« PreviousContinue »
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. ( 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
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. ( i K.B. 599) 564 Rowe v. Scott
286 Pearson, Arkansas Midland R. Royal Ins. Co., Kline Bros. & Co.
729, 735 People v. Kinney
467 People v. Toledo .
179, 190 Russe v. Interstate Commerce People ex rel. Britton v. Amer
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.
475 Pike, New York Life Ins. Co. v. 292 Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Pilbrow, Haworth v.
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
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 .
PAGE Slipper, Yungbluth v.
Strafford County, Kirke v. 197 Small, Porter v.
666 Strait v. Northwestern Steel & Smith, Lace v.
670 Smith v. Mitchell.
480 Sumwalt Ice Co. o. KnickerSmyth v. City of New York .
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
89 | Teal v. Scandinavian-American St. Louis, Iron Mountain &
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 .
84 Trustee of Gonville v. Patent State, Coleman v.
387 Caramel Co. ( 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
282, 295 U. S. 335)
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. .
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
741 Steltzer v. Chicago, M.and St. P. United States, Dreier v. (221 Ry. Co.
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
U. S. 139)
PAGE United States v. Halstead .
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..
National Bank of Wilmington
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..
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.
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.
743 Weiss o. Weiss.
741 | Zotti, Matter of
POWERS IN TRUST AND GIFTS IMPLIED
IN DEFAULT OF APPOINTMENT.
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.