Lawrence v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 13 October 1899
• Citation: 54 N.E. 918,181 Ill. 248
• Parties: LAWRENCE et al. v. LAWRENCE et ux.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

181 Ill. 248

54 N.E. 918

LAWRENCE et al.

v.LAWRENCE et ux.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 13, 1899.

Error to circuit court, Logan county; C. Epler, Judge.

Bill by John T. and Frances Lawrence against Jay Lawrence and others to cancel a trust deed and expunge it from record. There was a decree in favor of complainants, and defendants bring error. Reversed.Brown, Wheeler, Brown & Hay, for plaintiffs in error.

J. T. Hoblit and Blinn & Harris, for defendants in error.

On the 12th day of August, 1868, the defendants, in error, who are husband and wife, as parties of the first part and grantors, and one Eliza A. Lawrence, as party of the second part and grantee, executed a certain trust deed and acknowledged the same in compliance with the statute then in force with reference to the valid execution of instruments for the conveyance of real estate. By said deed said defendants in error conveyed certain lands in Logan county to the said Eliza A. Lawrence, as trustee, to ‘hold the legal estate or title in the said premises to the sole and separate use and benefit of Frances Lawrence, wife of the said John T. Lawrence, for and during the natural life of the said Frances Lawrence, with full and absolute right to the said Frances Lawrence, during her lifetime, to enjoy the use, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and upon her decease to hold the same to the sole and separate use and benefit of the said John T. Lawrence for and during his natural life, with full power to the said John T. Lawrence, during his lifetime, to enjoy the rents, issues, and profits thereof, provided he shall survive his said wife, but, if he shall not survive his said wife, then in trust upon the decease of the said Frances Lawrence to reconvey said premises, by a good and sufficient conveyance, to the legal heirs of him, the said John T. Lawrence.’ The deed also contained the following provision: ‘And it is further provided that in case of the decease of the said party of the second part, or her legal incapacity, before the full execution, discharge, and performance of, all and singular, the trusts in and by this deed created and declared, then the trust herein created shall be executed, discharged, or performed by the court of chancery having jurisdiction within and for the county of Logan; and upon the happening of either of the contingencies last aforesaid the estate granted and conveyed in and by this deed shall vest in such court, subject to, all and singular, the trusts and confidences in this deed created and declared, and said court shall exercise the same powers, and perform, all and singular, the trusts that may remain unexecuted, and perform with the same legal effect as the said party of the second part might or could were he capable of performing the same in such manner as said court may order and decree.’ On the 15th day of August, 1896, the defendants in error exhibited their bill in chancery in the circuit court of Logan county, praying for a decree declaring the said deed to be null and void, and canceling the same and expunging it from the record. The bill alleged the said Eliza A. Lawrence had departed this life; that the complainants were in the possession of the said premises when the said deed was executed, and have ever since remained in possession thereof; that the defendants to the bill (plaintiffs in error) are the children of the said defendants in error. The further allegations of the bill are as follows: ‘Orators further represent that said trust deed is void because-First, the same was made without consideration for the execution thereof; second, because the said deed contained no provision by which the same might be canceled at the election of the grantors; third, that at the time said deed was executed they did not know that said deed did not contain a provision whereby the said deed might be canceled; fourth, that neither of orators comprehended the legal effect of said deed at the time of the execution thereof.’ The adult defendants suffered default. The minors answered by their guardian ad litem, submitting their rights to the consideration of the court, and demanding strict proof of the bill. The cause was heard on the bill, answers, proof taken before the master, and proofs heard in open court, and decree entered granting the relief prayed in the bill. The defendants to the bill have prosecuted this writ of error to reverse the decree.

BOGGS, J. (after stating the facts).

The estate of a trustee in the real estate which is the subject-matter of the trust is commensurate with the powers conferred by the trust, and the purposes to be effected by it. The trustee acquires whatever estate (even to a fee simple) is needed to enable him to accomplish the purposes of the trust. Society v. England, 106 Ill. 125;West v. Fitz, 109 Ill. 425; 27 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law. 110-113, 117. When the trustee is directed and empowered to convey the land to the objects of the settlor's bounty, the legal estate necessarily vests in the trustee. If a trustee is required to grant a fee, the fee must be conferred upon him. Kirkland v. Cox, 94 Ill. 400; Society v. England, supra. Where, as here, the trustee is required to convey the title to the beneficiaries on the happening of a certain event, the trust is not a passive or dry trust, and the statute of uses does not operate to vest the title in the usee. Kirkland v. Cox, supra; Society v. England, supra. The legal title to the premises here involved rested in the trustee. Upon her death the title did not remain in abeyance. Courts of equity may be vested with the power to appoint a successor to a trustee in whom title to lands may rest, but such title cannot descend to and vest in the courts of equity....