Page images
PDF
EPUB

PAGE

PAGE
90

.

476

673

.

280, 295

558

669

[ocr errors]

482

.

.

Co. v.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Ochs v. Public Service Ry. Co. Rackich, State v.

564 O'Connor, Atchison etc. Ry. Co. Railroad Commission, Puget v. (223 U. S. 280)

668 Sound Electric Ry. v. . 276, 295 O'Donnell v. O'Donnell

480 Reed, Cady Lumber Co. v. O’Ferrall, Schaub v.

475 Regensburg, Howe v. O'Malley v. Miller

731, 743 Rhodesia Mfg. Co. v. Tombacher O'Neill, Johnston v.

75, 95 Oregon, Pacific States Tel. & Richardson v. Cheney

Tel. Co. v. (223 U. S. 118) 644, 662 Richman, Cooke v. ([1911] 2 Osborne, Gehrmann v.

739 K. B. 1125) Osterheld v. Star Co.

566 Ringler & Co., In re (145 N. Y. Ottinger v. Bennett (144 N. Y.

App. Div. 366)

85 App. Div. 525, 129 N. Y. Sup. Ringler & Co., Matter of

550, 562 819 (App. Div.])

88 Robinson's Settlement, In re
Rocca v. Thompson

735 Pacific States Tel. and Tel. Co. Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. v. Oregon (223 U. S. 118) 644, 662 Leary

480 Packer, In re 561 Rodman, Straeffer v.

477 Palmer v. Palmer

746 P. H. & F. M. Roots Co., WainPalmer, Ga Nunv. (202 N.Y.483) 293 wright v.

553, 562 Patent Caramel Co., Trustee of Rouse v. Branch

745 Gonville v. ([1912] i K.B. 599) 564 Rowe v. Scott

286 Pearson, Arkansas Midland R. Royal Ins. Co., Kline Bros. & Co.

83

729, 735 People v. Kinney

92
Rupe, Austin v.

467 People v. Toledo .

179, 190 Russe v. Interstate Commerce People ex rel. Britton v. Amer

Commission.

665 ican Press Association

662 People's Tel. & Tel. Co., Home Safe Deposit Co. o. Stead . . 288 Tel. Co. o.

569 Salt Lake Lodge v. Groesbeck. 670 Perry v. Clark

297 San Joaquin & Kings River Perry v. Willis .

666 Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Persons, Daniel v.

739 County of Stanislaus . 173, 195 Philadelphia H. & P. R. Co., Sanderson, Re .

742 Moser v.

Sands, Baker v.

396 Physicians' Defense Co.

Scandinavian-American Bank, Cooper 390

194 Pierce, World's Dispensary Med- Schaefer, In re

286 ical Association v.

481
Schaub v. O'Ferrall

475 Pike, New York Life Ins. Co. v. 292 Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Pilbrow, Haworth v.

Water Co.

745 Pittsburg, C. C. and St. L. Ry. Schumacher v. Dolan

671 Co. v. Atkinson 664 Schurger v. Moorman

86 Pollitz v. Gould (202 N. Y. 11) 86 Scott, Burkhart v.

468 Porter v. Small

666
Scott, Maertens v.

74, 85 Postal Tel. & Cable Co. v. Chi

Scott, Rowe v.

286 cago, L. S. & S. B. Ry. Co. 563 Second Employers' Liability Poultney, Re ([1912) 1 Ch. 245) 572 Cases

548, 565 President, etc., of Tualatin Acad- Seim, Hurd v.

649, 668 emy, and Pacific University, Sewanee Fuel & Iron Co., Dewey 720, 737

567 Price v. De Reyes 559 Shapiro v. Wendover Hall Co.

90 Public Service Ry. Co., Ochs v. 90 Shaylor v. Cloud .

744 Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Shedd v. American Credit-InRailroad Commission. 276, 295 demnity Co.

193 Punamchard v. Temple 182 Sheldon v. Sheldon .

396

726, 742

[ocr errors]

Teal v.

558

[merged small][ocr errors]

PAGE

81

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

96

89

.

.

278, 290

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

PAGE Slipper, Yungbluth v.

Strafford County, Kirke v. 197 Small, Porter v.

666 Strait v. Northwestern Steel & Smith, Lace v.

736
Iron Works

670 Smith v. Mitchell.

480 Sumwalt Ice Co. o. KnickerSmyth v. City of New York .

289

bocker Ice Co. Southern Pacific Co., Beckman v. 287 Sutton, St. Louis & Santa Fé Southern Steel Co. v. Hopkins 559

R. Co. v. Spokane & Eastern Trust Co. Symmers v. Carroll. 729, 735 v. Huff

185 Spooner, Wilkes v. 94 Taylor v. Cribbs

572 St. Louis & Santa Fé R. Co. v. Taylor, Matter of

565 Sutton

89 | Teal v. Scandinavian-American St. Louis, Iron Mountain &

Bank .

194 Southern Ry. Co., Gilsonite Temple, Punamchand v.

182 Construction Co. v. 723, 738 | Terminal R. Association of St. St. Louis & Tennessee River

Louis, United States v. 717, 743 Packet Co. v. Murray. 387 | Thomas v. Wentworth Hotel Co. Standard Oil Co., Dunshee v.

296 Standard Oil Co. v. United States Thomas v. West ..

190 71, 94 Thompson, Rocca v.

735 Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., Thompson, Zederman v.

743 United States v. 454, 479 | Thorpe, Forbes v.

289 Standring, Haswell v.. 290 Ticehurst v. Beinbrink

192 Star Co., Osterheld v. 566 Tillotson, State v.

384 Star Pub. Co., Hillman v. 196 | Toledo, People v.

179, 190 State, Adair v..

387 Tombacher, Rhodesia Mfg. Co. State ex rel. Blitch, Nichelson v. 667 v. .

75, 95 State, Brainerd v.

388 Town of Littleton, Addington v. 92 State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Townsend, Matter of .

482 Co.

84 Trustee of Gonville v. Patent State, Coleman v.

387 Caramel Co. ([1912] 1 K. B. State, Coulter o. 472 599)

564 State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Tunstall v. Stearns Coal Co. 743

Clausen (117 Pac. 1101) 84 Turner, State of Maryland v. 384 State, Fuller v. 739 | Tuttle, Myers Co. v.

184 State of Iowa v. Carr

564 | Twin Falls Land and Water Co., State v. Keehn

394
Schodde v.

745
State of Maryland v. Turner 384
State of Minnesota, United Ulrich, Fairview Fluor Spar &
States Express Co. v. (223

Lead Co.

282, 295 U. S. 335)

671

Union Ice Cream Mfg. Co., State v. Moretti

663 City of Chicago v. State v. Rackich

564 Union Stockyard & Transit Co., State v. Tillotson

384 United States ex rel. Attorney State v. United States Express

General v. .

741 Co.

United States v. American ToState, Wilson v. 89 bacco Co..

71, 94 Stead, Safe Deposit Co. v.

United States ex rel. Attorney Stearns Coal Co., Tunstall v. 743

General v. Union Stockyard
Steinbrecher, Adan v..

472
& Transit Co.

741 Steltzer v. Chicago, M.and St. P. United States, Dreier v. (221 Ry. Co.

651, 661

U. S. 394) Stevens, Minor v. 394 United States, Dufour v.

288 Stirk's Estate, In re 296 United States, Frisby v.

661 Stowe v. Morris

734 United States, Glickstein v. (222 Straeffer v. Rodman

477

U. S. 139)

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

569

.

95

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

PAGE

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

468

Co. v.

PAGE United States v. Halstead .

573

Welch v. City of Boston 174, 197 United States, Heckman v. 733, 740 Wells Fargo and Co., Meyer v. 671 United States, Standard Oil Co. Wendover Hall Co., Shapiro o.

90 71, 94 | Wentworth Hotel Co., Thomas v. United States v. Standard Sani

278, 290 tary Mfg. Co.

454, 479 Wertheim v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. 87 United States v. Terminal R. As

West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co. sociation of St. Louis . 717, 743 (221 U. S. 229)

90 United States, Wilson v. (221 U. West, Thomas v. .

190 S. 361).

West Yorkshire Darracq Agency, United States Express Co. v.

Ltd. v. Coleridge .

187 State of Minnesota (223 U. S. Westveer, Mishawaka Woolen 335) 671 Mfg. Co. v. .

570 United States Express Co., Whitney, Matter of State v.

95 Wilensky v. Central of Georgia United States Fidelity and Insur- Ry. Co.

287 ance Co., Farmers' and Me- Wilkes v. Spooner

94 chanics' Banks v.

665 Williamson, Cumberland Tel. United States National Bank of

& Tel. Co. o.

736 Portland, Amalgamated Sugar Willis, Perry v.

666 82 Willmer, Estate of

393 Urtz v. New York Central & H. Wilmington, N. C. & S. Ry. Co., R. R. Co..

190

National Bank of Wilmington
& Brandywine o.

294 Vandegrift, Commonwealth ex Wilson o. Irwin

197 rel. Sheip v.

Wilson v. State

89 Villamil, Fisher v.

478 Wilson v. United States (221 U.

S. 361) Wahl, Guggenheim v..

474

Winton Motor Carriage Co. 0. Wainwright v. P. H. & F. M. Broadway Automobile Co. 462, 480 Roots Co.. 553, 562 Wisener v. Burrell

460, 473 Walford, Re ([1912) 1 Ch. 219) 474 | Woodruff, Avery v..

92 Walker, Cyro.

374, 384 | Woodward Co., Hurd v. 649, 668 Ward, Aaron v.

387 World's Dispensary Medical Ward, Brearley School v.

85

Association v. Pierce Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., 667 Yarbray, King v.

91 Wasgatt v. First National Bank 660 Yarslowitz v. Bienenstock .

183 Washington Southern Ry. Co. Yungbluth v. Slipper .

81 v. Commonwealth

194 Webster, Brown v.

571
Zederman v. Thompson .

743 Weiss o. Weiss.

[ocr errors]

.

290

96

Fox o.

481

[ocr errors]

741 | Zotti, Matter of

79, 82

HARVARD

LAW REVIEW.

VOL. XXV.

NOVEMBER, 1911.

NO. 1.

POWERS IN TRUST AND GIFTS IMPLIED

IN DEFAULT OF APPOINTMENT.

WER

in the books. In a sense, all special or limited powers are fiduciary. They cannot be exercised for the benefit of the donee of the power or of any other person not an object of the power. But this is not what is meant by a “power in trust.” A power in trust or in the nature of trust is a power which imposes upon the donee a duty to exercise it, enforceable in equity.

Though “power in trust” is a common, it is not, I venture to think, an exact expression. Two separate things are confounded under it.

A power is an authority to deal with property apart from ownership. It is generally an authority to deal with property owned by some person other than the donee of the power; but a man may be given a power to deal with property which he himself owns. Such a power is called a power appendant.

A power appendant is always destructible by the donee. A man cannot be deprived of the right to deal as owner with property which he owns by giving him a power; and by conveying the property as owner, he is estopped to exercise the power.

When property is given to a man with the provision that he shall have a power to appoint it in a certain way, if this provision creates a trust, the trust is imposed upon him as owner of an estate or interest, and not upon him as donee of a power. If it were im

posed upon him as donee of the power, since the power is appendant, and all powers appendant are destructible, the trust attached to it would be destructible also.

The man holds his estate or interest subject directly to the trust, and equity does not allow him to deal with his estate or interest in a manner inconsistent with the trust; and this is the result whatever words are used to create the trust; whether the word "power" is used or not. In a case of this kind there may be said to be a power in trust or in the nature of a trust; but the better expression would be that there is a trust in the form of a power.

It makes no difference whether the estate or interest which the man holds is legal or equitable.

The question which arises in this class of cases is whether a provision is simply advice, or whether a trust is created, -the question of precatory trust. This question does not concern us here; if a trust is created, it attaches itself directly to the estate or interest, though it be put in the form of a power.

But there is another class of cases.

A power may be given to a man, the exercise of which does not derogate from his own estate or interest, -that is, which is not a power appendant, but which derogates from the estate or interest of some other person or persons. The donee may have an estate or interest in the property, as when property is given to A. for life, with a power to him to appoint the remainder; this is called a power in gross or collateral. Or the donee may have no estate or interest in the property, as when property is given to A. for life, with a power to B. to appoint the remainder; this is called a power simply collateral.

Is such a power ever a power in trust?

A system of law is conceivable in which equity would compel a donee to exercise such a power or would exercise it for him. In such a system a power of this kind might be properly called a power in trust.

But such is not the system of our law.

When our law thinks that the objects of a power ought to have an estate or interest in the property, although no appointment has been made, it does not compel the donee to exercise the power, nor does it exercise it for him, but it declares that there is an implied gift to the objects of the power in default of appointment.

« PreviousContinue »