Longwith v. Riggs

• Decision Date: 08 November 1887
• Citation: 123 Ill. 258,14 N.E. 840
• Parties: LONGWITH v. RIGGS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

123 Ill. 258

14 N.E. 840

LONGWITH

v.RIGGS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November 8, 1887.

Error to appellate court, Third district.

W. W. Berry, for plaintiff in error.

Riggs & Devine, for defendant in error.

By the will of Thomas Longwith his estate was devised to executors to be sold; one-third of the estate to be loaned out, and the interest paid to the widow; special legacies to grand-children named; and the residue was bequeathed to ‘my four children, Francis, Hulda, Julia, and Lavinia, share and share alike. The bequest to Lavinia, aforesaid, however, is made in trust, she to take only the interest during her natural life, and’ requests the circuit court to appoint a trustee ‘to take charge of and manage the bequest made’to Lavinia; ‘to loan out the fund,’ and ‘apply the annual income therefrom to the said Lavinia's support;’ trustee to give bond, etc. That on the widow's death, the one-third of the estate, till then on interest for her benefit, was bequeathed ‘equally, share and share alike, between and among my said four children, Francis, Hulda, Julia, and Lavinia, or, if said Lavinia has departed this life, then among the other three, to-wit, Francis, Hulda, and Julia; that at the death of Lavinia ‘the estate herein bequeathed to her shall be divided equally, share and share alike, among my three children, Francis, Hulda, and Julia.’ The widow renounced the provision made for her in the will, and elected to take under the statute. Shortly after the death of the testator, his three children, Francis, Hulda, and Julia, exhibited their bill in the circuit court against Julia Longwith, widow, and Lavinia Longwith, and therewith a copy of the will. The bill alleged the renunciation of the widow, and that Lavinia was a feeble-minded person, and prayed assignment of dower to the widow, and the appointment of a trustee to take charge of the portion provided for said Lavinia in said will. Such proceedings were had under this bill as that dower was assigned to the widow, and Milton W. Riggs was appointed ‘trustee of all the shares of said estate which have or may come to said Lavinia under the provisions of said will,’ under a bond of $4,000; and with a direction to the trustee to report to the court, from time to time, his actings as such trustee.

Lavinia's share of the estate coming to the hands of the trustee was $2,607.43; and during her life-time, and covering a period of nearly seven years, the trustee expended in the support of Lavinia, and for taxes and commissions, not only all the interest arising from the fund, but $392.93 of the principal. The final report of the trustee, presented to the court after the death of Lavinia, showed in his hands $2,214.50 undisposed of. But the report also showed that in the last sickness of Lavinia an indebtedness of $103.50 had been incurred for medical attendance and medicines, and that Julia Longwith, a sister of Lavinia, claimed a balance due her on account of Lavinia, the amount of which was not stated, and that one year's taxes had not been paid; and the trustee asked that the several claimants come into court and prove up their claims, etc. Evidence was heard in respect of these claims. The bill alleged, and the evidence abundantly showed, that Lavinia was a feeble-minded person. Some four years prior to her death, the sister Julia moved to Missouri, and, with the consent of the trustee, took Lavinia with her, and from thence kept and took care of her until Lavinia's death. Her personal habits were such as are usually observed in idiotic and feeble-minded persons, and she was afflicted with a discharge from her ear, offensive to those in her presence and rendering necessary a daily change in her bedding. Plaintiff in error, although living in the vicinity, and the sister Hulda, neither gave to the care of their unfortunate sister personal attention, nor material assistance; and the whole burden of her care and maintenance, save such as the trustee could afford, fell upon the sister Julia; and for this she claimed $250 a year, for four years and nine months, and also for the money expended by her for medical attendance and funeral expenses.

In the final decree the court approved the trustee's report, with the consent of all the parties in interest, and found that Lavinia Longwith was the beneficiary of the trust fund to the extent of the income thereof; that by the will such fund, on the death of Lavinia, should be equally divided between Francis, Hulda, and Julia (and who were the only persons interested therein) after the payment of such proper unpaid expenses as ought to be charged against it. The decree then allowed physician's bill of $65.50; allowed Julia Longwith, for doctor's bill and funeral expenses paid by her, $98.65; and for the boarding, care, and nursing of Lavinia, at the rate of $250 a year, $1,187.50, less $400.98 paid her by the trustee, equaling $786.50,-making the total allowance to Julia $885.15. And after finding that Lavinia left no estate out of which the claims could be paid; that she was feeble-minded, unable to support or care for herself; and that the mother was not a proper person to have her care, and was without means to support her and pay her funeral expenses,-decreed the payment of the claims allowed out of the trust fund, and the distribution of what remained equally between Francis, Hulda, and Julia. Francis Longwith appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the decree of the circuit court, and the record is brought here by writ of error. The error assigned, which was considered by the court, questioned so much of the decree as ordered the trustee to pay Julia Longwith for the care and board of the cestui que trust from the principal of the funds in his hands.

SHOPE, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Defendants in error, in argument, question the jurisdiction of this court, and contend that the amount in controversy here is less than $1,000; that although the fund in the hands of the trustee was $2,214.50, plaintiff in error only questions the application, at most, of $951.67 of such fund. The decree of the circuit court disposed of the whole of the fund in the trustee's hands, and the appeal to the appellate court brought before that court for review such decree; and when the appellatecourt affirmed the decree, and the judgment of affirmance is brought here by writ of error, the amount involved here in the controversy is the amount in the trustee's hands subject to disposition under the decree. The amount disposed of by the decree exceeding $1,000, the jurisdiction of this court is ample.

The question here presented involves (1) the jurisdiction of a court of chancery, in case of trust, to construe the will creating the trust; and (2) the power of such court, in case of express trust, to break in upon the principal of the fund for the maintenance of the cestui que trust.

And, first, the equitable jurisdiction to construe wills is an incident of the general jurisdiction over trusts. 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1156. It is by reason of the jurisdiction of courts of chancery over trusts, that courts having equitable powers, as an incident to that...