Opinion
03-09-1891
BEEKMAN v. HENDRICKSON et al.
B. B. Hutchinson, for complainant. John Sykes, for defendants.
On bill for relief.
Robert H. Beekman, an infant under the age of 21 years, by William H. Birch, his next friend, filed this bill, in which he quotes the following item from his grandfather's (Henry V. D. Beekman's) will: "Item. I give and bequeath unto my son Christopher Beekman one equal one-third of my estate, (his indebtedness to me to be included in the same,) for and during the term of his natural life, and after his decease to be equally divided among his heirs, share and share alike." Richard M. Hendrickson was appointed and accepted the executorship of the said will of Henry V. D. Beekman. In 1884, Christopher Beekman, aforesaid, and the said executor, entered into an agreement, whereby the said Beekman assigned to the said executor all the interest due him in the aforesaid estate from the year 1884 to and including the year 1890, for the benefit of Robert H. Beekman aforesaid, and his brother and sister, in equal parts. The complainant also shows that $71.76 has been paid him by the said executor in pursuance of the said assignment. The executor's accounts showed that over $4,000 was invested for the benefit of the said Christopher, and that the one third of said income had not been paid the complainant under the assignment. He therefore prayed that said assignment should be decreed as creating a trust for said six years, with the said executor as the trustee, and that the balance of the complainant's one-third interest, over and above the amount paid him, be decreed as due him, and the said executor and trustee ordered to pay the same to him.
B. B. Hutchinson, for complainant.
John Sykes, for defendants.
BIRD, V. C. (after stating the facts as above.) Two questions arise in this case: First, was there a declaration of trust binding upon the parents? Second, if so, under the circumstances, has the parent the right to revoke such declaration? Among other things, the language of the instrument which contains the declaration is as follows: "I agree and direct him to retain the yearly interest on said trust fund in his hands until April first, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, to liquidate my indebtedness to him, and after that date, for valuable consideration, I direct him to pay, or have expended yearly or yearly invested, what would be due me from said trust fund, to my children Emily May Beekman, Ralph Beekman, and Robert C. Beekman, until April first, eighteen hundred and ninety, and in consideration thereof I do fully and absolutely acquit, release, and discharge the said R. Mount Hendrickson, executor and trustee as aforesaid, and his estate, and the estate of said deceased, for and from all my right and interest in the said estate that come into the hands of said R. Mount Hendrickson, executor and trustee, from the date of these presents until April first, eighteenhundred and ninety." Perry, in his work on Trusts, says: "There is no particular formality required or necessary in the creation of a trust. Any agreement or contract in writing, made by a person having the power of disposal over property, whereby such person agrees or directs that a particular parcel of property or a certain fund shall beheld or dealt within a particular manner for the benefit of another, in a court of equity raises a trust in favor of such other person against the person making such agreement, or any other person claiming under him voluntarily or with notice." Volume 1, § 82; 1 Lewin, Trusts, 56; Dickerson's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 198, 8 Atl. Rep. 64; Eaton v. Cook, 25 N. J. Eq. 55; Ownes v. Ownes, 23 N. J. Eq. 60; In re Atkinson, (R. I.) 16 Atl. Rep. 712; Hutchinson v. Tindall, 3 N. J. Eq. 357. No power of revocation having been reserved in this instrument, the donor could not revoke it. Hutchinson v. Tindall, 3 N. J. Eq. 357; Garnsey v. Mundy, 24 N. J. Eq. 243; Dickerson's Appeal, supra; Keves v. Carleton, 141 Mass. 45, 6 N. E. Rep. 524; In re Atkinson, supra. There may be cases arising in which courts of equity will grant relief in favor of the party executing such instrument, (Garnsey v. Mundy, supra,) but this is not one of them. The complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.