Ripley v. Brown
Decision Date | 22 May 1914 |
Citation | 105 N.E. 637,218 Mass. 33 |
Parties | RIPLEY et al. RIPLEY v. BROWN et al. RIPLEY v. SWIFT, Atty. Gen. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Fred T. Field, of Boston, for appellants Brown and others.
Thomas J. Boynton, Atty. Gen., and Leo R. Eyges, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellant Swift.
Geo. M Stearns and Hamilton & Eaton, all of Boston, for appellees.
It is the duty of the trustees, in whom the legal title properly vested, to administer the provisions of the will as directed by the testator unless they are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. Hall v. Cushing, 9 Pick. 395; Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309, 314, 72 N.E 1008, 105 Am. St. Rep. 394. And while, if no appeal had been taken, they would be protected by the probate decree setting aside the clause in question and establishing a resulting trust in favor of the heirs to whom the moneys forming the trust fund will be paid, nevertheless, they were aggrieved within the meaning of R. L. c. 162, § 9, and their appeal, as well as the appeal of the Attorney General, is properly before us. Adams v. Adams, 211 Mass. 198, 97 N.E. 982; Whitwell v. Bartlett, 211 Mass. 238, 98 N.E. 98; Burroughs v. Wellington, 211 Mass. 494, 98 N.E. 596; Minot v. Attorney General, 189 Mass. 176, 75 N.E. 149. But if the motion to dismiss cannot be granted, the principal question discussed is whether the fourteenth article, which is not affected by the agreement of compromise created a good public charity. It reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial