Egbert v. de Solms
Egbert v. de Solms
Opinion of the Court
Except as against existing creditors, or those in specific contemplation in the immediate future, the defendant and his wife, the settlors in the deed of trust, could have conveyed a present absolute estate to their children, and a fortiori they could convey an estate in remainder. This is what they did, and the remainder vested in the children at once : Solms v. Phila. Trust Co., 16 W. N. C. 80. The power of appointment by the settlors in regard to the respective shares in which the children should take did not in any way diminish the estate of the remainder-men, or reserve to the settlors any interest which would invalidate the trust in favor of ■ their creditors.
The income, however, reserved to the settlor during his life, no matter how carefully guarded for his own use, was assets for payment of his debts : Mackason’s Appeal, 42 Pa. 330. '
It appears, however, by the answers of the garnishee that the income which it has collected and now holds was assigned by instrument in writing to another creditor before the service of. the present attachment, but that the defendant cestui que trust had revoked the assignment. In this position of affairs there was no admission of assets in its hands liable to attachment, and the rule was properly discharged.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 13 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Trusts and trustees — Voluntary settlement — Spendthrift trust — Children —Remainder-men—Attachment execution. • A man and wife executed a deed of trust to a trustee to pay over the income to the wife for life, and after her decease to pay over the income to the husband for his life, not to be liable for his debts, and after his death to pay over the principal to the children of the settlors in such shares as the husband by his last will should appoint, and in default of appointment to the children in equal shares. The wife died before the husband. Held, (1) that the income payable to the husband was assets for the payment of his debts; (2) that except as to creditors existing at the time of the settlement,, or those in specific contemplation in the immediate future, the principal of the estate was free from attack by creditors. In the above case the trustee was garnisheed by creditors of the husband. It answered that the income which it had collected and was at present holding, had been assigned by instrument in writing to a creditor other than the attachment creditor before the service of the attachment, but that the defendant cestui que trust had revoked the assignment. Held, that there was no admission of assets in the trustee’s hands liable to attachment.