Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

WALTER M. PARKER, Trustee, v. WILLIAM M. CARPENTER a.

Where a will bequeaths the residue of an estate to a trustee and directs him to pay the net income thereof in his discretion to a son of the testator, the beneficiary has no interest in or to the trust property which can be levied upon by his judgment creditor. Under such will, the son's assignment of the income gives the assignee a right to the fund if the trustee is of opinion that it should be so expended. A child adopted by the son of a testator is not entitled to share in a bequest "to the children of my sons." Where a will directs that one half the income of a trust fund shall be paid to each of the testator's sons during life and provides that upon the death of either the share held for his benefit is to be equally divided among "the children of my said sons," the children of both sons are entitled to share in a distribution upon the decease of either.

YOUNG, J.

Allen took nothing by his levy, for Charles had no interest in or to the trust property. Abbott v. Abbott, 76 N.H. 225. His only right under Calvin's will is the right to receive so much of the income of the fund set apart for his benefit as the trustee thinks will benefit him. Wolfman v. Webster, ante, 24. Consequently that was all he could assign to Wyman. In other words, the right Wyman took from Charles was the right to receive the amount of the order if the trustee thinks it should be paid.

The defendant Bean takes nothing under the will of Calvin, for she is not William's child within the ordinary meaning of the word, and there is nothing to rebut the presumption that Calvin intended to give that word its ordinary meaning.

While Calvin intended to create two trust funds, one for the benefit of each of his sons, and to give `the trustee power to determine how much of the income of the fund set apart for the benefit of each son should be paid to him, when it came to disposing of the principal and accumulated income he gave each of these funds on the death of the son for whose benefit it was created, not to the children of that son, but "to the children of my said sons and their heirs, to be equally divided among them."

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PARKER v. CARPENTER
(Jan 5, 1915)