Miller v. Miller
Decision Date | 24 October 1944 |
Docket Number | 9603. |
Citation | 31 S.E.2d 844,127 W.Va. 140 |
Parties | MILLER v. MILLER et al. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1944.
Syllabus by the Court.
Samuel Biern, of Huntington, and Leo Loeb, of Charleston, for appellant.
Okey P Keadle, of Huntington, for appellees.
ROSE, PRESIDENt.
George Frederick Miller, a citizen of Huntington, of large means died testate August 30, 1910. His will, an elaborate and carefully prepared instrument, consisted of thirteen numbered sections. By the fourth section he created a trust, covering four parcels of real estate, for his three sons, James Irvin Miller, Charles Frederick Miller and George Donald Miller and the survivor of them, with special provisions therein however, for the forfeiture of a son's interest upon the happening of contingencies.
The terms of this trust which are pertinent to the issues herein involved are as follows:
The son, James Irvin Miller, died at a time not disclosed by the record, leaving children. George Donald Miller, in 1927, was adjudicated a bankrupt. Since that time the share in the trust income which he would have otherwise received has been paid by the trustees to his wife. Charles Frederick Miller died on the 23d day of August, 1943, unmarried and without issue, immediately after which the trustees gave notice to the interested parties that the share in the trust income theretofore going to him would thereafter be divided into two equal parts, one of which would be paid to the heirs of James Irvin Miller and the other to the wife of George Donald Miller. The latter made demand upon the trustees that the whole of the trust benefits to which Charles Frederick Miller was formerly entitled should be paid to himself, and, his claim not being recognized by the trustees, he instituted this suit in chancery for the purpose of having the court construe that part of the will giving rise to the conflicting claims. The heirs of James Irvin Miller and the plaintiff's wife and children, as well as the executors and trustees under the will, were made parties defendant.
The wife and children of the plaintiff filed separate answers, which are precisely the same in substance and are almost literally the same in words. They each deny all right or claim to any part of the former interest of Charles Frederick Miller in the trust estate and assert that the plaintiff is entitled to the whole thereof. The heirs of James Irvin Miller filed a joint and separate answer by which they assert their right to one-half of the Charles Frederick Miller interest in the trust, and the trustees, by answer, explain their action in the premises and state their justification therefor.
The cause was submitted on the bill and these answers, resulting in a decree denying the plaintiff's construction of the will and approving that of the trustees; and decreeing that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the benefits of the trust, and that the benefits formerly going to Charles Frederick Miller should be paid, one-half to the wife of the plaintiff and the other one-half to the heirs of James Irvin Miller. The plaintiff thereupon applied for and obtained this appeal. No other party complains of the decree.
Two principal questions are here presented and argued: (1) Whether the plaintiff, by reason of his bankruptcy, is barred from what he would otherwise have received of the former share of Charles Frederick Miller in the trust estate after the latter's death without issue and (2) whether the plaintiff, if not so barred, is entitled to the whole, or only a part, of the interest theretofore belonging to his brother. It is obvious that if the first question is determined adversely to the plaintiff, the second becomes immaterial, since no other party in interest is complaining of the decree of the circuit court. Stannard Supply Co. v. Delmar Coal Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial