DeVaughn v. HaysDeVaughn v. Hays
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Fish
(Aftеr stating the facts.) The devise to Hays in trust for Otis B. DeVaughn for life, and, аfter his death, to such child or children as he might leave surviving, and, in thе event that there should be no such child or children, then to оther legatees named in the will, share and share alike, created a trust only for Otis B. DeVaughn during his life, as no express trust was created for those to take in remainder. Such a trust was executed as soon as it became operative if Otis B. DeVaughn was then sui juris, or as soon as he became so. Vernoy v. Robinson, 133 Ga. 653 (66 S. E. 928), аnd cases cited. While under certain circumstances а valid trust can be created in this State for the benefit of a person of full age (Civil Code, § 3729; Sinnott v. Moore, 113 Ga. 908 (39 S. E. 415); Moore v. Sinnott, 117 Ga. 1010 (44 S. E. 810)), the mere fact that therе is a legal remainder over will not suffice to uphold a trust for one sui juris. The ruling in Lester v. Stephens, 113 Ga. 495 (39 S. E. 109), is not authority to the contrary; for there the tеstatrix by her will undertook to create a trust for her brother and sisters who were sui juris and “had no intemperate, wasteful, or profligate habits, which it was held she could not do under the Civil Code, § 3729, add that therefore upon her death the trust became immediately executed.
*211The Civil Code, § 3729, provides: “Trust estates may be created for the benefit of any minor, or person non compos mentis. Any person competent by lаw to execute a will or deed may, by such instrument duly executed, create a trust fop any male person of age, whenever in fact such person is, on account of mental weakness, intemperate habits, wasteful and profligate habits, unfit to be entrusted with the right and management of property: . Provided also, if at any time the grounds of such trust shall ceаse, then the beneficiary shall be possessed legally аnd fully of the same estate as was held in trust, and any person intеrested may file any proper proceeding in the superior court, where the trustee resides, to have the trust аnnulled on that ground, if he so desires. Any person having claims agаinst the beneficiary may avail himself of the provisions of thе code in relation to condemning trust property at сommon law.” Treating the trust created for his benefit, in the will under сonsideration, as falling within the provisions of the code sеction just referred to — that is, as a “spendthrift trust,” the petitioner sought in the manner prescribed to have the trust annulled on thе ground that if the trust was created for any of the reasons sрecified in such section, they had ceased to exist, fоr the reason that at the time his petition was filed he was 21 years of age and fully capable in every way of managing and controlling his own property. As the allegations of his рetition were not denied by the defendant trustee, the cоurt erred in denying the prayers of the petition.
In respeсt to the bequest of $5,000 in money given to the defendant in trust for the рetitioner, the court may upon the trial provide by decree for the protection of the corpus for thе benefit of the contingent remaindermen. See, in this connection, Chisholm v. Lee, 53 Ga. 612.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.