Prince v. Nugent
| Decision Date | 29 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2889,2889 |
| Citation | 172 A.2d 743,93 R.I. 149 |
| Parties | William Wood PRINCE et al., Trustees v. J. Joseph NUGENT, Attorney General, et al. Equity |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Swan, Keeney & Jenckes, Providence, Winston, Strawn, Smith & Patterson, Chicago, Ill., Dana M. Swan, Providence, Arthur D. Welton, Jr., Thomas S. Tyler, Chicago, Ill., for complainants.
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Albert J. Hoban, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Nugent.
Charles H. Drummey, Providence, for respondent William Wood Prince, individually.
Graham, Reid, Ewing & Stapleton, Providence, Migdal & Low, New York City, for respondents Helen Elizabeth Anna Prince and Alfred B. Stapleton, guardian ad litem for minor respondents Elizabeth J. M. Prince and Frederick H. Prince 4th.
Claude R. Branch, Providence, Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley, New York City, for respondents Frederick H. Prince, Jr. and Virginia M. Prince.
Claude R. Branch, Providence, James J. Higginson, New York City, for respondents Frederick H. Prince 3d and Josefa Fay Danek Prince.
Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Providence, Claude R. Branch, Providence, Harrison Tweed, New York City, Colin MacRae Makepeace, Harold E. Staples, Providence, Lester C. Migdal, New York City, Alfred B. Stapleton, Providence, James J. Higginson, Paul C. Lambert, New York City, Robert A. Mercer, Providence, William G. Dakin, New York City, of counsel, for Colin MacRae Makepeace, guardian ad litem for minor respondents William Wood Prince, Jr., Edward Alexander Wood Prince and certain other respondents.
Charles H. Drummey, Providence, for respondent Bernard Henry-Wood.
Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Stuart H. Tucker, Providence, for respondent Alain Wood Prince.
Joseph A. Bevilacqua, Providence, guardian ad litem for future issue of Alain Wood Prince.
Edwards & Angell, Edward F. Hindle, Providence, for Walter A. Edwards, guardian ad litem for respondent Barbara Eleanore Wood Prince.
This is a bill in equity for instruction concerning certain provisions contained in a deed of trust that provide for the disposition of a portion of the net income arising from the trust estate. Frederick H. Prince, hereinafter referred to as the settlor, created the trust by his execution of a deed of trust in Providence on June 3, 1932. The complainants are the present trustees, while included as respondents are all of those now living who were designated beneficiaries in the deed of trust, the wives and children of certain of the designated beneficiaries therein, and the attorney general of this state. Guardians ad litem were appointed to represent the interests of infant respondents as well as the interests of persons not in being, not ascertainable or in the military service, and in each instance an appropriate answer has been filed. When the cause was ready for hearing for final decree, it was certified to this court under G.L.1956, § 9-24-28, for our determination of the questions stated therein.
The deed of trust provided that the trust therein created was to continue for twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of ten designated persons including the settlor, all of whom were then living. The original trustees were the settlor and his wife Abbie Norman Prince. In section 4 of article III of the deed of trust it is provided specifically that the settlor or his wife, if living at the time a trusteeship becomes vacant, shall have the power to appoint some person to fill that vacancy. In 1935 the settlor resigned as a trustee, and to the vacancy he appointed Edith Norman Hunter, who resigned therefrom in 1943. The settlor then appointed William Wood Prince, one of the complainants here, to fill that vacancy. The settlor's wife died in February 1949, and the settlor thereupon appointed James F. Donovan, also one of the complainants here, to fill the trusteeship thus left vacant by the death of his wife. The settlor lived until 1953.
In sec. 1 of art. II of the deed of trust the trustees are given directions to make disbursements from the 'net income arising from the trust estate' among a group of specifically designated beneficiaries. It is not disputed that the settlor included therein all of the then living members of the Prince and Wood families. In several of these provisions there are limitations over on the death of the beneficiary to the children and the descendants of the deceased children of the beneficiary named therein. Among the beneficiaries so included in sec. 1 of art. II are Frederick Henry Prince, 3d, the grandson of the settlor, and William Wood Prince, a son of Bernard Henry-Wood, Jr., a cousin of the settlor.
Frederick Henry Prince, 3d, hereinafter referred to as Prince, 3d, is designated as a beneficiary entitled to participate in the distribution of a portion of the net income of the estate under paragraph (c) of sec. 1 of art. II of the deed of trust. Provision is made therein for payments to Prince, 3d, during his lifetime, and upon his death the trustees are directed to pay the amount of $25,000 'per year per stirpes to his children and the descendants of his deceased children living from time to time as such payments of net income become due * * *.' Prince, 3d, is presently the father of two children, who are thus great-grandchildren of the settlor. These are his son Frederick Henry Prince, 4th, who was born in 1947, and daughter Elizabeth J. M. Prince, who was born in 1946 and who will hereinafter be referred to as Elizabeth. It is not disputed that Elizabeth, as a female child of Prince, 3d, is entitled to participate in the distribution of the net income of the estate pursuant to the provisions of par. (j), subdivision I, of said sec. 1 of art. II.
In the deed of trust par. (j) of sec. 1 of art. II provides for the distribution of a portion of the net income of the trust estate that reflects the net annual operational profits of F. H. Prince & Co. Inc. to the children and more remote issue of Prince, 3d, and of William Henry-Wood, now William Wood Prince. Provision for the female children and the more remote female issue of these designated beneficiaries is made in said par. (j), subdiv. I, which in pertinent part reads as follows: 'The trustees shall divide one-third thereof (up to but not exceeding Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.) in any one year) into three equal shares, and shall pay over one each of said shares, per stirpes, to and among the female children and more remote female issue living at the time of such payment, of each of Frederick Henry Prince, 3d, Bernard Henry-Wood, 3d, and William Henry-Wood; PROVIDED, that any of said shares of net income which shall fail to be disposed of under this sub-division I shall be added to the other or others of said shares and follow the destination thereof.' It is clear from the record that there was no one eligible to take any of this income prior to the birth of Elizabeth in 1946.
William Wood Prince, hereinafter referred to as Wood Prince, is a natural son of the settlor's cousin, Bernard Henry-Wood, Jr., and is the William Henry-Wood who was designated in par. (h) of sec. 1 of art. II of the deed of trust as a beneficiary entitled to share in the distribution of the net income. In that paragraph the trustees were empowered to make payments from the net income of the trust estate to Wood Prince during his lifetime, which payments were conditioned upon his compliance with certain provisions therein set out. It is not disputed that there has been compliance with these conditions on the part of Wood Prince. The trustees are further directed in that paragraph that upon the death of Wood Prince they shall thereafter 'pay the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.) per year per stirpes to his children and the descendants of his deceased children living from time to time when such payments of income become due * * *.'
In November 1940 Wood Prince married Eleanore deRicou, a widow, and subsequently obtained from the wife of the settlor an approval in writing of this marriage. In January 1941 Wood Prince adopted Alain deRicou, his wife's son by her prior marriage. In 1944 Wood Prince himself was adopted by the settlor and his wife and in 1946 legally changed his name from William Henry-Wood to William Wood Prince. In addition to his adopted son, whose name was subsequently in 1957 changed to Alain deRicou Wood Prince, he has two natural sons, William Wood Prince, Jr., and Edward Alexander Wood Prince. Alain, the adopted son of Wood Prince, has married and is the father of an infant daughter, Barbara Eleanore Wood Prince, born in 1958, who will hereinafter be referred to as Barbara. The instruction sought in the instant bill of complaint relates in part to the right of Barbara to participate with Elizabeth in the distribution of the net income of the trust estate as is provided for in par. (j), subdiv. I.
The settlor clearly intended that the irrevocable inter vivos trust created by him would be of long duration in time and accomplish two objectives. One of these objectives was the perpetuation of the control and management of the corporate complex bearing his name in the Prince and Wood families and the other, the support and maintenance of these families through a distribution to them of the net income of the trust estate. It is with the effectuation of this second objective that we are now concerned. Barbara, by reason of her birth as a natural daughter of Alain, the adopted son of Wood Prince, has confronted the trustees with the necessity for deciding whether Alain comes within the limitation in (h) to the 'children' of Wood Prince so as to bring his daughter within the limitation in (j) I to the 'more remote female issue' of Wood Prince.
The only necessity for immediate action confronting the trustees arises from the question of Barbara's entitlement to participate with Elizabeth in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. BNY Mellon, N.A.
...(1973) (no due process violation because biological beneficiaries held contingent, rather than vested, interests); Prince v. Nugent, 93 R.I. 149, 164–165, 172 A.2d 743 (1961) (no constitutional violation because biological beneficiary's rights were not vested and presumption is evidentiary ......
-
Billings v. Fowler
...person.' The contention states the principle adopted by a three to two majority of the Rhode Island court in Prince v. Nugent, 93 R.I. 149, 160, 162--163, 172 A.2d 743, 751, as an interpretation of a somewhat comparable statute with a proviso which reads '(unless) the particular estate so l......
-
Peele v. Finch
...Cal.2d 514, 319 P.2d 637; Thomas v. Higginbotham (Mo.), 318 S.W.2d 234; Commerce Trust Co. v. Weed (Mo.), 318 S.W.2d 289; Prince v. Nugent, 93 R.I. 149, 172 A.2d 743; Merson v. Wood, 202 Va. 485, 117 S.E.2d 661; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Adoption, §§ 92, 94. Nothing else appearing, terms used in a will ......
-
Purifoy v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Co., Civ. A. No. 72-1040-N.
...378 Ill. 536, 39 N.E.2d 9 (1941) (presumption in favor of early vesting)) or in legislative enactments (see, e. g., Prince v. Nugent, 93 R.I. 149, 172 A.2d 743 (1961) (statute includes adopted children); In re Iburg's Estate, 196 Cal. 333, 238 P. 74 (1925) (statute covering the revocation o......