Ruggles v. Tyson

• Decision Date: 07 November 1899
• Citation: 104 Wis. 500,81 N.W. 367
• Parties: RUGGLES v. TYSON ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

104 Wis. 500

81 N.W. 367

RUGGLES

v.TYSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 7, 1899.

On rehearing. Decree modified.

For former opinion, see 79 N. W. 766.E. S. Bragg and Rollin B. Mallory, for appellants.

Quarles, Spence & Quarles, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

A rehearing was granted in this case on one question, namely, what is the most practicable and just method, from a business standpoint, conformable to the law as settled in the decision rendered, of saving the estate from loss without unnecessarily varying the plan of the grantor under which all parties claim? It needs but little attention to the language of the question to discern that the result of the motions for a rehearing were to leave the legal principles, upon which the decision of the court was grounded, irrevocably closed. Nevertheless counsel for appellants assumed the privilege of going into the whole case in the reargument, and were permitted to do so; and while what we may say now outside of the question for consideration cannot affect the result, because of the importance of the subject reference will be made to some of the learned counsel's contentions.

It is said that the only property involved in the action was four lots, not the whole property constituting the estate; that the primary object of the action was to obtain an adjudication respecting the power of the court to authorize a sale of real estate circumstanced like that in question, so as to bar possible remainder-men; that the remainder, after the expiration of the life estate, is vested in the appellants; that if they were of age they could sell such remainder without the aid of the court, and that the life tenant can do the same; hence the court went beyond the scope of the action in laying hold of the entire property and administering it.

In the first place the court is by no means bound by the object or objects in view in instituting an action, except so far as such objects are legitimate from a legal standpoint. If there be one object which is legitimate, and it be sought for the purpose of carrying out others not legitimate, however praiseworthy be the motives from a philanthropic or moral standpoint, especially if such other objects affect the interests of infants or persons unknown who are liable, on the happening of a possible contingency, to be interested, it is not only proper, but it is the duty of the court to so guard its decree upon the primary question, that the effect of it will be in all respects legitimate. It is not within the power of counsel for one party, or both acting together, to tie the hands of the court in the exercise of its equity powers to effect justice as to any question coming within the scope of any subject presented for consideration and decision.

In the second place, the subject of the action, not any particular object counsel may have had in view, fixed the limits of the field which the court had to investigate. What was that subject? The sale of any particular lot or lots? Certainly not. Obtaining money to satisfy the personal necessities of the respondent and her children? Certainly not. The power of the court to sell real estate of minors and use the proceeds for their maintenance? Not that. Yet the several questions mentioned have been repeatedly pressed upon our attention, both to support the judgment appealed from and obtain a change of the directions of the court as to the proper decree. The subject of the action was the necessity of a change in the form of property the title and use of which was vested for life in one person who appeared as plaintiff, and the residue of the title was vested in other persons, made defendants as representing such residue for all parties who might on any contingency be entitled thereto upon the termination of the particular estate. Concurrent action of the parties in whom the title was vested, without the aid of the court, could not pass a full marketable title to the property; and that seemed to be necessary in order that a part of it at least might be sold for a full value and sufficient of the proceeds used to pay off liens which jeopardized the interests of all parties. The complaint spread before the court the condition of the estate, confessing but excusing, so far as intentional wrongdoing was concerned, guilt of waste by the life tenant, setting forth the dangers which her management had created and which threatened to take the estate away from all interested under the common benefactor; and her inability, unaided by the court to successfully cope with the situation. The court was asked to exercise its extraordinary powers by taking hold of the entire property and applying an effective remedy. Specific methods of relief were suggested and prayed for, going more to the use of the property so as to remedy the necessities of the unfortunate plaintiff and her children than that of saving the estate from destruction. The court was by no means bound to grant relief by adopting such methods, or dismiss the action, even in the absence of a general prayer for relief. The preservation of the entire property was the subject to be dealt with, so the life tenant, in her bill, prayed, among other things, that the court might do what in its judgment might seem meet and agreeable to equity. That expressly placed the entire title to the property under the control of the court, as it was any way, from the very nature of the action and of the facts. While the principle, that the court has power, by an action in rem, to preserve property under such circumstances, disregarding the mere form of it when that appears to be necessary, was invoked, that special jurisdiction seems to have been entirely lost sight of in the effort to convert the property into money and use the proceeds to alleviate, in part, the pressing necessities of the parties to the action.

In the third place, it is not true that if the appellants were of age they could sell the estate without the aid of the court. They could sell their interests in the estate, that is all. Such interests may never ripen into an absolute title or property the appellants will be entitled to enjoy. That does not seem to have been appreciated, hence the pressing necessities of the respondent, in fact of all the parties to the action, have been urged as a justification for disturbing the scheme of the settlor of the estates by taking property for the benefit of the appellants, and of the respondent as well, which does not now, and may never, belong to either of them. Who can now point to the person who will ultimately be entitled to the estate in remainder? What can justify such judicial proceedings as that of taking and using part of it for the benefit of a mere trustee of the title, who, by the happening of any one of several possible contingencies, may be devested of such title and it be vested in another with absolute power of enjoyment and disposal? This court has no such power. It may bar remainder-men as to the particular thing, but cannot extinguish their rights in the equivalent of the property. This is not an action for the adjudication of the rights of either party, represented before the court, in the title to the property, but an action to authorize the preservation of it in the form of an equivalent of property of some other form.

If it were true that if the plaintiffs were of age they, joining with the life tenant, could dispose of the entire property absolutely, the simple question before the court would be whether it is for the best interests of the appellants that their property should be sold and a part of it used for their benefit during their minority. To support the power of a court of equity to do that, no reference to judicial authorities reaching back a century would be necessary, inasmuch as it is amply provided for by statute.

It is said the only relief prayed for not covered by statute is the right to apply the proceeds of the estate in remainder to relieve the necessities of the minors, and to reimburse the respondent for money paid out for their use over and above her income from the life estate; that in the action she tendered a surrender of her power of appointment under the settlor's deed, and that by such means the several estates can be united and sold and the proceeds appropriated, as held by authorities, ancient and modern. On the first part of the proposition, as we have seen, the scope of the prayer for specific relief in the complaint by no means limits the jurisdiction of the court. On the facts found and the pleadings, the trial court pronounced judgment. A general appeal from that judgment presented to this court the question of whether it was proper on the undisputed facts. Judicial inquiry was not, by any means, circumscribed by the assignment of errors. It was and is limited only by duty to examine and correct the judgment in every respect where legal principles were violated to the prejudice of the appellants or those whom they represent, so far as such violations clearly appear from the record. Appellants are minors standing as the mere representatives of a title liable to pass out of them to others in spite of anything they or the life tenant or the court can possibly do. On the second part of the proposition under discussion, it must be said that we are not acquainted with any authority, ancient or modern, to support it. Those cited to our attention do not apply, and it is firmly established, both at common law and by statute, that a special power, to be executed by will, cannot be executed in any other way, or be released or extinguished so as to cut off a taker not participating in the extinguishment and who is entitled to take in case the power be not executed in the manner provided by the donor of the power. The power may be extinguished by a conveyance by the donee and life tenant to the holders of the estate in remainder in respect to whom such donee has the power of appointment so as to...