Reid v. Reid
| Decision Date | 02 July 1912 |
| Docket Number | 36 |
| Citation | 85 A. 85,237 Pa. 176 |
| Parties | Reid v. Reid, et al., Appellant (No 2) |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 7, 1912
Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1912, by Celia M. R. Boyts Executrix of B. F. Boyts, deceased, from decree of C.P Fayette Co., No. 598, in Equity, directing distribution in case of J. M. Reid v. E. H. Reid, Celia M. R. Boyts, Executrix of B. F. Boyts, deceased, George R. Scull, Administrator of Edward Scull, deceased, and Somerset Trust Company, trustee. Modified
Bill for an account. Before UMBEL, P.J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. See also Reid v. Reid (No. 1), 237 Pa. 171, and Reid v. Reid (No. 3), 237 Pa. 182. The fifth conclusion of law reached by the trial court was as follows:
Errors assigned, among others, were (5) in dismissing exceptions to fifth conclusion of law, and (7) the decree of the court.
We have already, in the appeal of J. M. Reid, entered an order vacating the decree in this case and remitting the record so that certain requests for findings may be answered before a final decree is entered. When that is done, it is ordered that the court below charge the defendant trust company with interest in accordance with its findings in regard thereto and with the views herein expressed; said company to pay the costs of this appeal.
D. W. McDonald, of McDonald & Cray, with him Reppert, Sturgis & Morrow, for appellants. -- The trust company should pay interest upon the funds in its hands: Fox v. Wilcocks, 1 Binney, 194: Say v. Barnes, 4 S. & R., 112; Baker's Appeal, 8 S. & R., 12; Landis v. Scott, 32 Pa. 495; Pennypacker's Appeal, 41 Pa. 494; Lukens's Appeal, 47 Pa. 356; Hughes' Appeal, 53 Pa. 500; Bruner's Appeal, 57 Pa. 46; Cooper v. Scott, 62 Pa. 139; Findlay v. Smith, 7 S. & R. 264; Verner's Est., 6 Watts 250; Robinett's Appeal, 36 Pa. 174; Norris' Appeal, 71 Pa. 106; Gilbert's Appeal, 78 Pa. 266; Clauser's Est., 84 Pa. 51; Seguin's Appeal, 103 Pa. 139; Mulholland's Est., 175 Pa. 411; Hertzler's Est., 192 Pa. 531; Myers' Est., 13 Pa. Superior Ct., 476; Flynn's Est., 21 Pa. Superior Ct., 126.
Ed. B. Scull, with him John Duggan, Jr., and Chas. F. Uhl, Jr., for Somerset Trust Co., appellee. -- Interest is not to be paid by a mere trustee for the money which he held for the use of another, unless he neglects to pay it on demand: Knight v. Reese, 2 Dallas 182; Yoder's Appeal, 45 Pa. 394; Wallace's Appeal, 3 W.N.C. 468; Witmer's Appeal, 87 Pa. 120; Griffith's Est., 147 Pa. 274; Hess' Est., 68 Pa. 454; Dorris v. Miller, 105 Iowa 564, (75 N.W. 482).
James S. Moorhead, with him John Duggan, Jr., and Robert W. Smith, for E. H. Reid, appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
E. H Reid, B. F. Boyts and the estate of Edward Scull, deceased, held control of the entire capital stock of the two corporations named and more particularly described in the opinion filed this day in Reid v. Reid, et al. (No. 1), 237 Pa. 171. By an amicable arrangement, all the property of both of these corporations was sold to one Johnson, and a mortgage was taken in part payment of the purchase money in the name of the Somerset Trust Co., as trustee; which company, on April 6, 1903, executed a deed of trust wherein it declared that this mortgage was held for the three stockholders before named. Subsequently the trust company collected the mortgage with accrued interest and made certain payments, not in controversy, out of the fund. In December, 1905, the three cestuis que trustent met and agreed upon a scheme of distribution for the balance held by the trust company; but afterwards B. F. Boyts declined to abide by this arrangement. Later, in December, 1905, Celia M. R. Boyts, the wife of B. F. Boyts, notified the trust company that she had a claim on the fund which she would bring a suit to establish, and that it should not pay out any of the money in its hands. Mrs. Boyts instituted the suit, but when the case was called for trial in 1909 she failed to maintain her action and the judgment went against her. On March 5, 1910, the trust company notified the three cestuis que trustent, and also J. M. Reid, who likewise had given notice that he had an interest in the fund, that it would pay out the money in accordance with the scheme of distribution agreed upon in December, 1905, unless restrained from so doing; whereupon, on March 18, 1910, J. M. Reid filed the bill which gave rise to the adjudication from which this and the two other appeals in the present case were taken. The purpose of the bill was to restrain the trust company from making the proposed distribution and to have the court control the division of the fund. In his answer filed May 2, 1910, the defendant, B. F. Boyts, who subsequently died and was succeeded upon the record by his executrix, the present appellant, asserted a claim against the fund for $7,726.56, which he sought to maintain at hearing. But the learned court below disallowed the claim and made the awards in accordance with the scheme of distribution previously arranged between the parties; and in so doing it failed to charge the Somerset Trust Company with any interest on the fund, saying in this connection, "The Somerset Trust Company, trustee, having accepted the trust for the mere purpose of converting the property into money and distributing it among those entitled thereto, and for the collection of the mortgage against Wilfred Johnson, and having been ready and willing at all times to pay over the money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. Reid
... 85 A. 85237 Pa. 176 REID v. REID et al. No. 2. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912. Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County. Action by J. M. Reid against E. H. Reid and others. From a decree directing distribution, Celia M. R. Boyts, executrix of B. F. Boyts, deceased, ap......