In re the Estate of Hayden

141 Misc. 644, 253 N.Y.S. 641, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1524
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedApril 15, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 Misc. 644 (In re the Estate of Hayden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Hayden, 141 Misc. 644, 253 N.Y.S. 641, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1524 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Opinion

Grant, S.

In and by the last will and testament of Charles H. Hayden, deceased, and the codicil thereto, duly admitted to probate September 4, 1920, Charles Leverett Hayden, decedent’s son, of Alexandria Bay, N. Y., William C. Willard, banker, of Columbus, Ohio, and Charles A. Covert, accountant, of Columbus, Ohio, were named executors of decedent’s will and trustees of the trusts therein created. The three qualified and acted as such executors, had their account as such judicially settled, and qualified and have been acting as such trustees. William C. Willard died December 11, 1930. Charles A. Covert, one of the surviving trustees, has nominated George T. Spahr, of Columbus, Ohio, and Charles Leverett Hayden, also one of the surviving trustees, has nominated A. Raymond Cornwall, of Watertown, N. Y., for appointment to succeed the said William C. Willard as trustee herein.

The 9th paragraph of said will, as amended by the 2d paragraph of said codicil, among other things provides that In the event of the death, resignation or disqualification of one or more of my éxecutors and trustees hereinafter named, the surviving executor or executors and trustee or trustees, shall nominate other suitable person or persons to the proper court for appointment as such executor or executors and trustee or trustees to the end that there shall at all times be three, and three only acting executors and trustees.” The said nominations have been made pursuant to this provision of the will. These nominations are addressed to the sound discretion of the surrogate, and if either nominee is properly qualified to perform the duties required of him in the proper administration of the trust estates it is the duty of the surrogate in the [646]*646exercise of that sound discretion to appoint said nominee. If both are qualified it then becomes the duty of the surrogate to elect between them and to appoint the one qualified to render the more efficient service. The qualifications of each nominee and the reasons for his appointment have been most ably presented.

It seems to me that the appointment of A. Raymond Cornwall will serve the interests of these trusts and the interests of all sharing therein better than would the appointment of George T. Spahr. Mr. Cornwall is a man of middle age, in the prime of life, and in the natural course of events with many active and useful years ahead of him. He is an attorney with years of experience in the handling of substantial estates. He is thoroughly familiar with these trusts and has intimate knowledge of their properties, securities, problems, policies and management, acquired through his service as attorney for the executors and trustees from the" inception of' the estate. His integrity, ability and qualifications are unquestioned. They are conceded. Considering the unfortunate, self-inflicted' death of the deceased trustee and the possible complications that may arise therefrom, it seems advisable, particularly at this time, that someone familiar with the details of these trust estates should be appointed as successor trustee. Again, considering that Mr. Covert is seventy-seven years of age, it seems particularly advisable that the successor to the deceased trustee should be a much younger man, one who is familiar with these trusts, their properties, securities, problems, policies and management, and who has at least some knowledge of the persons interested in them, to the end that there may be some degree of continuity in the administration and management of said trusts. Mr. Cornwall’s appointment will meet these requirements. Mr. Spahr is seventy-four years of age. Presumably his years of business activity are few. If appointed he in all probability would be able to serve but a short time. Mr. Spahr is not a publicist and banker as Mr. Covert testified, stated in his nomination and would have the court believe. He is a printer. He is also a director of the City National Bank and Trust Company of Columbus, Ohio. He spends about eight to ten hours in the course of a month attending directors’ meetings and meetings of the said bank’s trust committee, of which he is chairman. He is not familiar with these trust estates and has had no connection whatever with them, except that in his printing establishment he has bound some of the reports of the trustees. Mr. Spahr’s integrity is above question. He is a man undoubtedly entitled to be held in high esteem. If he were younger his nomination would make a stronger appeal. But he has reached the age when men generally begin to lessen their activities [647]*647and to lighten their loads rather than to assume added burdens and responsibilities. It seems unwise to place the active control and management of these trusts in the hands of two trustees both of whom are in age considerably above man’s allotted three score years and ten.

It is contended that the naming of William C. Willard and Charles A. Covert, both residents of Columbus, Ohio, as two of the three executors and trustees, the provision that *Mr. Covert shall have charge of the accounting and bookkeeping necessary for the proper management of the estate and trusts, the requirement that at least two of the three executors and trustees be present whenever any one is admitted to the place of deposit of the securities of the estate and trusts, the authorization to invest in Columbus real property and in first mortgages upon Ohio real estate, and the provision for the burial of himself and of those who are the objects of his bounty in the mausoleum at Columbus, evidence an intention on the part of the testator that the estate and trusts be administered at Columbus, and that, therefore, the nomination of Mr. Spahr, a resident of Columbus, is more consonant with the entire spirit of the will and the intention of the testator than is that of Mr. Cornwall. There would seem to be considerable merit in this contention if it were not for the fact that the testator at the time of his death, and at the time his will was made, was a resident of the town of Alexandria, in the county of Jefferson and State of New York, and that the assets and properties of his estate, aside from the mausoleum, were then within the State of New York and not in Columbus, Ohio. It can hardly be presumed that it was the testator’s deliberate intent that both the assets of the estate and trusts, and the executors and trustees actively in charge thereof, should be at all times without and beyond the territorial jurisdiction and the control of the court in which the estate and trusts were pending. Likewise it can hardly be presumed that the testator intended to deprive his son, Charles Leverett Hayden, of a part in the active control and management of said estate and trusts unless he should become a resident of Columbus, Ohio. He names this son first in order as executor and trustee, then William C. Willard, then Charles A. Covert. In paragraph 11 of his will the testator says, “ and the fact that my son Charles Leverett Hayden is a legatee under this will shall not preclude him from receiving compensation as executor and trustee.” In paragraph 7, subdivision 4, he appoints his said son guardian of the person of Hayden Bonsai, testator’s grandson. It seems to me that the testator clearly expresses confidence in his son and I believe that it was the testator’s intent that this son should share [648]*648actively in the control and management of his estate and of these trusts.

I do not believe that it was the intent of the testator that the assets of the estate and of the trusts should be removed from the territorial, jurisdiction and beyond the control of the court in which their administration should be pending.

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

Related

In re the Accounting of Firth
205 Misc. 101 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1953)
Boone v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
163 F.2d 809 (D.C. Circuit, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 Misc. 644, 253 N.Y.S. 641, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hayden-nysurct-1931.