National Bank of Commerce v. Greenberg
Decision Date | 25 April 1953 |
Citation | 31 Beeler 217,195 Tenn. 217,258 S.W.2d 765,38 A.L.R.2d 1337 |
Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. GREENBERG et al. 31 Beeler 217, 195 Tenn. 217, 258 S.W.2d 765, 38 A.L.R.2d 1337 |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Sam Taubenblatt, Memphis, for bank.
Abe D. Waldauer, Ben C. Adams, Jr., and Arthur H. Friedman, Memphis, for Mrs. Edith Greenberg, Guardian.
Armstrong, McCadden, Allen, Braden & Goodman, Memphis, for Mrs. Bertha Pledofsky, et al.
This appeal presents a bill, in the nature of an interpleader, filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, by the National Bank of Commerce as trustee under the will of Robert Cohen, deceased, for a declaration of its duties under the will, which created a trust for an infant granddaughter, Eleanor, the child of a deceased son of the testator. The Defendants are Mrs. Edith Greenberg, the legal guardian and mother of Eleanor, who takes if the trust is upheld, and the other Defendants with adverse interest, are the three daughters of the deceased trustor, who take under the will if the trust fails as to the granddaughter. The Chancellor decreed that the conditions imposed had been breached and the right of the granddaughter to take the trust fund had been forfeited. This appeal has been perfected in her behalf by her guardian.
Item 4 of the will of Robert Cohen, which established the trust and states its conditions and details, is:
'In the event that the said Eleanor Cohen is adopted by any person other than a member of my immediate family, and her name is changed, before she is eighteen (18) years of age, then and in those events, this trust shall terminate and the trust fund will then be paid equally to my three children above mentioned, or their heirs.' (Our emphasis.)
It is stipulated that Eleanor was formally adopted by Herbert J. Greenberg, in the County Court of Cook County, Illinois; that Greenberg is the present husband of Eleanor's mother; that he is not a member of the immediate family of the trustor, Robert Cohen, and that in the decree of adoption, Eleanor's name was formally changed from Eleanor Cohen to Eleanor Cohen Greenberg.
In the brief filed by the guardian on this appeal, this further admission is made:
The assignments of error make two points which determine the case: (1) That the restraint on adoption, as quoted above from the will, is void as against public policy. (2) That since on account of her infancy, Eleanor could not consent to the adoption, which was, therefore, as to her, involuntary, that she should not be penalized for such involuntary breach of a condition of the trust.
No Tennessee cases have been found which are directly in point on either of these two propositions.
As to the first, we do not find any authority binding on us which justifies an inference that a limited restraint on adoption, such as that expressed in Robert Cohen's will, and disclosed by this record, is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee.
'The meaning of the phrase 'public policy' is vague and variable; courts have not defined it, and there is no fixed rule * * *.' Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co., 283 U.S. 353, 357, 51 S.Ct. 476, 477, 75 L.Ed. 1112, 1116.
Home Beneficial Ass'n v. White, 180 Tenn. 585, 588-589, 177 S.W.2d 545, 546.
The provision of a will, or the term of a contract, may be successfully attacked as offensive to public policy, only when such term or provision is detrimental to the public interest or the public welfare or the public good. It must be against 'societal interest,' in the phrase of the Restatement of Law, Property, IV, sec. 438.
So, in the present case, if the prohibition against adoption was so arbitrary and absolute that it gave rise to a probability that the result would be to make the child a public charge, it might be argued with reason, that the prohibition was contrary to public policy. We find no such ground for attack upon the limited restriction made a condition in the will before us here.
Since it is conceded that the trustor intended that Eleanor should not have the benefit of the trust if, as, and when those events should happen which have admittedly happened, and since...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Estate of Milam
...and enforcement of his directions." Daugherty v. Daugherty, 784 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tenn.1990) (citing Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Greenberg, 195 Tenn. 217, 258 S.W.2d 765 (1953); Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. Stevens, 755 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988)). "The cardinal rule in constructio......
-
In re Estate of Kowalski
...enforcement of his directions." Daugherty v. Daugherty , 784 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tenn. 1990) (citing Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Greenberg , 195 Tenn. 217, 258 S.W.2d 765 (1953) ; Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. Stevens , 755 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) ). "The cardinal rule in constr......
-
Chambers v. Devore, No. W2008-02548-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 10/15/2009)
...the Courts are limited to the ascertainment and enforcement of his directions." Id. at 463 (citing Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Greenberg, 31 Beeler 217, 195 Tenn. 217, 258 S.W.2d 765 (1953)). "The will is to be interpreted in the light of the law in existence at the time of the death of the t......
-
Perdue v. Estate of Jackson
...and enforcement of his directions." Daugherty v. Daugherty, 784 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tenn.1990) (citing Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Greenberg, 195 Tenn. 217, 258 S.W.2d 765 (1953); Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. Stevens, 755 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)). "The cardinal rule in construc......