Reference

Cited By

4 cases

Status

Published

Syllabus

Wills — Construction—Trusts—Equitable life interest — Contingent legal remainderman — Buie in Shelley’s Case — Trustees—Accountability — Commissions—Sale of real estate — Agent’s commission. 1. Where a will creates an equitable life estate followed by legal ■ contingent remainders, the rule in Shelley’s Case is not applicable. 2. Testatrix by will provided, “It is my will that all my property ......of which I shall die possessed......may remain intact and the income therefrom be used for the benefit of my children,” and then appointed her husband trustee of the estate and guardian of the children. The will further provided, “When all the children are deceased, the estate is to be divided equally among their heirs. Should any child die without issue, the portion of such child shall be divided equally between the direct heirs of the other children.” In case of the death of all the children without issue the will provided for a gift over. Testatrix’s husband and seven children, all minors, survived her and five thereafter reached their majority. Thereafter the husband died, but prior to his death he declined to act as trustee and assigned his interest in the estate to his children. A trust company was appointed trustee. Held, (1) the trust estate created by the testatrix for her children was active and they had equitable life estates, and (2) the estates of the contingent remaindermen were legal and the rule in Shelley’s Case did not apply. 3. In such case where the trustee in a first and partial account filed after some of the cestuis que trustent had attained their majority, claimed credit for two per cent, commissions paid by it to the agent who negotiated the sale of real estate subject to the trust, and no exception was taken to such credit at the time, and the court confirmed such action, such question was' res judicata as to the cestui trustent who were then sui juris, and would not be reopened at the instance of a cestui que trust who was then a minor, where it appeared that tbe estate wa3 greatly benefited by tbe services rendered by the agent and that tbe amount charged was .reasonable. 4. In such case where tbe will directed tbe trustee to invest tbe mon.ey of tbe estate in good rentable real estate, but instead of so investing it, tbe accountant made, investments in mortgages and bonds bearing five and one-balf per cent, interest there was no merit in tbe contention that tbe trustee should be surcharged with six per cent, interest on the amount invested where it appeared that the trustee could not have invested in rentable real estate yielding six per cent, interest, that exceptants bad suffered no loss, and that the income of tbe estate has been materially increased. 5. In such case accountant’s charge of five per cent, commissions on the income accounted for was reasonable.