Seamonds v. Sturm
| Decision Date | 21 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | (CC 616) |
| Citation | 121 W.Va. 613 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | George R. Seamonds, Mayor, et als. v. Harley O. Sturm |
A court of equity will entertain the bill of a trustee seeking instruction upon the effect of a doubtful instrument on the trust estate, or upon the effect thereon of considerations purely equitable, or upon the disposition of conflicting claims against it. But this advisory jurisdiction will not be so expanded as to make the court the general legal advisor of the trustee. He is not entitled to have the court solve for him mere questions of law, or to advise him upon a question which can be adequately answered in a court of law, or to instruct him whether to reject or allow a claim.
Case certified from Circuit Court, Cabell County.
Suit by George R. Seamonds, Mayor, and others, against Harley O. Sturm for judicial instruction whether to grant a pension to the defendant. A demurrer to the bill was overruled, and its sufficiency is certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Reversed; demurrer sustained; bill dismissed.
Okey P. Keadle, for plaintiffs. Scott & Ducker, for defendant.
In 1926 the defendant Sturm applied for a position in the police department of the City of Huntington; was examined by its Civil Service Board, and the result certified to the City's Board of Commissioners as provided by the city charter of 1921, then in force, and was appointed a policeman. He served continuously as such until just prior to the institution of this suit, when he became totally disabled physically. He then applied for a pension from the Policemen's Pension Fund. The trustees of the fund brought this suit for judicial instruction on whether to grant the pension or not. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and its sufficiency certified here.
The bill concedes the disability of defendant, and questions his right to the pension only as follows: "* * * at the time he was appointed to a position in the police department of the City, he was not, according to the rules and regulations then legally in force and effect * * * eligible to be appointed." The specific rule referred to is one of the Civil Service Board that every applicant should not be more than forty-five years of age. Defendant was aged forty-six years and eleven months when he entered the police service. Plaintiffs disclaim information that defendant misrepresented his age to the Board at the time of his examination, and allege that they do not charge him with practicing fraud on the Board.
It is established that a court of equity will entertain the bill of trustees asking instruction upon the effect of a doubtful instrument relating to the trust estate, or upon the effect thereon of "considerations purely equitable", or upon the disposition of conflicting claims against it. McDonald v. Jarvis, 64 W. Va. 62, 60 S. E. 990, 131 Am. St. Rep. 889; 26 R. C. L., Trusts, section 233; 65 C. J., Trusts, section 540. But this advisory jurisdiction will not be so expanded ("perverted") as to make the court the general legal advisor of the trustees. Clay v. Gurley, 62 Ala. 14. They are not entitled to have the court solve mere questions of law. Greene v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 313. Nor are they entitled to the court's advice upon a question where they "have a complete and adequate remedy to try that question by way of defense to any suit that may be brought against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Register of Wills of Baltimore City, MERCANTILE-SAFE
...re Rothenberg's Trust 136 N.J.Eq. 530, 42 A.2d 767; Wellesley College v. Attorney General, 313 Mass. 722, 49 N.Ed.2d 220; Seamonds v. Sturm, 121 W.Va. 613, 5 S.E.2d 788; and Chapman v. Baltimore Trust Co., 168 Md. 254, 177 A. 285, that equity will not assume jurisdiction just to pass on tax......