Richardson v. Warfield

• Decision Date: 25 May 1925
• Citation: 252 Mass. 518,148 N.E. 141
• Parties: RICHARDSON et al. v. WARFIELD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

252 Mass. 518

148 N.E. 141

RICHARDSON et al.

v.WARFIELD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1925.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Petition by James P. Richardson and another, as trustees under the will of Clement Willis, deceased, against Annie L. Warfield and others, for instructions as to disposition of principal of trust fund and income accumulated in their hands. Case reserved by a single Justice for the full court. Decree in accordance with opinion.Hale & Dickerman, of Boston, for petitioners.

Frank W. Kaan, of Boston, for defendant Edward H. Willis.

Sherburne, Powers & Needham, of Boston, for defendant K. S. Domett.

Gaston, Snow, Saltonstall & Hunt, of Boston (Dunbar F. Carpenter, of Boston, of counsel), for defendants West.

Edmund O'Callaghan, of Boston, for defendant Annie L. Warfield.

Stoneman & Hill, of Boston (F. D. Bonner, of Boston, of counsel), for defendant Chas. S. Hill.

Walter A. Dane, of Boston, for defendants Mary Willis and others.

SANDERSON, J.

This is a petition by the trustees under the will of Clement Willis, who died June 20, 1889, for instructions as to the disposition of the principal of the trust fund held by them and of certain income which has accumulated in their hands. The clauses of the will providing for the payment of this income and the division of the principal are in the following language:

‘Tenth. I give to my trustees hereinafter named all the rest and residue of my property both real, personal and mixed, of every kind and sort, and wherever situated, to have and hold the same and to pay over the income to my heirs as often as once in six months. Eleventh. The real and personal estate given to my trustees the income of which is made payable to my children and their heirs at law, shall not be subject to any assignment, sale or draft, or order, voluntary or by process at law, and this extends to all my bequests to my children and their heirs at law, and after the decease of my children the property is to be divided among my grandchildren share and share alike.’

The testator had four children. His son Edward H. Willis predeceased him leaving two children; Charles J. Willis died in 1895, leaving six children, two having been born after the testator's decease; Henry C. Willis died in 1898 leaving one child; and Mary E, Willis Sparhawk died July 19, 1924, leaving two children. At the time of the death of Mrs. Sparhawk two of the six children of Charles J. Willis had died, George A. Willis in December, 1922, leaving three children; and Rachel N. Willis, one of the children born after the death of the testator, in 1906. No one has appeared in these proceedings to represent the estate of Rachel N. Willis. After her death the fractional part of the income which she had been receiving was divided among her surviving brothers and sisters. At the time of the testator's death there were nine living grandchildren and when his last surviving child died there were nine surviving grandchildren. In the mean-time two grandchildern had been born and two had died. The total number of grandchildren, living and dead, was eleven.

In 1912 George A. Willis assigned to George F. West & Son all his interest in the estate of Clement Willis upon the death of his last surviving child. George F. West & Son have been made parties to these proceedings and are contending that all interest which George A. Willis had in the estate belongs to them. One Kenneth S. Domett also has been made a party, contending that by reason of an agreement between him and George F. West & Son concerning this assignment, he has a claim against the administrator of the estate of George A. Willis which should be determined in this proceeding. The clause in the will providing that the property given to the trustees should not be subject to any assignment, sale, or order, made it impossible for George A. Willis to pass any title by the assignment which he undertook to make. Broadway National Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170;Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Collier, 222 Mass. 390, 111 N. E. 163. The trust was an active one which requires for its accomplishment that the legal title should be in the trustees. The title of the beneficiaries was an equitable one and inalienable under the terms of the will. Such a restraint on alienation is valid as to both principal and income, and neither George F. West & Son nor the claimant under them is entitled to share in the estate. Haskell v. Haskell, 234 Mass. 442,125 N. E. 208.

The trustees have permitted the portion of income which was formerly payable to George A. Willis to accumulate since his death, and they now ask instructions as to its disposition,and also as to the persons who are to take, and the proportions in which they are to take, the principal of that fund.

The provision that the property is to be divided after the decease of the testator's children means that the whole fund should be divided as of July 19, 1924, the date of death of the last surviving child. Dole v. Keyes, 143 Mass. 237, 9 N. E. 625. Estates are considered vested unless it...