Wells v. Wood
Decision Date | 17 January 1928 |
Parties | WELLS et al. v. WOOD. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George Rossman, Judge.
Action by Louise A. Wells and and others against Mary C. Wood individually and as trustee under the last will of John Wood deceased, and as guardian of the estate of John Wood, Jr., a minor, now deceased. Decree for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, with directions.
This suit was instituted to compel an accounting by defendant Mary C. Wood, of the profits received by her in the purchase of certain corporate stock bequeathed to her son, John Wood Jr., and for judgment against her for the sum of $4,000, the amount the legacies bequeathed to plaintiffs were discounted by her while she was executrix of the will of John Wood deceased, and as such a trustee for plaintiffs. John Wood died testate. He left surviving him his widow, defendant, Mary C. Wood, who was his second wife; a minor son, John Wood, Jr., who was the son of his said widow. He also left five daughters by his first wife, all of mature age, to wit: Louise A. Wells, Margaret Schmeer, Gwendolen Nelson, Elizabeth A. Ewing, and Ada Weiss. Said Mary C. Wood was confirmed executrix February 13, 1915. She filed her inventory May 1, 1915. Among other property belonging to said deceased and included in the inventory are 95.36 shares of the capital stock of the John Wood Iron Works, appraised at $200 per share, which is the par value. The total capital stock of said iron from works consists of 100 shares. Indorsed on the inventory is the following statement:
This inventory is dated May 1, 1915.
April 9, 1915, a public accountant, after examining the books, reported assets of $76,330.10 and a surplus of $54,167.48. At that time the indebtedness amounted to $2,162.62, making the total value of the 100 shares of stock to be $74,167.48, or a book value of over $740 per share. This total equals the par value of the stock and the surplus. Defendant, Mary C. Wood, did not call a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for a long period of time. Plaintiffs importuned defendant executrix to call said meeting to have a dividend declared in order to pay the legacy of $1,000 to each of plaintiffs, as provided in the will. January 26, 1916, plaintiffs presented a petition to the circuit court of Multnomah county, sitting in probate, to require defendant executrix to make a report and to submit the accounts, books, and other documents of said corporation for examination. They alleged that said defendant executrix was mismanaging the corporate affairs, would dissipate the funds belonging to the estate, and would thereby deprive the plaintiffs of their legacies. Thereupon negotiations were entered into between executrix and plaintiffs looking to an adjustment and settlement of their differences. Defendant executrix controlled at that time over 95 per cent. of the capital stock. She continued to operate the iron works and during the year 1915 operated at a loss of about $9,000. At the time of the inventory the cash on hand amounted to over $6,000. This amount had been entirely used and additional funds borrowed to carry on the business. A second attempt was made to make defendant executrix account, which failed. Thereafter, to wit, June 24, 1916, plaintiffs presented their petition to said court, requesting the removal of defendant executrix and for the appointment of some disinterested and fair person to execute the will and administer the estate. Further negotiations were entered into by the parties following this last petition. These negotiations resulted in the parties entering into a contract in words and figures as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank v. Connolly
...or, at least, there is nothing in the record to show to the contrary." The rule of Lombard v. Carter is recognized in Wells v. Wood, 125 Or. 38, 47, 263 P. 54, where, at the suit of beneficiaries under a will who had assigned their legacies to the executrix, the sale was set aside, not on t......
-
Burns v. Skogstad
... ... 293 ... This is ... the general rule. 21 C.J. Par. 229 p. 234. Whitney v ... Fox, 116 U.S. 637, 17 S.Ct. 713, 41 L.Ed. 1145; Wood v ... Fox, 32 P. 48 ... Wm. S ... Hawkins, W. F. McNaughton and H. S. Sanderson, all of Coeur ... d'Alene, for respondents ... 134; ... Bruun v. Hanson, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 685; 3 Bogart ... Trusts and ... [206 P.2d 770] ... Trustees, §§ 483, 493, 544; Wells v. Wood, ... 125 Or. 38, 263 P. 54 ... It is ... also settled that the decree of distribution did not ... adjudicate the validity of ... ...
-
Venator v. Quier
...rather than suits by heirs to set aside transactions between themselves and administrators or executors. In Wells et al. v. Wood et al., 125 Or. 38, 263 P. 54 (1928), this court considered the same statute, as well as its interpretation in Lombard v. Castor, supra. In Wells the defendant, w......
-
Hagey v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co.
...administrator is trustee of the heirs, interested in an estate, or beneficiaries of the will that is being administered. Wells v. Wood, 125 Or. 38, 46 (263 Pac. 54); Re Roach's Estate, 50 Or. 179, 186 (92 Pac. 118). And it is the duty of the trustee in dealing with beneficiaries to fully in......