Heard v. Eldredge

109 Mass. 258
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 109 Mass. 258 (Heard v. Eldredge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Heard v. Eldredge, 109 Mass. 258 (Mass. 1872).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The appellees, as trustees under the will of John W. Trull, became proprietors of twenty-nine shares of stock in the Lewis Wharf Company. Its property consisted of real estate in Boston ; and its income consisted of rents and wharfage. The city authorities took a part of the real estate, by right of eminent domain, for the laying out of Atlantic Avenue ; and have paid the corporation therefor $185,000. The directors have divided $75,000 of this money among the stockholders, and reserved the balance. Mrs. Eldredge, the appellant, contends that this dividend belongs to her as income; but the trustees have treated it as capital, of which she, as tenant for life, is entitled to the income only.

[260]*260The appellant contends that the dividend is hers, under the rule laid down in Minot v. Paine, 99 Mass. 101, and the subsequent cases of Daland v. Williams, 101 Mass. 571, and Leland v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 542. But those cases are quite unlike this. If the city had taken the whole of the company’s land, it would be plain that they had taken its capital. A dividend of the money received for it would be a dividend of capital, of which the tenant for life ought to have the income only. The taking of a large part of the land makes no substantial difference in principle. It converts a part of the capital from real estate into personal. No difficult or complicated process is necessary to ascertain what elements enter into the dividend. It is clearly a dividend of a part of the capital; and an impartial execution of the trust will not permit it to be taken entirely away from the remaindermen. The tenant for life should have only the income.

The suggestion that the intention of the directors should determine the question whether the dividend is capital or income cannot be correct. They may have had no intention on the subject; and if they had, and if it could be ascertained, it might mislead us. It is more safe to look at the character of the property and the transaction.

As the trustees are authorized by the will to change investments, and are directed to pay the residue of the income to the tenant for life after deducting all proper costs, charges and expenses, the brokerage is properly classed among the expenses, and «barged upon the income.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Tait v. Peck
194 N.E.2d 707 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1963)
Trust Estate of Samuel H. Dowsett
38 Haw. 407 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1949)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Townsend
85 N.E.2d 784 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Rathbone
73 N.E.2d 472 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Long v. Rike
50 F.2d 124 (Seventh Circuit, 1931)
Creed v. McAleer
175 N.E. 761 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
In Re Estate of Etzel
234 N.W. 210 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Lloyd v. Lloyd
173 N.E. 491 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1930)
Lloyd v. Lloyd
252 Ill. App. 495 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1929)
Nirdlinger's Estate
139 A. 200 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Coolidge v. Grant
146 N.E. 719 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Smith v. Cotting
120 N.E. 177 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Bradley
103 A. 486 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1918)
In re Heaton's Estate
96 A. 21 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1915)
Talbot v. Milliken
108 N.E. 1060 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Estate of Wells
144 N.W. 174 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Bryan v. Aikin
86 A. 674 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1913)
Gardiner v. Gardiner
99 N.E. 171 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Gray v. Hemenway
98 N.E. 789 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Miller v. Miller
13 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 1 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 Mass. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heard-v-eldredge-mass-1872.