Tuckerman v. Currier
Decision Date | 09 December 1912 |
Parties | TUCKERMAN et al. v. CURRIER et al. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
On Extension of Opinion, January 6, 1913.
Appeal from District Court, Weld County; Louis W. Cunningham, Judge.
Suit by Mary B. Currier and others against James Tuckerman and another to compel defendants' removal as executors and trustees of the estate of Warren Currier, deceased, for the construction of the will, and for other relief. From a decree in favor of complainants, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
James W. McCreery, of Greeley, for appellants.
Charles D. Todd, of Greeley, R. T. McNeal, and Charles R. Brock, of Denver, for appellees.
The pleadings as well as the evidence in this case are voluminous. In disposing of it, in addition to hearing oral arguments, we have read and considered over 6,500 folios of record, in excess of 500 pages of printed briefs, and have considered the questions involved in over 550 cases cited claimed to support the different contentions of counsel. Owing to the uncertainty of the title to such a large amount of property and the importance of the other questions raised we are not prepared to say that the greater part of counsel's efforts was not justified; but, when the extent of such an amount of labor placed upon this court is realized, it is regrettable that many thoughtless people (including some members of the profession), who criticise appellate courts for their apparent delay in the number of such cases disposed of, are not familiar with these conditions.
We shall not attempt to set forth even the substance of all the issues, but only such as are controlling of the principal contentions. The record discloses, without contradiction, that upon July 25, 1892, Judge Warren Currier died, leaving surviving his widow (Lydia M.), two sons (George W. and Henry F.), their wives, and certain grandchildren (the sons and daughters of George W. and Henry F.). The deceased was possessed of a large estate, real and personal. He left a will which provides:
First, for the payment of debts.
Second, devises certain personal property to his wife.
Third, gives to his son George the use for life of the Greeley homestead, on certain conditions.
Fourth, gives to his son Henry the use for life (rent free) of certain real estate.
Fifth, provides for the adjustment of certain advancements made by deceased to the above sons.
The sixth, seventh, eighth, and a part of the tenth paragraphs, which are the cause of these contentions, read as follows:
'(6) I give, devise and bequeath all the rest and residue of my estate, real, personal or mixed, and wherever situated, to my said executors, to wit, Bruce F. Johnson and Charles H. Wheeler, both of Greeley, and to the survivor of them and their successors to hold, manage and dispose of in trust for the uses and purposes following, to wit:
'(a) Two thousand dollars on the net annual income therefrom to be collected by my said executors and paid over annually as an annuity to my said wife, in quarter yearly installments of $500 each during her natural life, the same to be accepted by her in lieu of dower and in full of all claims upon my estate not hereinbefore specified and provided for; all such payments to be made upon her separate personal receipt and not otherwise.
The closing, unnumbered paragraph in the will reads: 'I hereby appoint Bruce F. Johnson and Charles H. Wheeler of said Greeley in said county of Weld to be the executors of this my last will and testament.'
The will was probated September 6, 1892, in the county court of Weld county, and the executors named in the will, Bruce F. Johnson and Charles H. Wheeler, were given letters testamentary thereon. They qualified September 14th, same year, and acted as the executors from that date until May 23, 1893, when Charles H. Wheeler tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the county court and an order made appointing Horace G. Clark as his successor. Johnson and Clark continued to act until January, 1897, when they tendered their resignations to the county court, which, on January 30, 1897, made an order accepting the resignations and appointing the plaintiffs in error, James Tuckerman and William Mayher, as their successors. These last-named appointees have continued to act as such executors, and by virtue of such official capacity have also performed the duties of trustees as provided for by the will, from the date of their appointment until the present time.
This action was insituted by the grandchildren of Warren Currier the residuary legatees of the principal estate, against all former executors, Johnson, Wheeler, Clark, Tuckerman, Mayher, the two sons of the deceased (George W. and Henry F.), their wives, and the widow (Lydia M. Currier). The complaint charges numerous acts of maladministration and breach of trust against all of the five persons who had acted as executors and performed the duties of trustees. It charges fraud, mismanagement, and misconduct whereby it is alleged that the principal estate sustained great losses and was then being depleted by the fraudulent and illegal acts of its alleged trustees, in some of which the life beneficiaries George and Henry Currier are alleged to be parties. It denied the right and jurisdiction of the county court to appoint subsequent executors to fill vacancies caused by the resignation of Johnson and Wheeler, or its jurisdiction to recognize the rights of such persons to perform the duties of trustees, or to in any particular supervise the administration of the trust created by the will. It alleges that the title to the property was still in Johnson and Wheeler as trustees. It prays for a construction of the will to include a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayes v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
... ... trust estate. To ascertain the net income the estate ... must be looked to in solido. ( Tuckerman v ... Currier, 54 Colo. 25, 125, Pac. 210, Ann Cas 1914 C, ... 599, 607) and the expenses subtracted from gross receipts ... But since it is ... ...
-
In re Thomasson's Estate
... ... attorneys of the administrator are entitled to compensation ... In re Boyer, 105 N.Y.S. 857; In re Higgins, ... 142 N.Y.S. 1029; Tuckerman v. Currier, 54 Colo. 25, ... 129 P. 210; 23 C. J., p. 1180, sec. 400. (c) The ... administratrices, with the approval of the probate court, had ... ...
-
In re Howard's Estate
... ... Then and not until then can their ... duties as trustees begin. In re Dare's Estate , ... 196 Cal. 29, 235 P. 725; Tuckerman v ... Currier , 54 Colo. 25, 129 P. 210, Ann. Cas. 1914C, ... 599; Bellinger v. Thompson , 26 Or. 320, 37 ... P. 714; Id. , 26 Or. 320, 40 ... ...
-
Hayes v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...beneficiaries the net income of the trust estate. To ascertain the net income, the estate must be looked to in solido (Tuckerman v. Currier, 54 Colo. 25, 129 P. 210, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 599, 607) and the expenses subtracted from gross receipts. But, since it is tacitly admitted the financial c......