Best v. Deason

119 S.E. 509, 126 S.C. 116, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 165
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 12, 1923
Docket11
StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.E. 509 (Best v. Deason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Best v. Deason, 119 S.E. 509, 126 S.C. 116, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 165 (S.C. 1923).

Opinions

October 12, 1923. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The decree of the Special Judge is so clear and conclusive that little need be added. Let the order be reported.

It is true that a trust cannot be destroyed. There was no attempt to destroy the trust. The intention or meaning of the deed of A.P. Aldrich and M.A. Aldrich to Robert *Page 128 Aldrich, trustee, is clear and unmistakable. It is very clear that A.P. Aldrich and M.A. Aldrich intended to make a provision for their daughter, Rosa. It is also clear that they intended to save her from all possibility of a controversy with any husband, and to keep the management entirely out of her hands for her own benefit. There was no use to demand of her that she should do anything, so the deed deprived her of any right to manage or dispose of the property. A sale was provided for as it might become useless to her in its present form. The money derived from the sale was to be reinvested, it is true, but only as A.P. Aldrich and M.A. Aldrich may direct. No one had a right to complain of a failure to reinvest, except one who has some right in the property, or the proceeds of sale. No one had such a right, not even the daughter, Rosa. Rosa and those claiming under her cannot complain, because Rosa accepted the proceeds of sale. The sale and paying the money to Rosa was not only not a destruction of the trust, but was a carrying out of the trust in its fullest purpose.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MR. JUSTICE WATTS concur.

MR. JUSTICE MARION concurs in result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wormley v. Wormley
21 U.S. 421 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Price v. Krasnoff
38 S.E. 413 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1901)
Robert v. Ellis
37 S.E. 250 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1900)
Carr v. Mouzon
76 S.E. 201 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912)
Merck v. Merck
78 S.E. 1027 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1913)
Boney v. Cornwell
113 S.E. 686 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Rice v. Coleman
69 S.E. 516 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910)
Cathcart v. Matthews
89 S.E. 1021 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1916)
Moyle v. Campbell
119 S.E. 186 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Webb v. Graniteville Manufacturing Co.
11 S.C. 396 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1879)
Black v. Childs
14 S.C. 312 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1880)
Reeves v. Tappan
21 S.C. 1 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1884)
Salinas v. Pearsall
24 S.C. 179 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1886)
Rabb v. Flenniken
7 S.E. 597 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1888)
Sullivan v. Latimer
14 S.E. 933 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 S.E. 509, 126 S.C. 116, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-deason-sc-1923.