Slocum v. Ames

• Decision Date: 04 March 1896
• Citation: 36 A. 1127,19 R.I. 401
• Parties: SLOCUM v. AMES et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

36 A. 1127

19 R.I. 401

SLOCUM

v. AMES et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 4, 1896.

Bill in equity by Sarah A. Slocum against Samuel Ames, as trustee under the will of James M. Clark, deceased, and others. Heard on bill and answers. Bill dismissed.

Charles E. Gorman, for complainant.

Samuel Ames, in pro. per. Nathan H. Truman, for other respondents.

MATTESON, C. J. The question raised by the bill and answers is whether a sum of money in the hands of the respondent Ames, as trustee under the will of James M. Clarke, deceased, is to be regarded as a part of the principal of the trust estate or as income. The question arises on the following facts: The testator, on or about April 21, 1885, purchased for the sum of $9,000, at a sale under a mortgage given by John Erastus Lester to the Citizens' Savings Bank, a certain parcel of land situated in Johnston, known as the "Lester Estate," and thereupon entered into and continued in possession of it to the time of his decease. Subsequently thereto, and while the estate was in the possession of the trustee under the will, Lester, the mortgagor, filed a bill to redeem against the Citizens' Savings Bank as the mortgagee of the estate, and on July 8, 1893, obtained a decree of this court permitting the redemption of the estate on payment to the mortgagee of $16,797.28. Lester paid this sum to the bank, and thereupon regained possession of the estate. On an accounting by the bank with the respondent Ames, as trustee, $12,475.75 of the money paid to the bank as the condition of redemption was found due to Ames, and was paid to him by the bank. The difference between the sum thus received by the trustee and the $9,000 paid by the testator for the estate on its purchase, to wit, $3,475.75, is the sum in controversy. The complainant, who is the beneficiary for life under the trust created by the testator, and entitled in the first instance to the income of the trust estate, claims that the fund should be paid to her as part of the income, while the respondents Shewed and Sprague, who, on the death of the complainant, will become beneficiaries under the trust, contend that it is to be deemed part of the principal of the trust estate. The ground of the complainant's claim is that the money in question was paid to the trustee as interest on the $9,000 paid by the testator from the date of the mortgage sale to the time of the accounting by the bank with the trustee.

We do not think that the claim of the...