Barbour v. Cummings
William E. Barbour v. Matthew J. Cummings, Trustee.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
(1)
Per Curiam.
The bill sets out no claim which the complainant has upon the respondent, unless it may be a right to be informed of the amount and particulars of the investment of the fund. The respondent, by the terms of the trust, is not' in the fullest sense accountable to the complainant, for he is only required to pay him the income “at such times and in such amounts as may according to the judgment and discretion of the trustee seem best.” But we think the complainant has such an interest in the fund as to entitle him to an account of what it consists of and what income it is producing. The *202 discretion of the trustee is not an entirely arbitrary one, but if abused would be corrected by a court of equity. Hence we think the bill may be supported as asking for such an account.
Dubois & Dubois, for complainant.
John P. Beagan, for respondent.
The demurrer to the other prayers of the bill is sustained.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.