Stearns v. Stearns

• Decision Date: 17 May 1906
• Citation: 192 Mass. 144,77 N.E. 1154
• Parties: STEARNS v. STEARNS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

192 Mass. 144

77 N.E. 1154

STEARNS v. STEARNS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 17, 1906

COUNSEL R. H. Leland, for Frank H. Butterworth.

E. D Chadwick, for Addie C. Stearns et al.

Louis H. Butterworth and Arthur F. Butterworth, for appellees.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

In the seventh clause of the will of Martha A. Brigham she disposed of the residue of her estate as follows: 'I give, devise and bequeath one-third part to my niece, Miss K. E Richardson, and the remaining two-thirds parts to Frederick P. Stearns of Boston, Massachusetts, in trust and confidence nevertheless, that he, the said Stearns, shall keep the said two-thirds invested, and from time to time, as he shall deem expedient, pay over the net income thereof to my nephew, Fred W. Richardson.' Fred W. Richardson has deceased, and the question before us is whether he took an equitable fee which passes to his heirs, or whether his interest ended with his life.

It appears from the facts agreed that, on account of a peculiar illness in childhood. Fred W. Richardson did not go to school after reaching the age of 12 years, and had no taste for books, and although he lived to the age of 36 years he never engaged in business for himself. From these facts and the language of the will, the heirs of Martha A. Brigham, who claim the property as undevised estate, argue with force that this was intended as a trust which left the income inalienable, and beyond the reach of Richardson's creditors.

If we assume that the limitation of his right to receive the income to times when the trustee might deem it expedient to pay was not intended to qualify his right to have it absolutely without unreasonable delay, we still are of opinion that he was given no more than an equitable estate for life. In its leading features the case is very similar to Keating v. Smith, 5 Cush. 232, in which it was held that the beneficiary took only the income for life. Loomis v. Gorham, 186 Mass. 444, 71 N.E. 981, shows a gift expressed in similar language, which was held also to be only an interest for life. In Wynn v. Bartlett, 167 Mass. 292, 45 N.E. 752, Wainwright v. Tuckerman, 120 Mass. 232, Boston Safe Deposit Co. v. Buffum, 186 Mass. 242, 71 N.E. 549, Buffington v. Maxam, 152 Mass. 477, 25 N.E. 975, and Mayhew v. Godfrey, 103 Mass. 290, are decisions of a similar kind, although each case has its own peculiar facts. The cases in...