Northwestern Trust Company, a Corp. v. Getz
| Decision Date | 19 September 1936 |
| Docket Number | 6397 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks County; P. G. Swenson Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the administration of the trust created by Charles Le Page, deceased, wherein the Northwestern Trust Company, trustee, filed a petition for supervision of the administration of the trust and for construction of the trust provisions of the will of Charles Le Page, deceased. From a judgment in favor of Hazel Irene Getz and Clarence N. Getz as guardian of Myrtle Celia Le Page, the trustee appeals.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. While a will may nominate the same person to be executor of the will and trustee of a trust created by the will, nevertheless the two offices are separate, distinct, and independent of each other.
2. Where a will creates a trust, the legal existence of the trust takes effect and validity from the proof of the will, and the right of the trustee to receive the trust fund is derived from the decree of the county court.
3. The county court is required to construe such will to determine in the first place whether a trust was created by the will, is required to ascertain the amount of property involved in the trust, and at the proper time to decree that this property be delivered to the trustee subject to and upon the trusts imposed under the conditions of the will.
4. When the amount of the trust fund is ascertained and the fund is turned over to the trustee, the trustee is required to administer the trust according to the terms set forth in the will and his acts are supervised by a court of equity.
5. Where, during the administration of an estate, the executor, under a will creating a trust, applies to the county court for a construction of the provisions of the will as to the duration of the trust and as to the actions of the trustee after he receives the trust funds, and thereafter the amount of the trust fund is ascertained and the fund delivered to the trustee, such construction of the will, as made by the county court on such application, is not binding upon the district court in the subsequent administration of the trust.
Bangs, Hamilton & Bangs, for appellant.
A county court although it may have increased jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction in equity cases. Mead v. First Nat. Bank, 24 N.D. 12, 138 N.W. 365; Johnson v. Rutherford, 28 N.D. 87, 147 N.W. 390.
In California, although the superior court is a court of general original jurisdiction, when it sits as a court of probate its jurisdiction is special and limited. Re Thurnell, 19 P.2d 14; Re Polito, 51 Cal.App. 754, 197 P. 976.
In the absence of special statutory authorization, courts of probate are without jurisdiction to entertain direct actions or proceedings brought for the purpose of construing wills. 69 C.J. 862.
There is no general and inherent power in probate courts to construe wills as a direct and independent branch of jurisdiction. 69 C.J. 860.
The probate court cannot try title to property. Goodin v. Castleman, 51 N.D. 543, 200 N.W. 94.
The function of the court in probate is to distribute the residue of the property of the deceased among those who are entitled thereto under the will or laws of succession. Church v. Quiner (Wyo.) 224 P. 1073.
It is the decree of distribution that determines the rights of legatees and distributees; hence such order or decree is conclusive as to the rights of heirs, legatees and devisees, subject only to be set aside or modified on appeal. 1 Woerner, American Law of Administration, 3d ed. 527; Thompson v. Lake Madison Chautauqua Asso. 41 S.D. 351, 170 N.W. 578.
The county court possesses no equitable jurisdiction except such as inheres in its common law, constitutional, and statutory powers. 41 N.D. 253, 170 N.W. 621; Joy v. Elton, 9 N.D. 428, 83 N.W. 875; Burch v. Gaston (Ala.) 62 So. 508.
The jurisdiction of the probate court ceases, when an executor, who is also trustee, has made his final settlement; a court of equity alone can enforce the testamentary trusts, but until distribution he holds as executor, and not as trustee, and equity has no jurisdiction. 1 Woerner, American Law of Administration, 3d ed. 518.
An orphans' court (probate court) has no jurisdiction to administer a continuing trust. Re Hagerstown Trust Co. (Md.) 86 A. 982.
Only final legal judgments can be res adjudicata. State ex rel. Ness v. Board of Comrs. 63 N.D. 85, 246 N.W. 243.
A judgment of a court without jurisdiction of the subject matter or parties is not res adjudicata. Muellenberg v. Joblinski (Minn.) 247 N.W. 570.
J. B. Wineman, for respondent.
Jurisdiction is the power to decide and it does not depend upon whether the decision is right or wrong. Hanson v. N. D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 63 N.D. 479; Reichert v. Turner, 62 N.D. 152, 242 N.W. 308.
The test of jurisdiction is whether the tribunal had the power to enter upon the inquiry. Re Nilson, 126 Neb. 541, 253 N.W. 675.
Where a court of probate has construed a will, all parties in interest being before the court, a court of equity will not take jurisdiction of a suit subsequently brought to determine the same questions. 69 C.J. 864.
It is the province of the probate court which settles the estate of a deceased person to construe the will and a trust created thereby, and it may exercise equity power for a complete administration of the estate, and its jurisdiction in this regard is exclusive. Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 61 P. 914, 79 Am. St. Rep. 100; Lowery v. Hawker, 22 N.D. 323, 133 N.W. 918; Re Rusch, 241 N.W. 790.
The county court construes every will when it issues a decree of distribution thereunder. Woolley v. Woolley, 52 S.D. 193, 217 N.W. 197; Re Sjurson, 29 S.D. 566, 137 N.W. 341; Thompson v. Lake Madison Chautauqua Asso. 41 S.D. 351, 170 N.W. 578.
The power to construe is necessarily involved in the power to assign the estate of the testator on the settlement of an executor's accounts. Glover v. Reid, 80 Mich. 228, 45 N.W. 91.
The county court administering an estate has full jurisdiction to construe a will, and exclusive jurisdiction to do so where it can afford a complete and efficient remedy. Re Monaghan, 199 Wis. 373, 226 N.W. 307; Cawker v. Dreutzer, 197 Wis. 98, 201 N.W. 401.
The court of probate has exclusive jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and persons under guardianship. State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 15 N.W. 245; Brades v. Carpenter, 68 Minn. 388, 71 N.W. 402; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215, 86 N.W. 1; Re Peavey (Minn.) 175 N.W. 105; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455, 104 N.W. 301, 5 Ann. Cas. 471; Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85, 144 N.W. 455.
A decree of distribution, if properly made after due notice, is in its nature final, and unless set aside for fraud, etc., or appealed from, within the time limited by law, it concludes the rights of all parties interested in the estate. 24 C.J. 528; Fischer v. Dolwig, 29 N.D. 561, 151 N.W. 431; Joy v. Elton, 9 N.D. 428, 83 N.W. 875; Blackman v. Mulhall, 19 S.D. 534, 104 N.W. 250; Sjoli v. Hogenson, 19 N.D. 82, 122 N.W. 1008; Knight v. Harrison, 43 N.D. 76, 174 N.W. 632.
The decree of final distribution is of equal rank with judgments entered in other courts of record. Dolphin v. Peterson, 63 N.D. 732, 249 N.W. 784.
The judgments of the probate court stand upon the same basis as the judgments of other courts and are conclusive. The propositions passed upon become res adjudicata. Calhoun v. Craknell, 202 Mich. 430, 168 N.W. 547; Re Doyle, 147 Mich. 544, 111 N.W. 165; Farlin v. Sanborn, 161 Mich. 615, 126 N.W. 634, 137 Am. St. Rep. 525.
Probate matters are not personal in their nature, but belong to a class of action in rem, or quasi in rem. Stevens v. Hope, 52 Mich. 66, 17 N.W. 698; Re Brown, 165 N.W. 929; Dickinson v. Reynolds, 48 Mich. 160, 12 N.W. 24.
The probate court in the course of administration of estates has power to construe a will, and the construction placed upon a will in the exercise of such jurisdiction is res adjudicata unless an appeal is taken. Riebow v. Ensch, 220 Mich. 450, 190 N.W. 233; Raseman v. Raseman, 234 Mich. 237, 208 N.W. 35.
A litigant who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court upon a matter of which it has the power to take cognizance cannot thereafter object thereto. Re Nilson, 126 Neb. 541, 253 N.W. 675.
By will Charles LePage created two trust funds to be administered by the Northwestern Trust Company as trustee, and named the trust company executor. The will does not specify the duration of the trusts in years, but authorizes the trustee to make annual payments of $ 500.00 to his daughter Myrtle from the first trust fund and to pay more "in any one year if in its judgment she shall be in need of such increased payment by reason of illness or misfortune." It makes provision for the disposition of the surplus in this trust fund in case of the death of the daughter Myrtle and provides that such surplus should be included in the second trust fund created for the benefit of his daughter Hazel Irene Getz.
The will provides that the trustee, in administering this second trust, shall make annual payments of $ 750.00 to Mrs. Getz, but "if illness or misfortune should overtake the said Hazel Irene Getz or her family, the Trustee may use its own judgment in paying to said Hazel Irene Getz more than Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 750.00) in any one year as it shall deem necessary and just." The will further provides that in the case of the death of Mrs. Getz "prior to the completion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial