In re Trusteeship of Vance

10 Citing cases

  1. Nail v. American Nat. Bank of Bristow

    21 F. Supp. 385 (N.D. Okla. 1937)   Cited 3 times

    There was no showing that the attorney fees which were paid were not earned, or that such fees were unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in Re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881, held that payments made honestly and in good faith by a trustee, and for the actual benefit of the beneficiary, should be allowed on final account, even though the amounts were erroneously paid out under the direction of the district court. It is unnecessary for us to determine whether this court shall go so far in approving accounts of a trustee, as we are only here concerned with the legal necessity for removing the trustee and obtaining its final account.

  2. Phillips v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co.

    20 F. Supp. 498 (W.D. Okla. 1937)   Cited 1 times

    "We hold that a devisee under the provisions of a will may convey the real estate devised while the probate proceeding is pending and prior to the entry of the decree of distribution, subject to the payment of the indebtedness against the estate, the costs of administration, and such other orders as the county court is authorized to make under its probate jurisdiction; the purchaser thereof buying at his own risk subject to administration." In re Vance, 102 Okl. 129, 227 P. 881, the court held: "The title to the property in an express trust is in the trustee, and such trustee in the administration of such trust is subject to the control and supervision of a court of equity, and not of the probate court." See 69 C.J. p. 760, § 1863.

  3. Smith v. Smith

    336 P.2d 355 (Okla. 1959)

    As will be more fully explained hereinafter, we are of the opinion that a trust for the lives of Margaret and William was created in the instant case. In In re Vance's Trusteeship, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881, 882, we said: "so long as the estate of Benjamin Vance, the testator, was in process of settlement by the executor of his will, exclusive jurisdiction of such estate, not settled or distributed, was in the county court.

  4. McNeal v. Hauser

    202 Okla. 329 (Okla. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    The rule is that the expiration of the trust period of an express trust does not ipso facto deprive the trustees of the power and authority to wind up the affairs of the trust; and a receiver will not be appointed unless there be misconduct, waste, mismanagement, misapplication or improper disposition of the trust funds, or a denial or destruction of the trust estate by the trustees. Eason Oil Co. v. Oklahoma City Petroleum Co., 185 Okla. 448, 94 P.2d 222; Fluker et al. v. Emporia City Ry. Co., 48 Kan. 577, 30 P. 18; Hauser v. Catlett, 197 Okla. 668, 173 P.2d 728; Healey v. Steele, 158 Okla. 194, 13 P.2d 140; In re Scott's Estate, 6 N.Y.S.2d 180; In re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881; Lexington Land Co. v. Holland, 191 Okla. 335, 129 P.2d 843; Phoenix Oil Co. v. McLarren (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S.W. 830; Schaal v. Schaal, 203 Iowa 667, 213 N.W. 207; Security-First Nat. Bank v. Tracy et al. (Cal.App.) 127 P.2d 12; Skirvin v. Coyle, 185 Okla. 487, 94 P.2d 234; State v. Douglas, 183 Okla. 3, 89 P.2d 298; Ward v. Inter-Ocean O. G. Co., 52 Okla. 490, 153 P. 115, 156 A.L.R. 210; 45 Am.Jur. sec. 41; 33 C.J. p. 883; 65 C.J., § 717, p. 837; 65 C.J. § 719, p. 839; 65 C.J., § 1038, p. 1096; 23 R.C.L. § 28; chapter 4, Title 60, O.S.A., section 1551 [60-1551], Title 12, O.S.A.; Perry on Trusts (5th Ed.) vol. 2, § 920 [12-920]; Scott on Trusts, vol. 3, p. 1889, § 344; Tardy's Smith on Receivers (2d Ed.) vol. 1, p. 287, § 70. This court said, in syllabus No. 4, Eason Oil Co. v. Oklahoma City Petroleum Corporation, supra:

  5. Evans v. First National Bank of Stillwater

    146 P.2d 111 (Okla. 1944)   Cited 5 times

    Since the trust agreement is found to be valid, the same having been executed before the settlor was judicially declared incompetent, and by its terms irrevocable, the administrator would not be entitled to recover the trust funds in the hands of the trustee. This court held, In re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881, as stated in par. 1 of the syllabus, as follows: "The title to the property in an express trust is in the trustee, and such trustee in the administration of such trust is subject to the control and supervision of a court of equity and not of the probate court."

  6. Wade v. McKeown

    145 P.2d 951 (Okla. 1944)   Cited 3 times

    This constituted as an effective revocation of the trust as if the creator had complied with the formality therein prescribed of having the written approval by the federal judge of his act, since this latter individual is not shown to have had any possible interest in the transaction. The contention of the plaintiffs that the trust agreement precluded Clarence Wade from making the conveyance which he did to Greydon Rogers finds no support in the cases of Hill v. Hill, 49 Okla. 424, 152 P. 1122; In re Vance's Trusteeship, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881; Ehret v. Price, 122 Okla. 277, 254 P. 748, and Odle v. Baskins, 190 Okla. 664, 126 P.2d 276, cited by them, and is contrary to the rule announced in Miller v. First National Bank and Dunnett v. First National Bank Trust Company, supra. The contention of plaintiffs relative to the creation of a constructive trust is wholly lacking in merit.

  7. Locke v. Jones

    116 P.2d 975 (Okla. 1941)

    The claim was made against the trust estate, in an action in which the trial court had appointed a trustee and had a continuing jurisdiction in the administration of the trust, and in which plaintiff could properly be permitted to assert a claim against such estate. In re Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881. Nor were defendants injured by the delay in plaintiff's assertion of the claim.

  8. Mahoney v. McBirney

    84 P.2d 600 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 1 times

    The will of the testator expressly authorized the trustee to mortgage or incumber any of the property included in the trust; the judgment of the trustee in this respect being final and conclusive. The mortgages executed by the trustee were approved by the district court of Tulsa county. That court had jurisdiction to enter such orders under the holding of this court in Re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881. See, also, Phillips v. Missouri-K.-T. Ry. Co., 20 F. Supp. 498; 65 C. J. 676, par. 538.

  9. Frensley v. Frensley

    177 Okla. 221 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 11 times

    We are unable to agree with this contention. It is unnecessary to decide at this time whether the plaintiff herein could have enforced against the income or the corpus of the trust her claim for alimony in the absence of an assignment from the defendant, Cecil Frensley. "This court in the case In re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881, held that the title to the income from a trust estate is in the beneficiary, and also held in the case of Flesner v. Cooper, 39 Okla. 133, 134 P. 379, that the beneficiary's interest in a resulting trust was an equitable estate which might be conveyed. The beneficiary of a trust may alienate or assign the income from a trust before it comes due, in the absence of statutory restrictions or restrictions in the instrument creating the trust (65 C. J. 551; Lamberton v. Pereles [Wis.] 58 N.W. 776) and we do not find it possible to read into the instrument a provision forbidding any such assignment, although such provision would be proper under section 11833, O. S. 1931.

  10. In re Dillard's Estate

    298 P. 558 (Okla. 1931)   Cited 2 times

    Title Guaranty Surety Co. v. Cowen, 71 Okla. 299, 177 P. 563, Wynona Oil Co. v. Barnes, 83 Okla. 248, 200 P. 981, and Ischomer v. Fryer, 105 Okla. 30, 231 P. 298, deal with executors, administrators, and guardians and not with trustees and are not applicable to the facts in this case. The fact that a trustee is subject to the control of a court of equity, as held in Re Trustee of Vance, 102 Okla. 129, 227 P. 881, cited by proponents, does not affect the rule, for that is true as to all trustees. The fact that the trustee may be financially interested only in the commissions, fees, or compensation to be received by him for his services as trustee does not change the rule, for that is the only financial interest any trustee has in a trust estate.