crane, 164 N.Y. 71; Brown v. Wright, 194 Mass. 540. (a) Although the usual so-called class gift does not enumerate the names of the persons constituting the class, in some cases the names of the persons constituting the class are enumerated and the gift is still construed to be a class gift. Roosevelt v. Porter, 83 N.Y.S. 800; Kirkland v. Moseley, 109 S.C. 477, 96 S.E. 608; Melton v. Sellers, 167 Ky. 704, 181 S.W. 346; Page v. Gilbert, 32 Hun, 301; Security Trust Co. v. Lovett, 78 N.J.Eq. 445, 79 A. 666. (b) A substitutional gift over connotes a gift to a class, and, since a substitutional gift over is contained in the clause of gift in Eliza McMillan's will, it should be construed as a gift to a class to be ascertained upon termination of the trust, and the appellants' remainder interests are, therefore, contingent. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 73 Conn. 303, 47 A. 325; Smiley v. Bailey, 59 Barb. 80; Tate v. Tate, 126 Tenn. 169, 148 S.W. 1042; Womack v. Smith, 11 Humph. 478; Darling v. Witherbee, 36 R. I. 459, 90 A. 751; In re Todd's Estate, 33 Pa.Super. Ct. 117; Melton v. Sellers, 167 Ky. 704, 181 S.W. 346; In re Buttner, 210 N.Y.S. 729; Dahlgren v. Pierce, 270 F. 506, certiorari denied 256 U.S. 692; Hills v. Travelers Bank & Trust Co., 125 Conn. 640, 7 A.2d 652; 75 A. L. R. 823. (c) Words in a will which refer to the death of a beneficiary will be construed to mean death prior to that of the testatrix only where there is no expression in the will indicating that testatrix referred to the death of such beneficiary subsequent to the testatrix's own death. Eliza McMillan's use of words of futurity in the clause containing the residuary gift clearly indicated that when she referred to the death of a residuary legatee she meant death prior to the termination of the trust, which, of course, in this instance is necessarily subsequent to her own death. Owens v. Men & Millions Movement, 296 Mo. 110, 246 S.W. 172; Schnitter v. McManaman, 85 Neb. 337; Naylor v. Goodman, 109 Mo. 543, 19 S.W. 56; Gardner v. VanLandingham, 69 S.W.2d 947, 334 Mo. 1054; Stevenson v. Stearns, 29 S.W.2d 116, 325 Mo. 646. (3) Courts, in construing wills, are required to disregard mere technical and artificial rules of construction and follow the real spirit and intent of the testatrix as shown by her whole will. Norman v. Horton, 126 S.W.2d 187, 344 Mo. 276; Wooley v. Hays, 226 S.W. 842, 285 Mo. 566; Trust Co. v. Curby, 255 Mo. 393, 164 S.W. 485; Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238, 81 S.W. 1162; RoBards v. Brown, 167 Mo. 447, 67 S.W. 245; Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489, 54 S.W. 233; Suydam v. Thayer, 94 Mo. 49, 6 S.W. 502. (4) The will of Eliza McMillan imposed active duties upon the trustee of the trust therein established, requiring exercise of discretion by the trustee, both with reference to investment and management and also with reference to distribution, and the requirement of the exercise of discretion in any of these particulars makes the trust an active trust. Krause v. Jeanette Inv. Co., 62 S.W.2d 890, 333 Mo. 509; Trautz v. Lemp, 46 S.W.2d 135, 329 Mo. 580; Simpson v. Erisner, 155 Mo. 157, 55 S.W. 1029; Pugh v. Hays, 113 Mo. 424, 21 S.W. 23; Webb v. Hayden, 166 Mo. 39, 65 S.W. 760; Newton v. Rebenack, 90 Mo.App. 650; Graham v. Moore, 189 S.W. 1186; Perry on Trusts (5 Ed.), sec. 305. (5) An active trust cannot be terminated by consent of all of the beneficiaries if it would thwart the wish and intention of the testatrix. Shaller v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., 3 S.W.2d 726, 319 Mo. 128; Evans v. Rankin, 44 S.W.2d 644, 329 Mo. 411; Easton v. De Muth, 179 Mo.App. 722, 162 S.W. 294; Dwyer v....