242 Mass. 326 | Mass. | 1922
The testatrix, after a specific devise of all her real estate to her husband, bequeathed to Henry B. Chandler “the sum of one thousand dollars, in trust nevertheless, the income to be paid to my son Edward O. Willcott,” and left the rest and
It is contended that the bankrupt took an equitable fee. The intention of the testatrix however was that he should receive the income only during his life, and at his death the principal should fall into the residue and go to the grandchildren who are minors and as co-respondents appear by their guardian to establish and protect their rights. While giving the right to the income she did not as pointed out in Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148, 152, give an absolute power of disposition of the principal as in Cummings v. Shaw, 108 Mass. 159, and Hale v. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468, or an absolute gift of the income of the fund without any limitation over as in Chase v. Chase, 132 Mass. 473. We are unable to distinguish the case at bar from Wynn v. Bartlett, 167 Mass. 292, Loomis v. Gorham, 186 Mass. 444, Stearns v. Stearns, 192 Mass. 144, and Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Dwelly, 219 Mass. 65.
The decree of the court of probate that the plaintiff is entitled to and the trustee is to pay to her the income only which may hereafter accrue from the fund during the life of Edward O. Willcott less the amount ordered paid to counsel concerning which there is no controversy, is affirmed with costs to the defendants Earl C. Willcott and Ruth E. Willcott to be taxed by the court on the income as between solicitor and client.
Ordered accordingly.