21 N.H. 491 | Superior Court of New Hampshire | 1850
The evidence shows, that Samuel P. Mars-ton, being the father of an illegitimate child by his niece, made a verbal agreement with his brother Nathaniel, that he would appropiate the amount due on certain notes, which he held against one William Weeks for about three thousand dollars, for the support and bringing up of the child. The notes were accordingly deposited with the appellant, and he expended the sum of six hundred dollars for the support of the child. The child died on the tenth day of November, 1849.
The appellant’s case is, that after the child should have been supported and brought up, if any part of the fund remained, it was to go to the child; that during the life of the child, the appellant held the fund upon a specific trust, which, at the time of the rendition of his account had not been fulfilled, and that the trust was not revoked by the will or subsequent contract of the testator.
The above facts are stated by Nathaniel Marston and his wife. Now, without inquiring into the questions raised by the admission of Judge Sullivan to testify under the circumstances detailed in the case, and to the contradictions of their testimony stated in his minutes, there is evidence that in the month of July, 1843, othe appellant told Mrs. Leach that no pro vision, was made for the child in the will, and that he would pay for its support from his own good will, and that he afterwards told her. there was no-property left for the child, and no provision made for it, and that he paid for its support from his own good will. What may have been his motive for making these' statements, it is unnecessary to inquire. Within three or four weeks after the birth of this illegitimate child he married its mother, without any previous declaration of his intentions to her parents; Perhaps he supposed that by the marriage the fund in question would become his own property, and perhaps his object was to make the best bargain he could with Mrs. Leach for the child’s support. But whatever his purpose may have been, it can be doing him no injustice to weigh his own statements upon the matter of fact against the evidence of his own witnesses, and to consider them in connection with the story told by Mr. and Mrs. Nathaniel Marston. Tried, then, by this test, the evidence falls short of proving such a trust as the appellant alleges to exist; that is, that the fund, after deducting from it the expense of supporting the child, should become its property.
No question of consideration arises in the case. The deceased did not make an executory contract for the support of the child. The transaction was a gift to the executor of property, to be held by him in trust, and so much of it as was necessary appropriated for the child’s support. The delivery was necessary, and without it the property would not have passed. Irons v. Smallpiece, 2 B. & A. 551; Cook v. Husted, 12 Johns. 188; Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145. And from the same authorities it appears that a gift accompanied by delivery will pass the property. Bean v. Jones, 8 N. H. Rep. 149. In the case of Smith v. Smith, 7 C.
We think- that the judge of probate erred in disallowing the claim made by the executor for the sums paid by him for the-support of the child, and for his services in collecting and expending the money. ; The sums paid by him should be credited to him, and he should be allowed a reasonable sum for his services. The decree should be affirmed as to all the other matters specified' in the appeal, and the case is remitted to the probate court for further proceedings, according to the principles above stated.
Costs are to be taxed for the executor. Upon the. rendition of his account he claimed no interest in the fund except as a trustee. The questions in the case were sufficiently important' to the parties interested, to authorize this appeal, and in the position he occupied it would be inequitable to charge him personally with the costs.