Woodward v. Snow

• Decision Date: 24 June 1919
• Citation: 124 N.E. 35,233 Mass. 267
• Parties: WOODWARD et al. v. SNOW et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

233 Mass. 267

124 N.E. 35

WOODWARD et al.

v.SNOW et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 24, 1919.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Suit by Henry F. Woodward and another against Frederic E. Snow and others. From the decree, Allan Forbes, trustee in bankruptcy, a defendant, and Benjamin P. Cheney, a defendant, appeal. Affirmed.Hale & Dickerman, of Boston (Samuel M. Child, of Boston, of counsel), for appellant Cheney.

John L. Hall and James W. Burke, both of Boston, for appellant Forbes.

Robert Cushman and Robert G. Dodge, both of Boston (Henry F. Woodward, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellees.

PIERCE, J.

This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs as trustees for certain creditors of the defendant Benjamin P. Cheney under a trust for such creditors created and established by a sealed agreement and assignment dated respectively April 6, and April 11, 1914, against the trustees under the will of Benjamin P. Cheney, the father of the defendant of that name, to reach and apply the interest, if any, of the defendant Cheney under the will, to the payment of the claims of the aforesaid creditors against Cheney as established by the instrument of trust.

In 1895 Benjamin P. Cheney died testate. By a decree of the Probate Court for the County of Norfolk his will was admitted to probate and the defendant Cheney was duly appointed one of the executors and trustees thereof. An appeal from said decree was taken by the widow and certain heirs to the Supreme Judicial Court for said county. While the appeal was pending, an agreement by compromise was executed by ‘all persons who would be entitled to the estate * * * under the statutes regulating the descent and distribution of intestate estates,’ ‘subject to the approval of the Supreme Judicial Court.’ After the appointment of a suitable person to represent certain minors interested under the provisions of said will and all future subsequent interest which may arise under the same, and upon the report of that person that the compromise and agreement ‘sought by said bill to be confirmed by the decree of this Court is just and reasonable in its effects upon the interests of such minors and such future contingent interests, * * * is just and reasonable,’ a single justice of this court, by decree entered March 27, 1896, and unreversed, found the compromise and agreement ‘is just and reasonable’ and ordered that the written agreement of compromise be ‘ratified and confirmed.’ He also ordered:

‘That the decree of the Judge of Probate for Norfolk County allowing and approving said instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of said Benjamin P. Cheney be affirmed, as provided in and subject to the terms of said agreement.’

The defendant Cheney's first contention is that the interest given him by the will was one which could not be assigned.

His second proposition is that under the decisions of this court (see Ellis v. Hunt, 228 Mass. 39, 116 N. E. 956;Baxter v. Treas. & Receiver General, 209 Mass. 459, 95 N. E. 854) parties in making a compromise of a controversy as to the validity of an alleged will under the statutes (now R. L. c. 148, §§ 15-18) have no right to make a new will for the testator, and from this it follows (especially when the compromise is carried out by the will being admitted to probate) that the nature of the interest given a legatee is that described in the will.

In the case of the agreement of compromise of the will of the defendant Cheney's father, here in question, the parties did undertake to change the nature of the interest given to the defendant Cheney, and the agreement of compromise was confirmed by a decree of a single justice of this court made on March 27, 1896.

By the agreement of compromise which was confirmed by this decree, the interest given to the defendant Cheney was an interest which could be assigned. The decree confirming this agreement of compromise has not been reversed. Whether that decree was or was not an erroneous one is...