102 A.D. 377 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1905
The plaintiff is the sole executrix of Thomas H. Cushman. In this suit she seeks to recover a trust estate created for the benefit of her late husband by the will of his father, Robert S. Cushman.
By the 8th clause of his will Robert S.. Cushman devised and bequeathed his residuary estate “ to the executors hereinafter named and appointed of this my last will and testament,” in trust to convert the same into money and invest the proceeds, and out of the income to pay $200 a year to a brother of the testator for life, and to pay the remaing income (the whole after the death of the brother) to the testator’s three sons, Oliver J. Cushman, John T. Cushman and Thomas H. Cushman, until the testator’s youngest child should attain the age of twenty-five, or would if living have attained that age. The will continued as follows: “ And upon the happening of that event, I order and direct the executors hereinafter mentioned of this my will, to divide my said estate into as many equal parts or shares as there shall then be living of my said three sons above mentioned, and one of which said equal shares or parts I then order
By the last clause of the will Theodore Townsend and Henry Martin of Albany, friends of the testator, were appointed executors. Their appointment was expressly revoked by a codicil which appointed the testator’s brother, Paul Cushman^ and S. 0. Shepard of Albany sole executors in their place and stead.
The testator left him surviving the three sons mentioned in the will and for whose benefit the residuary estate was left in trust, Oliver J. Cushman, John T. Cushman and Thomas H. Cushman. Oliver J. Cushman died in 1886 and John T. Cushman died in 1887, and their shares in the residuary estate have passed to others under the residuary clause of their father’s will. Thomas H. Cushman, the third son, plaintiff’s husband, died in 1898, at the age of forty-four, making his wife his sole devisee, legatee and executrix.
Letters testamentary under the will of Robert S. Cushman were issued only to Paul Cushman, his brother. Paul died in 1895, and the defendant Harry C. Cushman, his sole executor, took possession not only of Paul Cushman’s estate but of all that part of the residuary estate of Robert S. Cushman which had not been distributed by Paul. At the time of Paul Cushman’s death he had in his possession as executor and trustee under the will of Robert S. Cushman securities worth about $50,000, which he had set apart and claimed to hold in trust under the residuary clause of said will for the separate benefit of the plaintiff’s husband. These securities have come into the possession and control of the defendant Harry C. Cushman, with knowledge on his part of their character as trust
The complaint contains an allegation that Bebecca W. Sypher and several defendants other than Harry C. Cushman claim some ■ interest in the said trust property, and have received some portion thereof from the defendant Harry C. Cushman.
Harry C. Cushman and Bebecca W. Sypher have demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, cause of action. Their demurrers have been sustained at Special Term and the plaintiff appeals.
Several interesting questions were argued orally before us and are discussed in the briefs of counsel, which it does not seem necessary to pass upon in order to determine this appeal. As was intimated in the course of the argument we think that the allegations contained in the 12th numbered paragraph of the complaint suffice to make out a cause of action, when considered together with all the other allegations which are to be deemed admitted by force of the demurrer. The 12th paragraph reads as follows: “ That the plaintiff’s husband, Thomas H. Cushman, attained the age of twenty-five years in or about the year 1879, and prior to the death of said Paul Cushman and down to the time of his own death, was of good moral habits and competent to receive, take charge of and to properly and prudently use, manage and dispose of the entire share bequeathed or intended to be bequeathed to him under the will of his father, Bobert S. Cushman, not only in fact, but, as plaintiff is informed and believes, also in the judgment of the said Paul Cushman shortly before his death, and the said Thomas H. Cushman was not then of such immoral, prodigal or improvident habits and character as to render him incompetent in fact or in the judgment of the executors of the will of Bobert S. Cushman to properly and prudently use and manage his share of said estate.”
Assuming that Paul Cushman, although appointed by the. codicil
This view requires a reversal of the interlocutory judgment. It may be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the allegations of the 12th paragraph, but they suffice to save the complaint on demurrer.
Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., not voting.
Interlocutory judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer overruled, with costs, with leave to the defendants to plead anew within twenty days upon payment of costs.