Williams v. Ledbetter

Citation94 N.E.2d 377,87 Ohio App. 171
Parties, 57 Ohio Law Abs. 289, 42 O.O. 391 WILLIAMS v. LEDBETTER et al.
Decision Date23 January 1950
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

Syllabus by the Court

(1) Where all persons necessary to a complete determination of an issue are not made parties to an action, a judgment instructing a trustee as to his duties will not be construed to have determined such issue between the parties, notwithstanding general language broad enough to include a determination of such issue.

(2) A judgment instructing a testamentary trustee as to his duties will be limited to his present duties, and, in the absence of specific language, will not be held to include instruction as to duties that could only arise upon the happening of contingent and uncertain events of the future.

(3) A testator provided: 'I give and bequeath to my niece Sarah Sullivan, the daughter of my beloved sister Sarah Buckley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, the sum of twenty thousand ($20,000.00) dollars, to be held in trust for her absolutely during her natural life and at her death her share shall remain in trust for the benefit of her daughter Marie who shall receive the income of the same during her natural life, and at the death of the said Marie, should she survive her mother, then the aforesaid share shall be equally divided between the remaining principal devisees.' Marie survived her mother and all of the other 'principal devisees.'

It was held that there was a partial intestacy and that the next of kin of the testator and those inheriting from them were entitled to the trust fund.

Ragland, Dixon & Murphy, Cincinnati, for plaintiff-appellee.

Carl L. Meier and William J. Walsh, Cincinnati, for defendants-appellees.

Kyte, Conlan & Heekin, John D. Boyce, and Lucien Wulsin, Jr., all of Cincinnati, for defendants-appellants.

MATTHEWS, Judge.

This is an appeal on law and fact from a judgment construing the will of John Mackey, deceased, and determining the beneficiaries to whom the corpus of a trust fund thereby created should be distributed on the termination of the trust. The action was instituted by the trustee and certain claimants were made defendants. Whether all persons having an interest are parties depends upon the true interpretation of the will submitted for construction herein. The parties are agreed as to the data upon which our conclusion must be based. That conclusion can only be reached by determining the meaning and extent of the testamentary intent of John Mackey as disclosed by his will and the application of that intent to the existing situation.

John Mackey executed his will on the 8th day of April, 1907. He died on July 19th, 1908, and his will was duly admitted to probate by the Probate Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, on the 23rd day of July, 1908. On June 23rd, 1909, the plaintiff herein was appointed trustee and on December 29th, 1909, the executors paid to him $20,000.00 to be held and disposed of in accordance with the terms of said will.

John Mackey left surviving him as his next of kin the following persons: Ella B. Strong, a niece; Wm. N. Allen, a nephew; George R. Boyce, a nephew; Sarah Sullivan, a niece; Edward Buckley, a grand-nephew; and Lydia Richter, a grand-niece.

In his will, he described his nieces and nephews as 'his principal devisees.' He bequeathed to Ella B. Strong $25,000.00 absolutely; to William N. Allen $20,000.00 absolutely; to George R. Boyce $20,000.00 absolutely; and to Edward Buckley and Lydia Buckley $5,000.00 to share equally; and $10,000.00 to certain friends, and $4,000.00 to religious and charitable institutions. These specific bequests totaled $104,000.00, and he provided that if his estate exceeded that amount 'such excess shall be equally divided between the four principal devisees, viz.: Ella B. Strong, William N. Allen, George R. Boyce and Sarah Sullivan.'

The estate did exceed $104,000.00, and that excess was paid by the executors to the legatees in accordance with the aforesaid provision.

While he described his niece Sarah Sullivan as one of his 'principal devisees,' the specific bequest to her was not given to her outright and unconditionally. That dispositive provision in her favor is found in the second paragraph on page 2 of the will, and is as follows: 'I give and bequeath to my niece Sarah Sullivan, the daughter of my beloved sister, Sarah Buckley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, the sum of twenty thousand ($20,000.00) dollars, to be held in trust for her absolutely during her natural life and at her death her share shall remain in trust for the benefit of her daughter Marie who shall receive the income of the same during her natural life, and at the death of the said Marie, should she survive her mother, then the aforesaid share shall be equally divided between the remaining principal devisees.'

The person described in this provision as Marie, the daughter of Sarah Sullivan, is identified as Marie Rockwell Smith, also known as Marie Cranston.

By a later provision of the will, the testator provided that if any beneficiary should 'oppose the disposal of my estate as I have seen fit to divide the same, then any such beneficiary shall be cut off and debarred absolutely from any and all benefits named in this will, and the share or shares shall be equally divided among the four principal devisees.' And in the same paragraph, he also provided that: 'I further direct if one or more of the principal devisees should die, the same having one or more children, their share or shares shall be equally divided among their said children, not however until the youngest is of legal age, they to receive the income of the same. Should one or more of my principal devisees die without issue (children), then his or her share shall also be equally divided among the remaining principal devisees.'

Sarah Sullivan did not die without issue. Her daughter Marie survived her. There is a suggestion that she had other surviving children.

None of the 'principal devisees' survived Marie Rockwell Smith, also known as Marie Cranston, who died on July 27th, 1947. Ella B. Strong died on August 3rd, 1933; Sarah Sullivan died on January 15th, 1937; George R. Boyce died on June 14th, 1938; and William N. Allen died on January 6th, 1940.

The present claimants to the corpus of this trust fund are--Irene A. Ledbetter and William N. Allen, Jr., children of William N. Allen, and Arthur Hewitt, surviving husband, and Allen E. Hewitt, surviving son of Bessie Hewitt, deceased daughter of William N. Allen; William B. Strong, son of Ella B. Strong; and John Boyce and Grace Boyce, adopted children of George R. Boyce.

Neither the grand-niece nor grandnephew, nor anyone claiming through them are parties to this action. No one representing that class was a party to the action. (1) On October 24th, 1911, the trustee of Sarah Sullivan and Marie Rockwell Smith, filed an action in the Superior Court of Cincinnati against all the 'principal devisees', setting forth the creation of the trust, his appointment as trustee, and the payment of Twenty Thousand ($20,000.00) Dollars to him, to be held in trust for the use and purposes of the trust created in 'paragraph 2 on page 2 of said last will and testament of John Mackey.' It was also alleged that divers questions had arisen and would arise and that the trustee had been advised and believed that it was necessary to the proper execution of the trust 'under said paragraph of said last will' that he should receive the instructions of the court. He, therefore, prayed 'judgment as to the meaning, correct interpretation, construction, and effect of the aforesaid paragraph * * * that this plaintiff may be instructed how and in what manner he is to apply the income received from said legacy * * * and to whom said income * * * is to be paid during the natural life of Sarah Sullivan and Marie Rockwell Smith and in what proportions; that this plaintiff may be advised * * * in what manner he is to apply the principal of said legacy' and that he may be instructed as to any other questions 'which may arise in the administration and execution of the trust created in the paragraph of said will hereinbefore fully set forth.'

Paragraph 2 on page 2 of said will which was fully set forth in said petition was: 'I give and bequeath to my niece Sarah Sullivan, the daughter of my beloved sister, Sarah Buckley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, the sum of twenty-thousand ($20,000.00) Dollars, to be held in trust for her absolutely during her natural life and at her death her share shall remain in trust for the benefit of her daughter Marie who shall receive the income of the same during her natural life, and at the death of the said Marie, should she survive her mother, then the aforesaid share shall be equally divided between the remaining principal devisees.'

A full copy of the will was attached to and made a part of the petition.

At the time the petition was filed in the Superior Court of Cincinnati, all the 'principal devisees' were living, were parties to the action, and continued to live until long after the judgment in the case was entered. Each of them filed answers asserting that according to the provisions of the last will and testament of John Mackey, deceased, he or she, as the case might be, was entitled to a one-third of said legacy referred to in plaintiff's petition, subject to the life estates of said Sarah Sullivan and Marie Rockwell Smith, and each prayed that the court in 'construing said paragraph of said last will * * * may adjudge this defendant to be entitled to the said one-third subject to the life estates of said Sarah Sullivan and Marie Rockwell Smith and for such other and further relief' to which he or she might be entitled in equity.

No reply was filled and no issue was raised in the pleadings as to the correct construction to be placed upon this language of the will. Certainly, no issue was presented as to the contingency of Marie Rockwell Smith surviving her m...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sioux City v. Young
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 24, 1959
    ...of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 161 F.2d 171, 178; Bush v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 391; Williams v. Ledbetter, 87 Ohio App. 171, 94 N.E.2d 377; Young Men's Christian Ass'n of St. Louis and St. Louis County v. Sestric, 362 Mo. 551, 242 S.W.2d 497; Hurd v. Albert, 214 ......
  • Wagner v. Baron
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 17, 1953
    ...178; Bush v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 391; Durham v. Crawford, 196 Ga. 381, 26 S.E.2d 778; Williams v. Ledbetter, 87 Ohio App. 171, 94 N.E.2d 377; Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Sestric, 362, Mo. 551, 242 S.W.2d 497; Moseley v. Welch, 218 S.C. 242, 62 S.E.2d 313; I......
  • Rocky River City School District v. Ohio Department of Education, 97-LW-2766
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • July 3, 1997
    ... ... which a declaration is sought has actually arisen ... Williams ... v. Ledbetter (1950), 87 Ohio App. 171, 180, 57 Ohio Law ... Abs. 289, 42 O.O. 391, 94 N.E.2d 377. See, also, Corron ... v ... ...
  • Estate of Roulac
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 1977
    ...39 Misc.2d 133, 240 N.Y.S.2d 342, 346; In re Astor's Will (N.Y.1957), 5 Misc.2d 722, 162 N.Y.S.2d 46, 55--56; Williams v. Ledbetter (1950), 87 Ohio App. 171, 94 N.E.2d 377, 382; Burpee v. Pickard (1947), 94 N.H. 307, 52 A.2d 286; In re Farwell's Estate (1964), 106 N.H. 61, 204 A.2d 239, 241......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT