First Nat. Bank in Mobile v. Watters

Supreme Court of Alabama

First Nat. Bank in Mobile v. Watters

125 So. 222, 220 Ala. 356, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 522

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 19, 1929

Docket1 Div. 580.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 So. 222 (First Nat. Bank in Mobile v. Watters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Nat. Bank in Mobile v. Watters, 125 So. 222, 220 Ala. 356, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 522 (Ala. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The power of a court of equity, in a proper case, to hasten the enjoyment of a trust fund, by awarding advancements to tbe beneficiary before the time fixed by the creator of the trust, is generally recognized. Pearce v. Pearce, 199 Ala. 491, 74 So. 952; Shelton v. King, 229 U. S. 90, 33 S. Ct. 686, 57 L. Ed. 1086; Blackburn v. Hawkins, 6 Ark. 50; Wardens & Vestry of St. Paul’s Church v. Attorney General and Others, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N. E. 231; Knorr v. Millard, 52Mich. 542, 18 N. W. 349; Mills v. Michigan Trust Co., 124 Mich. 244, 82 N. W. 1046; Tompkins v. Tompkins’ Executors, 18 N. J. Eq. 303; In re Bostwick, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 100; Seitz’s Appeal (Zinn’s Estate), 87 Pa. 159 ; Barlow v. Grant, 1 Vernon, 255, 23 Eng. Report 451.

While this power is usually exercised for the benefit of infants, it may be exercised in other cases where the necessity of varying the terms of the trust, in order to, give effect to the ultimate intention of the creator of- the trust, is shown, and no contingency appears which would ultimately defeat the right of the beneficiary for whose benefit the fund is to be applied. Pennington v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 65 N. J. Eq. 11, 55 A. 468; Shelton v. King, supra; Elder v. Elder, 50 Mo. 535; Stewart v. Hamilton, 151 Tenn. 396, 270 S. W. 79, 39 A. L. R. 37.

Application of the principles stated, to the case now before us, is sufficient to justify the decree of the circuit court, in equity, and require that it be affirmed. It is so ordered by tbe court.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J.,. and SAYRE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.'

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

BROWN, J.

The power of a court of equity, in a proper case, to hasten the enjoyment of a trust fund, by awarding advancements to tbe beneficiary before the time fixed by the creator of the trust, is generally recognized. Pearce v. Pearce, 199 Ala. 491, 74 So. 952; Shelton v. King, 229 U. S. 90, 33 S. Ct. 686, 57 L. Ed. 1086; Blackburn v. Hawkins, 6 Ark. 50; Wardens & Vestry of St. Paul’s Church v. Attorney General and Others, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N. E. 231; Knorr v. Millard, 52Mich. 542, 18 N. W. 349; Mills v. Michigan Trust Co., 124 Mich. 244, 82 N. W. 1046; Tompkins v. Tompkins’ Executors, 18 N. J. Eq. 303; In re Bostwick, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 100; Seitz’s Appeal (Zinn’s Estate), 87 Pa. 159 ; Barlow v. Grant, 1 Vernon, 255, 23 Eng. Report 451.

While this power is usually exercised for the benefit of infants, it may be exercised in other cases where the necessity of varying the terms of the trust, in order to, give effect to the ultimate intention of the creator of- the trust, is shown, and no contingency appears which would ultimately defeat the right of the beneficiary for whose benefit the fund is to be applied. Pennington v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 65 N. J. Eq. 11, 55 A. 468; Shelton v. King, supra; Elder v. Elder, 50 Mo. 535; Stewart v. Hamilton, 151 Tenn. 396, 270 S. W. 79, 39 A. L. R. 37.

Application of the principles stated, to the case now before us, is sufficient to justify the decree of the circuit court, in equity, and require that it be affirmed. It is so ordered by tbe court.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J.,. and SAYRE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 222, 220 Ala. 356, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-in-mobile-v-watters-ala-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack