Northern Trust Co. v. Wheaton
Decision Date | 19 April 1911 |
Parties | NORTHERN TRUST CO. v. WHEATON et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Julian W. Mack, Judge.
Action by the Northern Trust Company, as trustee and executor under the will of Albert E. Hoadley, deceased, against Albert Wheaton, Jr., and others, for the construction of the will and directions for executing the trust. From a decree ordering the trustee to continue to administer the trust until the death of the widow and to allow the income thereof to accumulate, defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Frank O. Campe, Hayden N. Bell, and Charles J. Kavanagh, for certain plaintiffs in error.
Henry G. Miller, guardian ad litem and solicitor for certain minors.
Martin C. Koebel, for administrator Devine.
William S. Miller and Frederick H. Bengel, for defendant in error Northern Trust Co.
Lackner, Butz & Miller, for defendant in error Dicker.
This is a bill in chancery brought by the Northern Trust Company, as trustee and executor under the will of Albert E. Hoadley, deceased, against the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate, for the construction of his will and directions for executing the trust. Upon a hearing in the court below a decree was entered ordering the trustee to continue to administer the trust until the death of the widow of the testator and allow the income thereof to accumulate and be added to the principal, and at the death of the widow, Allie G. Hoadley, the trust estate to be distributed to the surviving beneficiaries who might be living at the time of her death. This writ of error has been sued out by the beneficiaries and the heirs of deceased beneficiaries for the purpose of having the decree of the court below reviewed.
The facts, which are not in controversy, are as follows: Albert E. Hoadley died leaving a last will and testament, which was duly probated in Cook county on the 23d day of February, 1900, and the Northern Trust Company was, in accordance with the direction of the will, appointed executor and trustee of the estate. Section 2 of the will gives Allie G. Hoadley, the widow, certain articles of personal property. By section 3 she is given a life estate in a house known as No. 683 Washington boulevard. Section 4 bequeaths to Dr. Richard Fyfe certain medical books and instruments. None of these sections of the will are involved in this proceeding. The whole controversy grows out of section 5 of the testator's will, which is as follows:
The widow renounced the provisions of the will in her favor and elected to and did receive one-half of the real and personal estate of the testator absolutely as her own. The balance of the estate, excepting some unimportant bequests, was received and has been ever since held by the Northern Trust Company under the said will. Laura E. Thomas, a sister of the testator, was paid $25 per month by the trust company until the month of February, 1906, when she died. Nellie E. Dicker, named in the will as one of the residuary devisees, died before Laura E. Thomas, leaving no child or children surviving her. After the renunciation of the widow and the death of Laura E. Thomas, the adult beneficiaries under the will made a claim upon the trustee for their distributive shares upon the theory that the renunciation of the widow terminated her life estate and accelerated the remainder.
[1] The first question presented for out consideration is whether the remainder of the ten beneficiaries named in section 5 of the will is vested or contingent. This question is important to enable the trustee to know what disposition to make of the interest of Nellie E. Dicker, one of the ten beneficiaries, who died after the death of the testator but before the death of Laura E. Thomas. This question is one of construction, and must be determined from a consideration of all the clauses of the will in connection with each other, so as to arrive at the intention of the testator as the same is expresed by the words employed in the will.
[2]The first clause of section 5 devises all of the testator's estate to the trustee that may remain after the payment of debts, funeral expenses, and the gifts, devises, and bequests specifically provided for in the preceding sections of the will. The second clause of said section directs that the trustee shall hold, manage, lease, and care for all of said trust estate during the life of the testator's wife, Allie G. Hoadley, and the life of his sister, Laura E. Thomas, and the life of the survivor of them, and ‘at the end of said period the trust estate then in the hands of the trustee shall go, belong and be immediately divided in absolute ownership to the following named persons, share and share alike.’ The will then designates by name ten persons as beneficiaries under the will. The next clause provides that in the event of the death of any of the ten persons above named as beneficiaries before their interest vests in them, leaving a child or children surviving, such child or children of such deceased beneficiary shall receive the parents' share. The next clause provides that if, at the time the estate vests in the beneficiaries, any of them shall be minors, the trust shall be continued as to such minors' interest until they attain their majority, when they shall receive their respective shares, and, in case of the death of such minors before they attain their majority, the shares of such as may die during minority shall go to their legal heirs. The next clause of the will gives the trustees power and direction with reference to the management of the trust estate and makes provision for compensation, etc. The last clause of section 5 directs the trustee to pay the wife, Allie G. Hoadley, the sum of $1,000 annually, in quarterly installments of $250 each, so long as she may live, and directs the payment to the testator's sister, Laura E. Thomas, of the sum of $25 per month as long as she may live.
There is no controversy as to the character of the estate given to the wife and sister of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Korwin v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, General No. 43 C 1043.
...special context of the will of Otto Young have been stressed in the cases and are important here. See Northern Trust v. Wheaton, 249 Ill. 606, 613, 94 N.E. 980, 34 L.R.A., N.S. 1150; Gibbens v. Gibbens, 140 Mass. 102, 106, 3 N.E. 1, 54 Am.Rep. 453; American Security & Trust Co. v. Sullivan,......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Kern
... ... Rench, 184 Iowa 1372, 169 N.W. 667; American Natl ... Bank v. Chapin, 130 Va. 1, 107 S.E. 636, 17 A. L. R ... 304; Northern Trust Co. v. Wheaton, 249 Ill. 606, 94 ... N.E. 980; Ruh's Executors v. Ruh, 270 Ky. 792, ... 110 S.W.2d 1097; Baldwin's Co-Executors v ... ...
-
Stevenson v. Stevenson
...will justify almost any construction of a will which will defeat intestacy as to a part of the estate.’ Northern Trust Co. v. Wheaton, 249 Ill. 606, 94 N. E. 980,34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1150. These fundamental propositions are thoroughly established in the law, and no question of them is made i......
-
Hartwick v. Heberling
...vesting is clearly determined by the express words of the will or is necessarily implied therefrom. Northern Trust Co. v. Wheaton, 249 Ill. 606, 612, 94 N.E. 980,34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1150;Carter v. Carter, 234 Ill. 507, 85 N.E. 292;Knight v. Pottgieser, 176 Ill. 368, 52 N.E. 934. This case invol......