Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

California.—Hellman v. McWilliams (1886) 70 Cal. 449, 11 Pac. 659; Scrivner v. Dietz (1890) 84 Cal. 297, 24 Pac. 171; Kopp v. Gunther (1892) 95 Cal. 63, 30 Pac, 301; Gray v. Union Trust Co. (1915) 171 Cal. 637, 154 Pac. 306.

Hawaii.-Kellett v. Sumner (1903) 15 Haw. 76; Love v. Love (1905) 17 Haw. 206.

Illinois.—Light v. Scott (1878) 88 Ill. 239.

Indiana. Gaylord v. Lafayette (1888) 115 Ind. 423, 17 N. E. 899; Ewing v. Jones (1892) 130 Ind. 247, 15 L.R.A. 75, 29 N. E. 1057; Ewing v. Carson (1892) 130 Ind. 597, 29 N. E. 1061; Ewing v. Lemcke (1892) 130 Ind. 600, 29 N. E. 1061; Ewing v. Torian (1892) 130 Ind. 600, 29 N. E. 1061; Copeland v. Summers (1893) 138 Ind. 219, 35 N. E. 514, 37 N. E. 971; Grant Trust & Sav. Co. v. Tucker (1911) 49 Ind. App. 345, 96 N. E. 487; Ralph v. George (1922) 78 Ind. App. 491, 136 N. E. 44.

Iowa. Re Podhajsky (1908) 137 Iowa, 742, 115 N. W. 590; Jones v. Nicholas (1911) 151 Iowa, 362, 130 N. W. 125; McCash v. Derby (1913) 158 Iowa, 371, 139 N. W. 881; Haulman v. Haulman (1914) 164 Iowa, 471, 145 N. W. 930; Re Tolerton (1915) 168 Iowa, 677, 150 N. W. 1051.

Kansas.--Reddy V. Graham (1922) 110 Kan. 753, 205 Pac. 362.

Kentucky. – Williamson v. Yager (1891) 91 Ky. 282, 34 Am. St. Rep. 184, 15 S. W. 660; Anderson v. Kemper (1903) 116 Ky. 339, 76 S. W. 122; Beard v. Beard (1917) 173 Ky. 131, 190 S. W. 703, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 832; Murphy v. Haynes (1923) 197 Ky. 444, 247 S. W. 362; Burton v. Burton (1923) 198 Ky. 429, 248 S. W. 1031.

Maine.-Cobb v. Knight (1882) 74 Me. 253; Cazallis v. Ingraham (1920) 119 Me. 240, 110 Atl. 359. See Spring v. Hight (1843) 22 Me. 408, 39 Am. Dec. 587.

Maryland. Dayton v. Stewart (1904) 99 Md. 643, 59 Atl. 281.

Massachusetts. - Viney v. Abbott (1872) 109 Mass. 300; Sewall v. Roberts (1874) 115 Mass. 262; Keyes v. Carleton (1886) 141 Mass. 45, 55 Am. Rep. 446, 6 N. E. 524; Pingrey v. National L. Ins. Co. (1887) 144 Mass.

374, 11 N. E. 562; Lovett v. Farnham (1897) 169 Mass. 1, 47 N. E. 246; Thorp v. Lund (1917) 227 Mass. 474, 116 N. E. 946, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1204; Coolidge v. Loring (1920) 235 Mass. 220, 126 N. E. 276.

Minnesota. - Ewing v. Warner (1891) 47 Minn. 446, 50 N. W. 603.

Mississippi. – Nelson v. Ratliff (1895) 72 Miss. 656, 18 So. 487.

Missouri. Aubuchon Bender (1869) 44 Mo. 565; Ewing v. Shannahan (1892) 113 Mo. 188, 20 S. W. 1065; Ottomeyer v. Pritchett (1903) 178 Mo. 160, 77 S. W. 62; Harding v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. (1918) 276 Mo. 136, 207 S. W. 68; State ex rel. Kansas City Theological Seminary v. Ellison (1919)

Mo. 216 S. W. 967; Watson v. Hardwick (1921) - Mo. 231 S. W. 964; Melvin v. Hoffman (1921) 290 Mo. 464, 235 S. W. 107; Stephens v. Moore (1923) 298 Mo, 215, 249 S. W. 601; Frank v. Heimann (1924) 302

Io. 334, 258 S. W. 1000; Watson v. Payne (1910) 143 Mo. App. 721, 128 S. W. 238.

New Hampshire.—Minot v. Tilton (1887) 64 N. H. 371, 10 Atl. 682.

New Jersey.-Isham v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (1856) 11 N. J. Eq. 227; Gulick v. Gulick (1885) 39 N. J. Eq. 401; Crue v. Caldwell (1889) 52 N. J. L. 215, 19 Atl. 188; Beekman v. Hendrickson (1891) — N.J. -, 21 Atl. 567; Filley v. Fownes (1913) 81 N. J. Eq. 498, 87 Atl. 439; New Jersey Title Guarantee & T. Co. v. Parker (1915) 84 N. J. Eq. 351, 93 Atl. 196, affirmed in (1915) 85 N. J. Eq. 557, 96 Atl. 574.

New York. Collins v. Collins (1874) 56 N. Y. 668; Mabie v. Bailey (1884) 95 N. Y. 206; Wallace v. Berdell (1884) 97 N. Y. 13; Gilman v. McArdle (1885) 99 N. Y. 451, 52 Am. Rep. 41, 2 N. E. 464; McPherson y. Rollins (1887) 107 N. Y. 316, 1 Am. St. Rep. 826, 14 N. E. 411; Garner v. Germania L. Ins Co. (1888) 110 N. Y. 266, 1 L.R.A. 256, 18 N. E. 130; Genet v. Hunt (1889) 113 N. Y. 158, 21 N. E. 91; Re Davis (1907) 119 App. Div. 35, 103 N. Y. Supp. 946; Stockert v. Dry Dock Sav. Inst. (1913) 155 App. Div. 123, 139 N. Y. Supp. 986; Hammerstein v. Equitable Trust Co. (1913) 156 App. Div. 644, 141 N. Y. Supp. 1065, affirmed

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

V.

[ocr errors]

in (1913) 209 N. Y. 429, 103 N. E. 706, S. E. 157; McElveen v. Adams (1917) motion to amend remittitur granted 108 S. C. 437, 94 S. E. 733. in (1914) 211 N. Y. 611, 105 N. E. 1085; Tennessee.—Harris v. Union Bank Crackanthorpe v. Sickles (1913) 156 (1860) 1 Coldw. 152. App. Div. 753, 141 N. Y. Supp. 370; Texas.-Monday v. Vance (1899) 92 Cazzani v. Title Guarantee & T. Co. Tex. 428, 49 S. W. 516. (1916) 175 App. Div. 369, 161 N. Y. Utah.-Skeen v. Marriott (1900) 22 Supp. 884, affirmed in (1917) 220 N. Utah, 73, 61 Pac. 296. Y. 683, 116 N. E. 1040; Williams v. Vermont. Barber v. Thompson Sage (1917) 180 App. Div. 1, 167 N. Y. (1876) 49 Vt. 213; Sargent v. BaldSupp. 179; Ludlam Ludlam (1920) win (1887) 60 Vt. 17, 13 Atl. 854; 194 App. Div. 411, 185 N. Y. Supp. 343, Howard v. Howard (1888) 60 Vt. 362, affirmed without opinion in (1922) 232 14 Atl. 702. N. Y. 615, 134 N. E. 594; Re Rudolph Virginia. Skipwith v. Cunningham (1915) 92 Misc. 347, 156 N. Y. Supp. (1837) 8 Leigh, 271, 31 Am. Dec. 642; 825, 15 Mills, 323; Re Merritt (1916) Sterling v. Wilkinson (1887) 83 Va. 94 Misc. 425, 159 N. Y. Supp. 558; Re 791, 3 S. E. 533; Riggan v. Riggan Green (1918) 103 Misc. 564, 170 N. Y. (1896) 93 Va. 78, 24 S. E. 920; Russell Supp. 843; Meiggs v. Meiggs (1878) v. Passmore (1920) 127 Va. 475, 103 S. 15 Hun. 453; Foster v. Coe (1871) 4 E. 652. Lans. 53; Parker v. Allen (1890) 36 Washington. Holmes v. Holmes N. Y. S. R. 671, 14 N. Y. Supp. 265; (1911) 65 Wash. 572, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) Court v. Bankers' Trust Co. (1915) 645, 118 Pac. 733, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 160 N. Y. Supp. 477; Re Carnegie 1021. (1922) 203 App. Div. 91, 196 N. Y. England. Villers Beaumont Supp. 502, affirming (1921) 117 Misc. (1682) 1 Vern. 100, 23 Eng. Reprint, 806, 191 N. Y. Supp. 753.

342; Bale v. Newton (1687) 1 Vern. North Dakota. - Reel v. Hansboro 464, 23 Eng. Reprint, 589; Clavering State Bank (1924) N. D. – 201 N. v. Clavering (1704) 2 Vern, 473, 23 W. 861.

Eng. Reprint, 904, 8 Eng. Rul. Cas. Ohio.-See Redkey v. Worthington 577; Ellison v. Ellison (1802) 6 Ves. (1909) 32 Ohio C. C. 63.

Jr. 656, 31 Eng. Reprint, 1243; Smith Pennsylvania. - Greenfield's Estate v. Garland (1817) 2 Meriv. 125, 35 (1850) 14 Pa. 489; Fellows's Appeal Eng. Reprint, 887. See Worrall V. (1880) 93 Pa. 470; Neal v. Black Jacob (1817) 3 Meriv. 256, 36 Eng. (1896) 177 Pa, 83, 34 L.R.A. 707, 35 Reprint, 98; Petre v. Espinasse (1834) Atl. 561; Wilson v. Anderson (1898) 2 Myl. & K. 496, 39 Eng. Reprint, 1034; 186 Pa. 531, 44 L.R.A. 542, 40 Atl. Bill.v. Cureton (1835) 2 Myl. & K. 503, 1096; Rynd v, Baker (1899) 193 Pa. 39 Eng. Reprint, 1036; Rycroft v. 486, 44 Atl. 551; Kraft v. Neuffer Christy (1840) 3 Beav. 238, 49 Eng. (1902) 202 Pa. 558, 52 Atl. 100; Fish- Reprint, 93. See Beatson v. Beatson blate v. Fishblate (1913) 238 Pa. 450, (1841) 12 Sim. 294, 59 Eng. Reprint, 86 Atl. 469; Owen's Petition (1894) 1139; Newton v. Askew (1848) 11 3 Pa. Dist. R. 328; Murphy v. Solms Beav. 145, 50 Eng. Reprint, 772; Keke(1888) 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 264; House's Es- wich v. Manning (1851) 1 De G. M. & tate (1894) 14 Pa, Co. Ct. 654.

G. 176, 42 Eng. Reprint, 519; PaterRhode Island-Stone v. King (1863) son v. Murphy (1853) 11 Hare, 88, 68 7 R. I. 358, 84 Am. Dec. 557; Atkin- Eng. Reprint, 1198; Phillips v. Mulson's Petition (1889) 16 R. I. 413, 3 lings (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. 244; Henry v. L.R.A. 392, 27 Am. St. Rep. 745, 16 Atl. Armstrong (1881) L. R. 18 Ch. Div. 712; Neisler v. Pearsall (1901) 22 R. I. 668; Godfrey v. Poole (1888) L. R. 13 367, 52 L.R.A. 874, 48 Atl. 8; Gobeille App. Cas. 497, - P. C.; Mallott v. Wil. v. Allison (1910) 30 R. I. 525, 76 Atl. son (1903) 2 Ch. 494; Re Daw (1917) 354.

118 L. T. N. S. 151. See Smith v. South Carolina.-Brunson v. King Lyne (1843) 2 Younge & C. Ch. Cas. (1836) 11 S. C. Eq. (2 Hill) 483; 345, 63 Eng. Reprint, 152. Strong v. Weir (1896) 47 S. C. 307, 25 So, it has been declared that it must appear from the instrument that the fetters he hath put upon himself, there was an intention on the part of but he must lie down under his own the grantor to reserve the right of rev- folly; for if you would relieve in such ocation, and that a secret or unex- a case, you must consequently estabpressed intention is of no avail. Re lish this proposition, viz.: that a man Tolerton (1915) 168 Iowa, 677, 150 N. can make no voluntary disposition of W. 1051, holding such to be the rule his estate, but by his will only, which under the statute and decisions in would be absurd.” Villers v. BeauIowa. See also Wallace v. Berdell mont (1682) 1 Vern. 100, 23 Eng. Re(1884) 97 N. Y. 13.

print, 342. In Potter v. Fidelity Ins. Trust & S. So, in the absence of a power of revD. Co. (1901) 199 Pa. 360, 49 Atl. 85, ocation, where the conveyance is it was said: “Generally the cases in fully executed and the trust perfectly which voluntary settlements have created, the settlement cannot be rebeen set aside have been: Where voked by a second settlement of the there had been fraud or imposition in same property. Sewall v. Roberts their procurement; where the design (1874) 115 Mass. 262. had been to give the settlor full en- On the question whether the grantjoyment of his property for life, with or in a trust deed intended to reserve power of testamentary disposition, the power to revoke it, evidence that and at the same time to protect it a considerable time after the execufrom his creditors; where the instru- tion of the deed he made a will, in ment was in itself, or in connection which he attempted to dispose of the with other instruments, testamentary property conveyed by the deed, is imin character; where the intention to material. Re Tolerton (Iowa) supra. make the instrument revocable clearly It has been held, however, that a appeared; where the purpose of set- grantor may revoke a trust deed tlement had failed; or where the trust where he is the sole beneficiary of the created was merely a naked one. The trust, and no other person has any rule is that a voluntary settlement present interest in the estate, continwill be sustained and enforced in gent or otherwise. favor of the beneficiaries, unless it is Kentucky. See the reported case shown that it was procured by fraud (FIDELITY & C. TRUST Co. v. GWYNN, or imposition, or executed under a ante, 937), which refers to earlier misapprehension of the facts or of the cases in Kentucky, namely, Downs v. law." See also Kraft v. Neuffer Security Trust Co. (1917) 175 Ky. 789, (1902) 202 Pa. 558, 52 Atl. 100.

194 S. W. 1041, Middleton v. Shelby Again, in Kraft v. Neuffer (Pa.) County Trust Co. (1899) 21 Ky. L. supra, the court said: “It is a gen- Rep. 183, 51 S. W. 156, and Coleman v. eral rule of law that the title of bene- Fidelity Trust & S. V. Co. (1906) 28 ficiaries under a deed of trust is com- Ky. L. Rep. 1263, 91 S. W. 716, as denyplete, and irrevocable by the settlor, ing the right of a trustor who is the although the transaction be purely sole beneficiary of the trust to revoke voluntary. Nor does the fact that it, but says that the courts, in these the grantor reserved an interest dur- cases, seem to have been actuated by ing life in the proceeds of the prop- the particular facts presented. erty, and gave a future benefit to Missouri. Stephens Moore other persons named, give an implied (1923) 298 Mo. 215, 249 S. W. 601. right of revocation. It contravenes Nevada.—Cole v. Nickel (1919) 43 no rule or policy of law, but executes Nev. 12, 177 Pac. 109, writ of certiothe intention of the grantor."

rari denied in (1921) 256 U. S. 222, 65 Also, in an early case in England L. ed. 900, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467. the Lord Chancellor declared : “If a New York. - Whittemore v. Equiman will improvidently bind himself table Trust Co. (1914) 162 App. Div. up by a voluntary deed, and not re- 607, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1058; Cram v. serve a liberty to himself by a power Walker (1922) 173 App. Div. 804, 160 of revocation, this court will not loose' N. Y. Supp. 486; Cruger v. Union

V.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Trust Co. (1916) 173 App. Div. 797, 160 N. Y. Supp. 480; Aranyi v. Bankers' Trust Co. (1922) 201 App. Div. 706, 194 N. Y. Supp. 614; Goodwin v. Broadway Trust Co. (1914) 87 Misc. 130, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1033; Schwartz v. Fulton Trust Co. (1922) 119 Misc. 831, 198 N. Y. Supp. 275; Phelps

Thompson (1922) 119 Misc. 875, 198 N. Y. Supp. 320; Boucicault v. Leubuscher (1924) 124 Misc. 232, 207 N. Y. Supp. 1.

Pennsylvania.—Frederick's Appeal (1866) 52 Pa. 338, 91 Am. Dec. 159; Rick's Appeal (1884) 105 Pa. 528; Bristor v. Tasker (1890) 135 Pa. 110, 20 Am. St. Rep. 853, 19 Atl. 853, 851; Chestnut Street Nat. Bank v. Fidelity Ins. & Trust & S. D. Co. (1898) 186 Pa. 333, 65 Am. St. Rep. 860, 40 Atl. 486; Sturgeon v. Stevens (1898) 186 Pa. 350, 40 Atl. 488.

Rhode Island.-Eaton v. Tillinghast (1856) 4 R. I. 276.

England.-Maber v. Hobbs (1836) 2 Younge & C. Exch. 326, 160 Eng. Reprint, 421; Hastings v. Orde (1840) 11 Sim. 205, 59 Eng. Reprint, 853; Beatson v. Beatson (1841) 12 Sim. 294, 59 Eng. Reprint, 1139.

Canada.-Poirier V. Brulé (1891) 20 Can. S. C. 97.

In the case of a transfer of stock for the purpose of creating a trust, it has been held that if by such transfer no beneficiary or third person has been given any present interest therein, the trustor may revoke the trust. Cole v. Nickel (Nev.) supra.

In Aranyi v. Bankers Trust Co. (1922) 201 App. Div. 706, 194 N. Y. Supp. 614, it appeared that the plaintiff had entered into a trust agreement with the defendant, whereby she transferred to the defendant all right, title, and interest which she then had, or might at any time thereafter have, in the corpus of a trust fund established under the will of the plaintiff's grandfather, for the benefit of the plaintiff's mother during her lifetime, with remainder over to her issue. The trust provided, in substance, that when said distributive share was received by the defendant it should be held by it in trust, the net income to be paid over to the plaintiff from time

38 A.L.R.-60.

to time, she having the privilege of withdrawing certain instalments of principal at various times therein specified, the trust to terminate on the plaintiff arriving at the age of thirtyfive years, at which time the defendant was to convey and pay over the balance of the principal of the said trust fund to the plaintiff for her own use and benefit forever. In case of the death of the plaintiff before arriving at the age of thirty-five years, then the defendant was to convey, transfer, and pay over the principal of the trust fund, or such portion thereof as might remain in its hands, in equal shares to the children of the plaintiff then living; and if the plaintiff should die before attaining the age of thirty-five years, without leaving children her surviving, then on her death the defendant was to convey, transfer, and pay over the said fund to such person or corporation as the plaintiff should appoint by her last will and testament. The plaintiff in the agreement declared the same to be irrevocable. The court said : "In the case under consideration the trust was created for the sole benefit of the creator, to hold her property in trust for her benefit until she should arrive at the age of thirty-five years, when it was to be paid over to her. Her children were not in any sense to be beneficiaries of the trust. Their only possibility of interest would be in case she should die prior to the termination of the trust period, leaving such children. The trust deed as to them was testamentary in character. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to distinguish, in his citation of authorities, between trusts created in real estate and those where the corpus is personalty. While in this case the trust deed refers to both real and personal property, it is only as to the trust in the personalty that revocation is sought. I am of opinion that where the corpus of the trust is personal property, and the trust is a voluntary one made by the creator for her own benefit, and she is the only person in being having a vested or contingent interest therein, she has the right to revoke the same."

With regard to what are sometimes N. Y. Supp. 946; Hessen v. McKinley called savings bank trusts the rule (1913) 155 App. Div. 496, 140 N. Y. has been stated in a New York case as Supp. 724, affirmed in (1913) 209 N. Y. follows: "After much reflection upon 532, 102 N. E. 1104; Duryea v. Knapp the subject, guided by the principles (1916) 174 App. Div. 131, 160 N. Y. established by our former decisions, Supp. 553, affirmed without opinion in we announce the following as our con- (1918) 223 N. Y. 643, 119 N. E. 1040, clusion: A deposit by one person of which was affirmed on rehearing in his own money, in his own name as · N. Y. - 120 N. E. 861; Jennings v. trustee for another, standing alone, Hennessy (1899) 26 Misc. 265, 55 N. Y. does not establish an irrevocable trust Supp. 833, affirmed in (1899) 40 App. during the lifetime of the depositor. Div. 633, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1142; Walsh It is a tentative trust merely, revo- v. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank cable at will, until the depositor dies (1919) 106 Misc. 628, 176 N. Y. Supp. or completes the gift in his lifetime 418, affirmed without opinion in by some unequivocal act or declara- (1922) 233 N. Y. 512, 135 N. E. 897; Re tion, such as delivery of the pass book Wille (1920) 111 Misc. 61, 182 N. Y. or notice to the beneficiary. In case Supp. 366; Morris v. Sheehan (1920) the depositor dies before the benefici- 112 Misc. 222, 184 N. Y. Supp. 121, ary without revocation, or some de- affirmed without opinion in (1921) 199 cisive act or declaration or disaffirm- App. Div. 968, 191 N. Y. Supp. 939, ance, the presumption arises that an which is affirmed with opinion in absolute trust was created as to the (1922) 234 N. Y. 366, 138 N. E. 23. balance on hand at the death of the As to the rule established by the dedepositor." Re Totten (1904) 179 cision in Re Totten (N. Y.) supra, it N. Y. 112, 70 L.R.A. 711, 71 N. E. 748, was later said in a case decided in the 1 Ann. Cas. 900, reversing (1903) 89 appellate division in New York: “This App. Div. 368, 85 N. Y. Supp. 928. rule appears to establish two proposiAnd see Lattan v. Van Ness (1906)

tions: First, if the depositor during 184 N. Y. 601, 77 N. E. 1190, affirming his lifetime completes the gift by some (1905) 107 App. Div. 393, 95 N. Y. unequivocal act, such as delivery of Supp. 97, which reversed (1904) 44 the pass book or notice to the beneMisc. 116, 89 N. Y. Supp. 761. In the ficiary, the trust thereupon and thereopinion rendered by the appellate divi- by becomes irrevocable by any act of sion it was said: “This case is dis- the depositor; second, in default of tinguishable from the Totten Case in such an unequivocal act the trust rethat the deposit in the latter was made mains tentative only, during the lifein the name of the depositor, who re- time of the depositor, and revocable tained the bank book; but if this was by him by some decisive act or decnot sufficient to create even a pre

laration. If not so revoked the gift sumption of an intention to establish becomes absolute on the death of the an irrevocable trust, it would seem depositor.” Stockert v. Dry Dock Sav. that the mere deposit in the name of a Inst. (1913) 155 App. Div. 123, 139 third person as trustee, though accom- N. Y. Supp. 986, wherein it was held panied by a delivery of the pass book that where a depositor had opened a to the trustee, was not conclusive. As savings bank account in trust for her the evidence seems to me to compel niece, and had at once delivered the the conclusion that a tentative and

bank book to the latter, and there was not an irrevocable trust was intended, no other evidence of the intention of I advise that the judgment be reversed the depositor, trust was created upon the law and the facts, and a new which could not be subsequently retrial granted, costs to abide the final voked without the consent of the beneaward of costs." See also Matthews v. ficiary. The court said: “The only Brooklyn Sav. Bank (1913) 208 N. Y. evidence as to the intention of the de508, 102 N. E. 520, reversing (1912) positor at the time the deposit was 151 App. Div. 527, 136 N. Y. Supp. 110; made is that she at once gave the Re Davis (1907) 119 App. Div. 35, 103 bank book to plaintiff. That evidence,

« PreviousContinue »