Woodward v. James

• Citation: 22 N.E. 150,115 N.Y. 346
• Parties: WOODWARD v. JAMES.
• Decision Date: 08 October 1889
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

115 N.Y. 346

22 N.E. 150

WOODWARD

v.JAMES.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 8, 1889.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

Frank E. Smith, for appellant.

Franklin Bartlett and Wm. H. Amoux, for respondent.

FINCH, J.

This action was brought to obtain a construction of the will of Frederick P. James, and for a partition of the real estate which he left, upon the theory that the remainder-men took vested legal estates under that will. The right of the plaintiff to a partition has thus far been denied, upon the ground that the executrix took the whole estate in trust, to invest and manage and control the smae, to pay taxes, expenses, and interest, and, after reserving to herself annually one-half of the gross income, to pay the balance remaining from the other half to the remainder-men, such trust continuing during her life. The testator left no children, and no father or mother, his wife alone surviving him. His relatives were collaterals, to whom he owed no duty, and who had no rights in his property, moral or legal, as against his own choice and preference in its disposition. He made his wife executrix, and for her support and future welfare he carefully provided. He gave her for her life the use of his city and country residences, and absolutely the furniture therein and pertaining thereto, and one-half the income of all his property, of every kind of which he should die possessed, also, for and during her life, ‘without restraint, deduction, or interference of any kind.’ The remainder was devised and bequeathed to his ‘legal heirs,’ but in a manner, and under conditions, manifesting a very decided purpose to postpone their estates in remainder until the death of his wife. He gives to such heirs ‘the remainder of the income’ from his property, accruing during his wife's life, ‘after the payment and discharge of all taxes, assessments, and charges, interest, and obligations against’ his estate, and then ‘the reversion and ownership’ of all his property ‘after the death’ of his wife, with an express ‘reservation, exception, and direction,’ the terms of which throw a strong light upon his intention, and indicate quite clearly the result which he desired to accomplish. It is thus expressed: ‘That in the event of any of my legal heirs making any attempt, directly or indirectly, in any manner or form, to interfere with or restrain, in any manner, my beloved wife from the full enjoyment, use, management, and direction and disposition of the property and income of my estate as herein devised, then, and in that event, such one of my legal heirs as shall do or perform or aid or abet the performance of such an act, or cause the same to be done, shall be forever debarred from any part, parcel, interest or ownership or inheritance of any of my property, and be excluded from sharing in the same, and the share that would otherwise have gone to him or her shall be divided among the remaining heirs according to law.’

Two things are made manifest by these testamentary provisions. The burden of all taxes and charges, and of all interest and obligations, was thrown upon the moiety of the income given to the heirs, and the half bequeathed to the wife was relieved from that deduction, and she, as executrix, was to have the management, direction, and disposition of the property and income ‘as devised.’ She was to have its management and direction. That involved the collection and receipt of the income and rents and profits of the estate, the investment of its funds, and the leasing of its lands. It involved also the payment by her, out of the income, of the charges existing and thereafter to accrue during her life. She was to have the disposition of the property ‘as devised,’ that is, in accordance with the provisions of the will; and so the duty was confided to her, as it seems to me, of ascertaining and paying over, every year during her life, the balance of income which might be due to the heirs.

We are of the opinion that the authority and duty thus conferred and imposed upon the widow respects the whole estate, and requires that the legal title should be vested in her as trustee for the term of her life. It is true that the testator does not, in direct words, devise to her such an estate, or use the expression ‘trust’ or ‘trustee.’ That fact is one to be noted and weighed, but does not prevent the creation of a trust by implication, where the exigencies of the situation require it, and such an intention is indicated. Here the duties explicitly imposed upon the widow belong to one of the authorized trusts permitted and defined by the statute,-that is, to receive the rents and profits of lands, and apply them to the use of the persons described; and, under the power of sale given, it is to sell lands for the purpose of satisfying a charge thereon. The objection taken to the implication of a trust is of a twofold character. It is argued that the testator does not direct the executrix to collect and receive the rents, or to pay them over to the use of the parties entitled. We think that he does. The management and direction of the estate on the one hand, and its disposition on the other, ‘as devised,’ or in accordance with the terms of the will, are explicitly confided to the executrix; and the purpose to exclude all interference with, or restraint upon, her control and administration of the property is emphasized by the provision for the forfeiture of the share of any one of the devisees of the remainder who should, in any manner, interfere with her management and disposition. It is to be remembered, also, that the widow is given one-half of the income of the whole estate, and not the income of one-half of the property. The two things are very different; and so, to reach the testator's results, and accomplish his purposes, it was necessary that somebody should lease and invest the whole estate, collect and receive the income and profits, pay taxes, debts, and annual charges, and distribute to the heirs so much of the one-half of the gross income as should remain annually as a surplus. That person was the testator's wife, for no one else could do these things without an interference with her management and control, which was forbidden under a serious penalty. We think there was a necessity for a trust, and an intention to create one.

But the...