Meddis v. Bull's Adm'r

• Decision Date: 07 January 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 6
• Parties: Meddis v. Bull's Adm'r.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

18 S.W. 6

Meddis v. Bull's Adm'r.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 7, 1892

Appeal from Louisville chancery court.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by John Bull's administrator and trustee under his will against the widow and heirs of Bull to have certain lands of the estate sold. C.J. Meddis purchased the same, and appeals from an order enforcing the purchase on the ground that the title was not good. Affirmed.

Pryor J.

By the will of John Bull certain trusts were created for the benefit of his wife, his children, and grandchildren, and the duty of executing these provisions of the will devolved upon the executor and trustee, Thomas L. Jefferson. Jefferson, the executor and trustee, resigned his trust, and the chancellor appointed one Cromie as his successor. Cromie resigned or was removed, and the Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Company was appointed his successor. The widow of John Bull, who is before the court in this action, was by an express provision of the will entitled to be paid by the trustee $1,000 per month, and to secure its payment a charge or lien is created by the will on all estate not specifically devised. The residuary estate is large, and embraces much valuable real estate that is unproductive, yielding no income, and burdened with taxation from year to year. The income from the estate charged with this annuity to the widow is insufficient to pay it, and at the time of the filing of the petition the deficit was nearly $7,000, and to which the widow is entitled. The question presented by the appellee and addressed to the chancellor is, shall the corpus of the estate be sold or expended from year to year to satisfy this annuity or shall the unproductive real estate be sold, and the proceeds invested in other property, from which a profit may be derived so as to aid in paying the annuity, and save the corpus of the estate to those entitled in remainder and from this arises a question as to the jurisdiction of the chancellor to grant the relief. If a sale of real estate by the guardian or by the life-tenant is sought on the ground that the disability of infancy is in the way of making the title, then there can be no doubt but the statute regulating the sales of infants' real estate must be pursued, as the chancellor has no inherent power to sell merely because a party is laboring under such a disability as precludes him from making a contract or passing the title. The...