Niblack v. Knox
| Decision Date | 07 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20980,20984,20981,20986,20983,20982,20974 |
| Citation | 101 Kan. 440,167 P. 741 |
| Parties | NIBLACK v. KNOX. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1917.
The will of a testator in substance gave to trustees certain lands in Allen county which at the death of his last surviving child were to be equally divided between his then surviving descendants per stirpes, and not per capita. Two of the children who were trustees under the will sued the other two, reciting the failure of the widow to take under the will and alleging that complications had arisen and the estate could not be safely administered except under the direction of a court of equity, certain clauses of the will being indefinite, uncertain, and contradictory, and praying proper relief. The result was a decree that such land could not be further managed under the trust without manifest prejudice and that, pursuant to certain contracts entered into between the two sons who were the defendants, it was partitioned between them in fee simple. The sisters resigned as trustees, and the two brothers who had been awarded the Allen county land were appointed their successors. Thereafter plaintiffs, judgment creditors of one of these sons, sought by this action to subject his part of this land to the payment of their judgments. He filed an interplea, setting up his trusteeship under the will, but without avail. Held that, as in none of the proceedings referred to, including the present action, were the grandchildren of the testator, the real beneficiaries under the will in respect to the Allen county lands, made parties, the defendant, as trustee, should have been permitted to show the actual facts concerning the title.
While as between the plaintiffs and the defendant personally the latter might be deemed the owner of the land sought to be applied to the debts of the former, his duties as trustee under the will preclude him from acquiring any interest adverse to his trust or placing himself in any position where his self-interest conflicts with his duties as trustee.
The plaintiffs have no right to look to any interest in the land belonging to the grandchildren or real beneficiaries under the will, but they should, if necessary, be made parties in order that their rights may be protected.
Appeal from District Court, Allen County.
Actions by William C. Niblack, as receiver, against Samuel F. Knox, in which Samuel F. Knox, as trustee, etc., interpleaded, consolidated with similar actions by the Second National Bank of Beloit, Wis., Joseph H. Barnett, the Girard National Bank of Philadelphia, Pa., the Bermingham & Seaman Company, the Peterson Linotype Company, and the Central Trust Company of Illinois. From judgments for plaintiffs, the trustee appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Altes H. Campbell, of Iola, for appellant.
Apt & Apt, of Iola, for appellees.
In this and six other cases consolidated therewith certain judgment creditors of Samuel F. Knox seek to subject certain lands in Allen county to the payment of their judgments. The defendant filed an interplea setting up that his title was merely that of trustee under the will of his father, and from adverse decisions in these cases he appeals.
The father, Samuel M. Knox, died at his residence in Allen county May 14, 1907, holding large properties in that and other places. He left a will containing 10 clauses or provisions covering in all nearly 18 closely printed pages. The will gave all the estate other than certain minor items of personal property to the widow and two daughters in trust to be disposed of as directed. In the fourth clause he directed that no part of the real estate in Allen county be bargained, sold, mortgaged, or conveyed so long as either of his children, Mary K. Stephens, Anson H. Knox, Samuel F. Knox, and Ada L. Knox should live, "unless it shall become imperatively necessary so to do for the purpose of paying my debts after all my other estate, except the portion thereof bequeathed by the first clause hereof, has been fully applied in payment of such debts." The trustees were directed to rent all of his Allen county estate, keep the buildings insured, and make necessary improvements, and it was further provided in the fourth clause that the trustees should as nearly as practicable keep the income from the Allen county real estate and the disbursements therefrom and their accounts relative thereto sepparate and distinct from the remainder of the estate. Among the provisions of the eighth clause were the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinsmoor v. Hill
... ... interests of the beneficiaries. Frazier v. Jeakins, ... 64 Kan. 615, 68 P. 24, 57 L.R.A. 575; Niblack v ... Knox, 101 Kan. 440, 167 P. 741; Judy & Gilbert v ... Atchison, T. & S. F. Railway Co., 111 Kan. 46, 205 P ... 1116; Lindholm v ... ...
-
Rathbun v. Hill
...Thus the requisites of a trust under Shumway v. Shumway, 141 Kan. 835, 44 P.2d 247, were more than satisfied. See, also, Niblack v. Knox, 101 Kan. 440, 445, 167 P. 741. The second question is, Did M. M. become the owner in fee simple of section 31 by purchase at the foreclosure sale upon de......
-
Alumbaugh v. Hedges
... ... 454] Kan. 828, 833, 48 P. 142; ... Page v. Harper, 73 Kan. 229, 84 P. 1024; Leeman ... v. Page, 79 Kan. 479, 100 P. 504; Niblack v ... Knox, 101 Kan. 440, 167 P. 741; Clingman v ... Hill, 104 Kan. 145, 178 P. 243; id. 113 Kan. 632, 215 P ... 1013; Hicks v. Sage, 104 Kan ... ...
-
Hayes v. The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company and Mary C. Foster
...case on the same general subject he may be litigating in behalf of others. ( Henry v. Railway Co., 98 Kan. 567, 158 P. 857; Niblack v. Knox, 101 Kan. 440, 167 P. 741.) Sometimes the quality of the litigant is the same, while personality of the litigant is different; in such case the controv......