Read v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 30 November 1890
• Parties: READ et al. v. PATTERSON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

22 A. 1076

47 N.J.E. 595

READ et al.

v. PATTERSON et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey

Nov. Term, 1890.

Appeal from court of chancery.

Action by Charles E. Patterson ana another against Thomas H. Read, executor of Willson Read, deceased, et al., to compel defendant to make a proper allowance from his decedent's estate for the support of complainants, infants. Decree for complainants. Affirmed.

Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet filed the following conclusions:

"The defendant is the executor of Wilson Read, deceased. This suit is brought to compel the defendant to perform a duty imposed upon him by the will of his testator, and which duty, it is alleged, he has refused to perform in the manner in which his testator intended that he should perform it. By his will the testator directed that, in case his widow should die before the children of his daughter Sarah attained full age, his executor should pay out of the income of his estate so much thereof as, in his judgment, should be necessary for the support and maintenance of Sarah's children during their minority. The widow of the testator died during the minority of Sarah's children, and the defendant made an allowance for their support, but the claim is that the sum he allowed was so grossly insufficient as to constitute an abuse of the power committed to him by the testator. This suit is grounded on a refusal by the defendant to perform the duty imposed upon him by the will for the benefit of the complainants in a fair and reasonable manner. In the exercise of such a power as that which has been conferred on the executor in this case the court rarely interferes. It never interferes except it is clearly shown that the executor refuses to exercise the power at all, or that he exercises it in such manner as to constitute an abuse of it. The court of errors and appeals, in this very case, has said that where the testator has expressly directed that so much of the income of a fund as should, in the judgment of his trustee, be necessary for that purpose, should be applied to the support and maintenance of an infant, the court will not take upon itself to regulate the maintenance, but will leave it to the judgment of the trustee, and will not interfere if the trustee exercises a discretion within the limit of a sound and honest execution of the trust. Read v. Patterson, 44 N. J. Eq. 211,222,14 Atl. Rep. 490. My consideration of the proofs in this case has led me to a very decided conviction that the...