R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Noyes

• Decision Date: 10 July 1904
• Citation: 58 A. 999,26 R.I. 323
• Parties: RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO. v. NOYES et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

58 A. 999

26 R.I. 323

RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO.

v. NOYES et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 10, 1904.

Bill by the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, trustee under the will of Samuel M. Noyes, deceased, against John W. Noyes and others, to determine conflicting claims as to a trust fund created by the will. Heard on bill and answers. Decree rendered.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and BLODGETT, JJ.

Tillinghast & Carr, for complainant.

Edwards & Angell and Frederic A. Greene, for respondent S. T. Douglas, executor.

Clarance A. Aldrich, for respondents Gertrude B. Bolles and Henry J. Spooner.

Edward O. Stiness and Arthur M. Allen, for respondents Isaac P. Noyes, Sarah B. Daniels, John W. Noyes, and Mary J. Noyes.

BLODGETT, J. This is a bill in equity by the trustee under the will of the late Samuel M. Noyes, alleging that conflicting claims have been made by various parties interested under the will in regard to the income and accumulations of income of a certain trust fund bequeathed by the will. The. answers admit the allegations of the bill. The case is before the court for hearing on bill and answers, and the only questions in dispute are questions of law.

The bill alleges that the testator died on June 10, 1888; that his sister, Mary Noyes, died in his lifetime; that the testator's grandson Samuel Noyes Douglas survived him, and lived to attain the age of 21 years, but died on October 23, 1902, before attaining the age of 25 years, and without issue, never having been married; and that the respondent Samuel T. Douglas is the executor of the will of Samuel Noyes Douglas. The clause of the will of Samuel M. Noyes which gives rise to the conflicting claims between the parties reads as follows:

"I also give and bequeath to the said Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, Two hundred shares of the Capital stock of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and also all my 'leased line' Certificates of the same Company, and Fifty-eight shares of the Capital stock of the Central Park and North and East River Rail Road Company of New York City and two hundred shares of the preferred stock of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company and One hundred shares of the Capital stock of the Chicago and Alton Rail Road Company and Fifty shares of the Capital stock of the American Screw Company of said Providence, and Three hundred shares of the Capital stock of the Providence Gas Company, and the sum of Fourteen thousand dollars to be paid within three months after my death, in trust, to take, hold and retain said shares of stock and Certificates and to invest the other portion of said fund in safe and productive securities with power to change or vary from time to time the investments or reinvestments of the same and of said shares of stock and certificates according to the best judgment of the Finance Committee for the time being of said Trust Company and to receive and collect all the income of all this trust fund and from the net income thereof to pay to my sister, Mary Noyes, the sum of One thousand dollars yearly, and in equal quarterly payments, during her life, the first payment to be made at the end of three months after my decease and the residue of said net income, or so much thereof as the Finance Committee for the time being of said Trust Company shall deem advisable, to pay to or apply to the use or benefit and education of my said Grandson until he attains the age of twenty-one years; it being my desire, (but without making this in any way a condition of this trust for his benefit or education) that upon his attaining a proper age, say twelve years or thereabouts, my said Grandson shall be sent to said St. Paul's School at Concord, New Hampshire: and in which case I direct that said school bills, while he remains there shall be paid from said income. And after my said Grandson attains the age of twenty-one years and until he attains the age of twenty-five years for all the residue of said net income to be from time to time, in quarterly yearly payments, paid to him for his own use. And upon his attaining the age of twenty-five years, my said Trustee shall pay over to him my said Grandson, the whole of this fund and all accumulations thereof, that may then be remaining in the hands of my said Trustee for his own absolute use. But if my said Grandson shall decease before attaining the age of twenty-five years, then in that event immediately upon his decease, my said Trustee shall pay over and distribute the said fund to his issue, if any then living, and if more than one in equal shares and in default of such issue then as a part of and in such manner as is hereinafter provided respecting my residuary estate. Provided that if my said sister Mary shall then be still living my said Trustee shall retain so much of this trust fund as may reasonably be necessary from the net income thereof, to pay to her the quarterly payments aforesaid during her life and upon her decease shall pay over the principal of this fund so retained with all accumulations thereof in the same manner as is hereinbefore provided respecting the residue of this fund, as the contingencies therein before provided for, may exist at the time of the decease of my said sister.

"If after all the preceding bequests are provided for and paid there shall remain sufficient of my estate I give and bequeath to the Providence Public Library the sum of Five thousand dollars.

"All the rest, residue and remainder of all my estate real and personal, including all real estate I may hereafter acquire I give, devise and bequeath as follows:

"Two-elevenths parts thereof to my half Brother McWalter B. Noyes.

"Two-elevenths parts thereof to my said Nephew Henry J. Spooner.

"One-eleventh part thereof to my Nephew Frederick Spooner.

"One-eleventh part thereof to my Nephew Frank Spooner.

"One-eleventh part thereof to my Grand Niece, Gertrude, daughter of my late nephew, Lucius S. Bowles.

"And one-eleventh part thereof to each of the four children of my late Brother, John U. Noyes.

"Provided that if either of said residuary devisees and legatees shall have theretofore deceased, leaving issue then living, such issue shall take their parent's share, per stirpes and not per capita to their own use forever.

"And if either shall have theretofore deceased leaving no issue then living, then the share of such deceased shall he divided equally between the others of them then living or their issue as the case may be, per stirpes and not per capita to their own use forever."

The parties respondent to this suit, other than the respondent Samuel T. Douglas, as executor of the will of Samuel Noyes Douglas, are the residuary legatees under the will of the testator, Samuel M. Noyes, or the personal representatives of such residuary legatees.

The questions involved are, in a word, first, to whom the accumulations of income, amounting to about a hundred thousand dollars, in the hands of the trustee at the time Samuel Noyes Douglas attained 21, belong; and, second, whether the dividends declared and interest falling due next after the death of Samuel Noyes Douglas should be apportioned; and, third, the interest to which Henry J. Spooner is entitled as administrator of Frederick Spooner, a nephew of the testator, and one of the residuary legatees, and who survived the testator, but died without issue on May 20, 1893, and before Samuel Noyes Douglas attained the age of 21 years.

The answer to the first question obviously depends upon the nature of the interest created by the will as to Samuel Noyes Douglas. If this is a vested interest, it is conceded that the question must be resolved in favor of his executor; and, if this is a contingent interest, the surviving residuary legatees claim that the interest of Frederick Spooner did not vest until after the death of Samuel Noyes Douglas, and that, Frederick Spooner having predeceased without issue, they alone are entitled to all the fund and accumulations; while the administrator of Frederick Spooner claims that his intestate was entitled to his proportionate share thereof, under the clause above cited, "as a part of and in such manner as is hereinafter provided respecting my residuary estate." The respective contentions, in brief, are, on the one hand, that the bequest to Samuel Noyes Douglas was conditional and contingent upon his attaining the age of 25 years, and that, he having deceased before reaching that age, the estate never vested; and the opposing contention is that the bequest vested immediately upon the death of the testator, and that the present enjoyment of it was postponed until the age of 25 years. Now, it is obvious that the answer to the question whether Samuel Noyes Douglas took a vested interest under the will in question must depend upon the definition of such an estate; and, in the event that the language is ambiguous, or its construction is doubtful, it is important to know whether there be any well-settled rule in favor of or against the creation of such interests.

In Staples and Pearce, Trustees, v. D'Wolf et als., 8 R. I. 118, the court declare the test whether an estate be vested or contingent to be as follows: "The question is always, is futurity annexed to the substance of the gift? If so, the vesting is postponed. Or is it annexed to the time of payment only? If so, the legacy vests immediately. And if the gift be expressly to A., and expressed to be payable or to be paid at a certain time, time is held to relate to the payment only, and not to the gift itself, and it confers a vested interest on the testator's death." Adding, also, "The law favors the vesting of estates." In the recent case of Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Wood (1902) 201 Pa. 427, 50 Atl. 920, the rule is thus stated: "The question of vested or contingent is not to be tested by the certainty or uncertainty of obtaining the actual enjoyment; for that would make the character of the estate...