FIRST NAT. BANK v. WATTERS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

1 Div. 580.

Attorney(S)

Harry T. Smith Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant. Where the will makes no provision for the enjoyment of the rents, incomes, and profits of an estate by a beneficiary until he reaches a designated age, the court of chancery, occupying the place of the testator or creator of the trust, will do for the beneficiary what it conceives would have been done by the testator or creator of the trust had he foreseen the needs and necessities of the beneficiary. Pearce v. Pearce, 199 Ala. 491, 74 So. 952; Bennett v. Nashville Trust Co., 127 Tenn. 126, 153 S.W. 840, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 43, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1045; Knorr v. Millard, 52 Mich. 542, 18 N.W. 349. See, also, Perry on Trusts, §§ 615, 617, note. Smith Johnston, of Mobile, for appellees. Generally speaking, a court of equity may direct the payment to the beneficiary of the income of a fund placed in trust to accumulate, if, under all the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the testator would have so directed had he been alive after the conditions of the beneficiary changed so as to make the same necessary to carry out the general purpose of the will. Bennett v. Nashville Trust Co., 127 Tenn. 126, 153 S.W. 840, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 43, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1045; Marsh v. Reed, 184 Ill. 263, 56 So. 306; Packard v. Ill. Trust. S. B., 261 Ill. 450, 104 N.E. 275; Johns v. Montgomery, 265 Ill. 21, 106 N.E. 497, L.R.A. 1916B, 1073, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 996; Pearce v. Pearce, 199 Ala. 491, 74 So. 952.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

FIRST NAT. BANK IN MOBILE v. WATTERS et al.

BROWN, J.

The power of a court of equity, in a proper case, to hasten the enjoyment of a trust fund, by awarding advancements to the beneficiary before the time fixed by the creator of the trust, is generally recognized. Pearce v. Pearce, 199 Ala. 491, 74 So. 952; Shelton v. King, 229 U.S. 90, 33 S.Ct. 686, 57 L.Ed. 1086; Blackburn v. Hawkins, 6 Ark. 50; Wardens Vestry of St. Paul's Church v. Attorney General and Others, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N.E. 231; Knorr v. Millard, 52 Mich. 542, 18 N.W. 349; Mills v. Michigan Trust Co., 124 Mich. 244, 82 N.W. 1046; Tompkins v. Tompkins' Executors, 18 N.J. Eq. 303; In re Bostwick, 4 Johns. Ch. (N.Y.) 100; Seitz's Appeal (Zinn's Estate), 87 Pa. 159; Barlow v. Grant, 1 Vernon, 255, 23 Eng. Report 451.

While this power is usually exercised for the benefit of infants, it may be exercised in other cases where the necessity of varying the terms of the trust, in order to give effect to the ultimate intention of the creator of the trust, is shown, and no contingency appears which would ultimately defeat the right of the beneficiary for whose benefit the fund is to be applied. Pennington v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 65 N.J. Eq. 11, 55 A. 468; Shelton v. King, supra; Elder v. Elder, 50 Me. 535; Stewart v. Hamilton, 151 Tenn. 396, 270 S.W. 79, 39 A.L.R. 37.

Application of the principles stated, to the case now before us, is sufficient to justify the decree of the circuit court, in equity, and require that it be affirmed. It is so ordered by the court.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

FIRST NAT. BANK IN MOBILE v. WATTERS et al.

Comments