Sawyer v. Banfield
| Decision Date | 11 March 1875 |
| Citation | 55 N.H. 149 |
| Parties | Sawyer v. Banfield. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
A testator gave a trust-fund in the following words: "I give and bequeath to Joseph B. Wiggin, brother of my wife nine thousand dollars, in trust for her, safely to keep, use and dispose of for the benefit of my said wife according to the best of his discretion as her trustee." Held, that the gift was absolute to her, and that the residuary legatees under the will, and heirs at law of the testator, were not entitled to notice of a hearing for the appointment of a new trustee in probate court, the original trustee having deceased
BILL IN EQUITY, by Luther D. Sawyer, executor of the last will and testament of John L. Hanson. The defendants are Ira Banfield claiming as trustee, and the representatives of the residuary legatees under the will.
The will contained the following clauses, viz.: "I give and bequeath to Joseph B. Wiggin, of Wakefield, brother of my wife, nine thousand dollars, in trust for her, safely to keep, use, and dispose of for the benefit of my said wife according to the best of his discretion as her trustee." Also a general residuary clause.
Said Wiggin accepted his trust, and acted as trustee until his death in April, 1873, without settling any account. After his decease said Banfield was appointed trustee in his stead without notice by publication or otherwise to any of the residuary legatees or heirs at law. The cestui que trust does not object. The residuary legatees claim that in the event of the death of the cestui que trust before all the funds in the trustee's hands shall have been expended under the provisions of the will, any sum remaining will pass to them under said residuary clause, or as the heirs at law of said John L. Hanson, and that the plaintiff ought not to pay over to said Banfield the funds in his hands or any part thereof. Said Banfield, insisting that the residuary legatees or heirs at law have not and never can have any interest in any residue of said trust-fund which may remain after the decease of the cestui que trust, and were not entitled to any notice or hearing upon
the question of his appointment, demands that the plaintiff shall pay to him the whole of the trust-fund now remaining.
The bill prays that the court will, in aid of his trust, determine and direct whether or not the plaintiff shall pay over said trust-fund to said Banfield at this or any future time, without his having first given notice to the residuary legatees, heirs at law, and others interested, of a hearing upon the question of his appointment, and for such further aid and direction as may be just and proper.
Sawyer, for the plaintiff. Fox, B.C. Carter, and F. Hobbs, for Ira Banfield and Eliza W. Hanson. S. B. Carter, for the heirs of the residuary legatees
The clause under consideration contains nothing which would indicate any intention on the part of the testator that any interest in this bequest should pass to his residuary legatees or heirs-at-law. On the contrary, it is distinct and positive in giving the whole to the trustee for his wife without any reservation. Indeed if he had ever had any experience or observation in such matters, the last thing he would be likely to do would be to have his trustee liable to be called to account and to be intermeddled with by the interest or avarice of legatees, some of whom might grudge every dollar which was used for the benefit of the object of his bounty.
There is a class of cases in which clauses of this kind not unfrequently have to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Underwood
... ... Central Bank & Trust Corporation (Ga.) 168 S.E. 776; ... Trautz v. Lemp, 72 S.W.2d 104; Evans v ... Adams, 185 S.E. 57; Sawyer v. Baldwin (Mass.) ... 20 Pick. 378; 2 Perry on Trusts (7th Ed.) p. 815; ... Attorney General v. Moore's Executors, 19 N. J ... Eq. 503; 65 C ... according to the better view, the appointment would at most ... be voidable only as to Devine. Sawyer v. Banfield, ... 55 N.H. 149; Haggin v. Strauss, supra; 65 C. J. 601. Hence ... his objection would at most be of avail only in a direct ... proceeding to ... ...
-
Holcomb v. Palmer
...part of their estates. See, also, O'Rourke v. Beard, 151 Mass. 9, 23 N. E. 576; Powers v. Rafferty, 184 Mass. 85, 67 N. E. 1028; Sawyer v. Banfield, 55 N. H. 149; Taylor v. Taylor, 9 R.I. 119; Greene v. Wilbur, 15 R. I. 251, 3 Atl. 4; Hamilton v. Downs, 33 Conn. 211; Bransfield v. Wigmore, ......
-
Swan v. Bailey
...son would go to the son's heirs. Clyde v. Lake, 78 N. H. 322, 100 A. 552; Rollins v. Merrill, 70 N. H. 436, 48 A. 1088; Sawyer v. Banfield, 55 N. H. 149. "A contestant of a will must have some direct legal or equitable interest in the decedent's estate, in privity with him, whether as heir,......
-
Clyde v. Lake
...the legal title is held by the trustee is not of controlling importance upon the question of the intention of the testatrix. In Sawyer v. Banfield, 55 N. H. 149, a testator gave to a trustee a sum of money in trust for the testator's wife "to keep, use, and dispose of for the benefit of my ......