TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Platt

Andrew C. Clark v. Sherman Platt and others

Clark v. Platt, 30 Conn. 282 (1861)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1861
Judges
Butler
Citations
30 Conn. 282
Headnotes
A trastee is entitled to a fair compensation for his services out of the funds in his hands. A deed conveyed property in trust for the benefit of the grantor’s wife and daughters in fee simple, and provided that whenever they should request, the trustee should convey by proper deed to such person as they should name. Held, that this provision was one merely for a change of trustee, and not in any sense a limitation of a fee after a fee, or a substitution of one fee for another. Some two years after the deed had been delivered and acted on, the grantor, trustee, and all the cestuis que trust, joined in a petition to the superior court praying for a decree that the property be sold, and the proceeds, after paying certain prior incumbrances, be invested by the trustee, and the income paid to the grantor during his life, and that after his death the fund should go to two (out of three then living) of ¡the cestuis que trust and the survivor of them. The decree was granted as prayed for, the property sold and the surplus invested. A, one of the petitioners, was under age at the time. She however signed the petition. The petition purported to be on behalf of the several parties named, and of “ A by her father and natural guardian.” The father, one of the petitioners, signed his own name, but did not sign again as guardian. Held, that the decree was binding upon A, and parties claiming under her; that the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties; and that even if it should appear that injustice had been done to A, jet the decree would be only voidable, when she came of age, upon proper application by her, and could not be collaterally impeached. A having died before the other cestuis que trust, held, that no interest or estate in the trust fund had ever vested in her, and 0tliat parties claiming to have an interest in it through her could not object to the decree collaterally, or in any other way. A guardian ad litem is never appointed except for an infant defendant.
Summary
Bill of interpleader. Benjamin Bronson, in 1846, conveyed certain property to one Clark in .trust, to pay tbe income beyond what was necegsary for Ms own support, to his wife Minerva, and his daughters Mary, Alvira and Alzora. The deed provided that whenever his wife and daughters, or the survivors, should request, Clark should convey the property to such person as they might appoint. In 1848 Alvira died without issue and unmarried; Mary married one Platt, and the wife of the grantor was divorced and afterwards married one Cary. In January 1850 the trustee, together with Benjamin Bronson, Cary and wife, Platt and wife, and Alzora, (being all the parties interested then living,) united in a petition to the superior court, praying that the property might be sold to pay certain prior incumbrances, and that the surplus remaining might be invested ; the income of such surplus to be paid to Benjamin during his life, and the principal at his death to go to the two children then surviving, Mary Platt and Alzora, or the survivor of them. The court granted the petition and a decree was ren dered to that effect at the February Term, 1850. After the petition was signed by Cary and wife, they by deed released all claim upon the property to the other petitioners. The prop» erty was sold, the incumbrances paid off, and a surplus left. The trustee invested this, and paid the income to Benjamin Bronson until his death, which occurred in November, I860. Alzora, when the petition was brought, was under age. The petition was, in the body of it, styled the petition of (among others) “ Alzora Bronson, by her father and natural guardian, Benjamin Bronson.” Benjamin signed the petition in his own name, but did not sign it expressly as guardian. Alzora signed it herself. In January, 1855, Alzora married George N. Wood-ruff, and died the same year, childless, and under age. She left a will, leaving her property to Mrs. Cary. The trustee having died in April, I860, the plaintiff, his administrator, filed a petition in the superior court after the death of Benjamin Bronson, asking the direction of the court as to how the fund should be disposed of, and praying compensation for services. The court found the facts above stated and reserved the case for the advice of this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Butler

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Butler, J.

We are all of opinion that after a proper allowance to the petitioner, for the services of his intestate and his own expenses, the money should be paid to Mrs. Platt.

The trust deed of 1846 is not open to the objection that it *285 limited a fee simple after a fee simple ; nor that it substituted a fee simple for a fee simple upon a contingency. The provision for a conveyance ou request to a third person, was a mere provision for a change of trustee. After the trusts for life were determined, the fee simple was to be conveyed to the children of the grantor, who should then be living, whenever they preferred to take it rather than have it controlled by the trustee for their benefit.

Nor is the decree obnoxious to the objections urged against it. It was predicated upon a petition signed by all the parties in interest, and conformed to the prayer of that petition. The 'subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the court, as well under the statute authorizing sales, of lands held in common, as upon general principles giving courts of equity power to direct the sale of trust estates. All the parties were properly before the court. The objection that Alzora was hot bound by it, because a minor and no guardian ad litem was appointed, is not sustainable. Guardians ad litem are only appointed in behalf of infant respondents. It appears also that she was there by her natural guardian, and does not appear that she had any other. It is true the father had an individual interest, and signed apparently as an individual; but it is averred in the body of the petition that it was brought “ on her behalf,” “ by her father and natural guardian,” and that, with his and her signature, is unquestionably sufficient, and the decree was binding upon her. Perhaps it might be claimed, that if it appeared that injustice had been done to Alzora, by reason of her non-age and the misconduct of her guardian, the decree was voidable by her when she became of age, upon proper application to the court. She died however before she became of age, and the decree as to^all the parties has stood unreversed and uncomplained of for ten years. It was clearly beneficial to her and in conformity with the trust deed, as to the principal fund; was passed in accordance with the wishes of all the parties having any interest at the time in the rents and profits ; and is supported by all the presumptions which uphold decrees of the superior court. It is not now open in this collateral way, or in any way, to objection. *286 Minerva Cary released her right to the interest of the fund in question, and she and her releasees solicited and obtained a decree abolishing that right, and it is gone. Woodruff by virtue of the marital relation acquired no interest in that, for it was gone before he intermarried with Alzora, and none in the fund, which was not subject to the contingency of Alzora’s death. Both therefore are without equity in the fund, and the superior court must be advised that it should be paid over, after deducting proper charges and expenses, to Mrs. Platt.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11922: 11923: 11943: 11961: 11970: 12013: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rathkopf v. Pearson170 A.2d 135 (Conn. 1961)
  2. Hayward v. Plant119 A. 341 (Conn. 1923)
  3. Collins v. York267 A.2d 668 (Conn. 1970)
  4. Williams v. Cleaveland56 A. 850 (Conn. 1904)
  5. Estate Bernice P. Bishop36 Haw. 403 (1943) · Dissent
  6. Bissell v. Butterworth118 A. 50 (Conn. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Rodgers v. McElroy141 So. 3d 1038 (Ala. 2013) · Concurrence
  2. Collins v. York267 A.2d 668 (Conn. 1970)
  3. Rathkopf v. Pearson170 A.2d 135 (Conn. 1961)
  4. Estate Bernice P. Bishop36 Haw. 403 (1943) · Dissent
  5. Hayward v. Plant119 A. 341 (Conn. 1923)
  6. Bissell v. Butterworth118 A. 50 (Conn. 1922)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list