Watling v. Watling
Decision Date | 10 November 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 633.,633. |
Citation | 15 F.2d 719 |
Parties | WATLING v. WATLING et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Lucking, Helfman, Lucking & Hanlon, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Stevenson, Carpenter, Butzel & Backus, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant Watling.
Campbell, Bulkley & Ledyard, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant Union Trust Co.
This cause, which has been submitted to the court for final decision and decree on bill and answer and the proofs taken thereon, involves and requires the construction of a testamentary trust and of the rights and obligations of the trustee and of the beneficiaries thereunder.
The plaintiff, Lucile Watling, who is one of the beneficiaries of said trust, is a resident citizen of Maryland, and the defendants, John W. Watling, who is the other beneficiary under said trust, his children, and the Union Trust Company, a Michigan corporation, which is the present trustee of such trust, are resident citizens of Michigan, and the jurisdiction of this court has been properly invoked on the ground of the requisite diversity of citizenship, accompanied by the jurisdictional amount of the matter in controversy. The bill seeks to have certain provisions of said trust construed and enforced.
The facts, as they have been proved to the satisfaction of this court and are hereby formally found by the court, may be stated, sufficiently for the purposes of this opinion, as follows:
John A. Watling died testate in 1919, leaving the following last will, made in 1909 and probated in 1919:
The deceased left surviving him at his death his widow, his daughter (plaintiff herein), and his son (defendant herein) mentioned in said will, and no other heirs. In 1920, said defendant son, John W. Watling, was appointed by the probate court for Wayne county, Michigan, trustee under said will, the other person named therein as co-trustee having formally declined to act as such trustee. Shortly before the time of the making of the will, said daughter, the plaintiff herein, had been committed to, and at said time was in, a government hospital for the insane, as a mentally incompetent person, which she then was. It was the intention and desire of her father, the said testator, in making said will, that plaintiff should receive the principal of the trust estate therein created for her benefit, if, and as soon as, it should be to her best interests — that is, wise for her — that such principal should be turned over to her.
About a year after her father's death, she was released from the sanitarium to which she had previously been taken, and in April, 1922, she was formally adjudged mentally competent, and continuously since that time she has been, and now is, in sound mental and physical health and strength. In 1922, the widow of the testator died. In June, 1922, the said son of the testator, the defendant John W. Watling, submitted his resignation as trustee to the Wayne county probate court, which court accepted such resignation and, about a month later, appointed in his place as trustee the defendant Union Trust Company, such appointment being made without notice to the plaintiff herein. Said Union Trust Company is now acting as such trustee.
The bill of complaint, after alleging substantially the aforementioned facts, charges that "the paramount purpose of defendant John W. Watling at all times has been to preserve intact the corpus of the aforesaid properties in a continuing trust, so that ultimately it may come to him, or, in the event of his death, to his issue"; that "despite the express desire of the testator that the share of the plaintiff be given to her absolutely at any time an honest discretion deems it wise, defendant John W. Watling has consulted his own interest exclusively, and has endeavored by a resignation of his trust to frustrate forever the possibility of the exercise of the discretion in plaintiff's favor, although the circumstances provided for by the will not only warrant, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kennard v. Wiggins
...& Deposit Co., 112 Md. 50; Gunter v. Townsend, 202 Ala. 160; Bowers v. Smith, 10 Paige, 193; 69 C. J., sec. 1988 (2) p. 870; Watling v. Watling, 15 F.2d 719; Walker v. Trust & Savs. Bank, 12 F.2d 896; May v. May, 167 U.S. 310. The will construction decree did not construe or affect the inte......
-
Detroit Bank & Trust Co. v. United States
...1 Caspari v. Cutcheon, 110 Mich. 86, 67 N.W. 1093 (1896) In re Gray Estate, 9 Mich.App. 262, 156 N.W.2d 594 (1967) Watling v. Watling, 15 F.2d 719 (E.D. Mich.1926) affirmed 6 Cir., 27 F.2d ...