Central Trust & Savings Co. v. Walters

19 Pa. D. & C. 104, 1932 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 245
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
DecidedAugust 26, 1932
DocketNo. 14716
StatusPublished

This text of 19 Pa. D. & C. 104 (Central Trust & Savings Co. v. Walters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Central Trust & Savings Co. v. Walters, 19 Pa. D. & C. 104, 1932 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932).

Opinion

Brown, Jr., J.,

The Bill prays that the entry on November 17,1928, of satisfaction of mortgage dated May 12,1910, executed and delivered to Joseph L. Atkinson, Joseph H. Chubb and William Powell, executors and trustees of the estate of Jonathan Powell, deceased, and secured on premises No. 1503 Moyamensing Ave., be stricken from the record and that the mortgage be declared a valid lien, averring that the principal of the mortgage has not been paid to the executors and trustees named, or to the substituted trustees, and that this entry was improperly made by virtue of a power of attorney executed without authority by J. Powell Atkinson, the surviving executor and trustee under the will of Joseph L. Atkinson, deceased, who was the last surviving executor and trustee of the estate of Jonathan Powell, deceased.

The answer of the defendants, John H. Walters and Mary J. Walters, states that payment of the mortgage was properly made to J. Powell Atkinson, that he was authorized to satisfy it, and that the bill is barred by laches.

The recorder of deeds also filed an answer.

Discussion

The twelfth paragraph of the will of Jonathan Powell states: “It is my will and desire that the number of my Executors and Trustees under this my Will, shall not be less than three, and if from death, resignation or any other cause they shall be reduced below that number, then and in such case, and as often as the same shall happen, I order and direct that the survivors or survivor of them shall with the consent of a majority of my then living children, nominate and appoint some suitable person or persons, to fill such vacancy or vacancies, and thereupon such person or persons, after being duly qualified, shall have the same powers, rights, privileges and duties as my Executors and Trustees hereinafter appointed.’' He authorized his “Executors and Trustees hereinafter named” to sell or mortgage his real estate, and appointed his son John M. [105]*105Powell, his son-in-law Joseph Atkinson, and his friend Joseph H. Chubb, and, in case of death or inability or unwillingness to act, his son William Powell in place of the one so dying, or unable or unwilling to act. Letters testamentary were issued to the three last named.

A reading of the entire will shows that he “had no thought of creating distinct offices, but rather that the executors should act as trustees, and the labors imposed in settling the estate, managing the balance, paying the income, and distributing the principal, be carried out by those named acting in either capacity” : McKallip’s Estate, 291 Pa. 304, 308; it being his “purpose that the three individuals selected, . . ., should be those to whom the complete carrying out of” his “expressed desires was committed”: Id., pp. 308, 309. He also provided that they should at all times “not be less than three” in number, and that he did not place absolute confidence in any one individual acting separately is further indicated by the proviso that one of them should “not be liable for the acts of the other or others of them but each of them to be liable for his own acts only, and the moneys that may come into his own hands”. Generally money is paid to one person, and no doubt he had this in mind when he made that provision. However, he did not empower the one who received it to act for and in behalf of the others; to the contrary, he relieved them of liability for its receipt, and distinctly directed that not less than three persons should at all times manage his estate. This was recognized by the orphans’ court in appointing an additional substituted trustee after first appointing two substituted trustees. •

When the check, intended to be in payment of the mortgage on premises No. 1503 Moyamensing Ave., was drawn, all three of those named in the will of Jonathan Powell, deceased, as his “Executors and Trustees” had died, and no one had been appointed to take the place of any of them. The check was delivered to J. Powell Atkinson, and defendants contend that as he was the sole heir and surviving executor and trustee under the will of Joseph L. Atkinson, deceased (the last survivor of the executors and trustees named by Jonathan Powell), he was the proper person to receive it, citing Baird’s Appeal, 3 W. & S. 459. Although it is there stated (at page 460) that “by the common law, the heir of a trustee of real estate succeeds to the trust at the death of his ancestor, because the title to the legal estate descends upon him”, and that “The accounts of his predecessor . . . can be settled only by his personal representative”, it was also held that “he has nothing to do with the execution of the trust, so far as it includes personal estate.” Thus J. Powell Atkinson, as the sole heir of Joseph L. Atkinson, may have succeeded to the trust insofar as it pertained to real estate, but he had “nothing to do with the execution of the trust, so far as it includes personal estate”, and, as the surviving executor and trustee of Joseph L. Atkinson, he had the duty of settling the latter’s accounts but not of administering the estate of Jonathan Powell. “If an executor or administator die, leaving the estate but partly administered, his personal representative cannot complete the administration of the first decedent’s estate. Another administrator must be raised, and he has authority to administer the balance of the decedent’s estate . . Wagner’s Estate, 227 Pa. 460, 464. As the mortgage was part of the personal estate of Jonathan Powell, he had no power to satisfy it or authorize its satisfaction of record. His duty was to account for what Joseph L. Atkinson had done, not to dispose of the assets, make investments, and perform the duties of the trust, which, by the express terms of the will, were to be performed by no less than three persons.

Defendants contend also that the present bill is barred by laches. It was filed by the three substituted trustees on February 20, 1931. Two of them were appointed by the orphans’ court in May and the third in November of 1930. They [106]*106did not delay for thirteen years as did the trustees in Philadelphia Trust Company v. P. & R. C. & I. Co., 139 Pa. 534, cited by defendants, but proceeded with proper diligence. The beneficiaries of the estate are not parties to this proceeding, and any inaction upon their part should not prevent the plaintiffs from asserting their rights. In Vanleer’s Appeal, 24 Pa. 224, also relied upon by defendants, the beneficiary, who acquiesced in what was done there, was a party to the litigation, and the one whose actions were questioned was an executor or trustee, whereas in the present case J. Powell Atkinson was not an executor or trustee of the estate and had no right, under the law, to manage its affairs.

When defendants’ predecessors in title sought to pay off the mortgage, they were chargeable with notice that there was no one authorized to receive payment and to satisfy it. The mortgagees were described in the mortgage as “executors and trustees”, and these words were sufficient to put them on inquiry: Kenworthy v. Equitable Trust Co., 218 Pa. 286, 290, 291. Dealing with a trust estate, it was their duty to ascertain the nature and extent of the powers conferred upon the trustees, in order to know whether the trust was being violated: Id., p. 290. That all of the trustees named in the will had died, and no one had been appointed to take the place of any of them, were matters of public record at the time.

The mistake of delivering the check to J.

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

Related

McKallip's Estate
139 A. 839 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Vanleer's Appeal
24 Pa. 224 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1855)
Phila. Trust Co. v. Phila. & R. C. & I. Co.
21 A. 70 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1891)
Kenworthy v. Equitable Trust Co.
67 A. 469 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Wagner's Estate
76 A. 215 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Baird's Appeal
3 Watts & Serg. 459 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1842)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Pa. D. & C. 104, 1932 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-trust-savings-co-v-walters-pactcomplphilad-1932.