Macy v. Ladd

128 Misc. 732, 219 N.Y.S. 449, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 840
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 8, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 Misc. 732 (Macy v. Ladd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Macy v. Ladd, 128 Misc. 732, 219 N.Y.S. 449, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 840 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Opinion

Taylor, J.

The plaintiffs, substituted trustees of the trust created by the last will and testament of Josiah Macy, Jr., deceased, for the benefit of his daughter, the defendant Kate M. Ladd, bring this action for the judicial settlement of their accounts for the period from December 31, 1921, to December 31, 1923. The accounts are approved by all parties in interest, except in so fai as such accounts evidence the award by the plaintiffs to Kate M. Ladd, the life beneficiary, of the entire amount of two stock dividends extraordinary in character, viz.:

(a) Four hundred per cent stock dividend of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, paid to stockholders of record November 25, 1922 — 78,400 shares at 39f; valuation, $3,106,600; and

(b) Two hundred per cent stock dividend of Standard Oil Company of New York, paid to stockholders of record December 1, 1922 — 3,840 shares at 47|; valuation, $180,960.

Acting upon the advice of counsel in making such awards, the plaintiffs submit the propriety thereof to the court. The life beneficiary contends that each award is legally correct. The remaindermen contend that in part only is it so correct, and that at least 18,798.583 shares of the 78,400 shares of the New Jersey company, and at least 965 of the 3,840 shares of the New York company, should be awarded to the principal of the trust. The principal contention of said defendants is that, to the extent that the stock dividends in question are representative of an appreciation in value (being the “write-ups” mentioned infra) of stocks of subsidiary companies held by the corporations declaring the dividends, the dividends must be treated as capital of the trust, however sound the revaluation of stocks of the subsidiary companies by the declaring companies may be, and to whatever extent such revaluation may be based upon accumulated and undistributed earnings of such subsidiary companies, and notwithstanding that the stocks "of the subsidiary companies, except a negligible number thereof, were acquired by the parent corporation after the trust here involved was set up; and the same contention is made by the remaindermen, who insist that it is a valid contention, even though such stocks were acquired by the investment of the parent company’s earnings.. I gather, also, from the briefs of the counsel for the remaindermen that it is contended that, even if stocks [739]*739of subsidiaries so appreciated in value by the parent company were purchased from earnings of the latter, such stocks must be deemed capital of the parent by reason of claimed necessary legal implications from the rulings of our highest court in Thayer v. Burr (201 N. Y. 155). As to this case, note discussion infra.

Josiah Macy, Jr., died testate on October 5, 1876. There survived his widow, Caroline L. Macy, who died December 31, 1898, and also the following, his only heirs at law and next of kin, viz.: His daughter Mary K. M. Macy (afterwards Willets), who died in 1893; his daughter, the defendant Kate M. Ladd (then Macy); his son, the defendant (and also a plaintiff) Valentine Everit Macy, who was the testator’s youngest child, and who attained his majority on March 23, 1892. The life beneficiary, Kate M. Ladd, and all persons in being having any interest in remainder, are now parties to this action. The will and codicil of the deceased were duly admitted to probate in the Surrogate’s Court of New York county, and are set forth in full in the second amended complaint. The trust here involved, imposed upon the executors, whose successor trustees are plaintiffs herein, with other trusts not here material, was created by clause III of Josiah Macy, Jr.’s, will. In substance the will provides that, as to the share of the defendant Kate M. Ladd in the residue, the same is to be kept invested and the income to her paid during her life. At her death such share is to go to her lawful issue (if any), and in default of such issue in equal shares to her then living brothers and sisters, and to the lawful issue of such who shall have died leaving issue, such issue to take by representation the share which the parent, if living, would have taken. Mrs. Ladd is without issue; her brother, the plaintiff and defendant Valentine Everit Macy, survives, as well as the issue of Mrs. Willets. There is also issue of the defendant Valentine Everit Macy.

Inter alia, the testator directed his executors to leave undisturbed such investments as they might find already made by him, unless it should seem best for the estate to realize upon them. The investments ultimately resulting in the dividends here in question are in that category. The trust was set up as of March 23, 1892, when the defendant Valentine Everit Macy attained his majority. As part of the corpus thereof there were 7,424 shares of the so-called Standard Oil Trust, dissolution of which as an unlawful combination was directed by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio on or about March 1, 1892. Sales from the said shares aggregating 2,524 were made from time to time before September 23, 1896. Then there remained 4,900 shares only. The facts in the case are in effect admitted as set forth in the answers of certain defend[740]*740ant remaindermen, and, therefore, it appears that these 4,900 shares became, in 1911 and 1912, in the hands of the then trustees of the trust for Mrs. Ladd, 4,900 shares (par value $100) of the common stock of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. These were exchanged in 1922 for 19,600 shares of the same corporation (par value $25), and the same, constituting a part of the corpus of the trust here involved, are those upon which the 400 per cent stock dividend above referred to was declared. The plaintiffs also held in 1922, further as part of corpus, 1,920 shares (par value $25), originally 480 shares (par value $100), of the common stock of the Standard Oil Company of New York, the source of which may be traced in the said admitted facts. These are the shares upon which the 200 per cent stock dividend above referred to was declared.

The situation presented in the case at bar is one which, as far as the research by learned counsel and by myself is concerned, has never been passed upon directly by any court. I think, however, that opinions of our highest court in recent years have set forth the principles upon which a proper determination in the case at bar must rest. The law as I gather it from the authorities will be stated:

The fundamental guide to a proper award of such stock dividends as between life tenant and remainderman is the intention of the testator, to be gathered from the language of his will or from the situation surrounding its execution, where this is possible. (Robertson v. de Brulatour, 188 N. Y. 301, 305; opinion of the late Judge Walter C. Noyes, as referee, in Macy v. Ladd, modified, though not on that point, 182 App. Div. 216; 227 N. Y. 670; Lowry v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 172 id. 137, 143.) Here there is nothing in this will nor in the situation surrounding its execution which appears of especial significance.” (Opinion of Judge Noyes in Macy v. Ladd, supra.)

Whether the testator’s intention is expressed ambiguously, or, as in this case, indefinitely, resort must be had to the facts in order to discover whether the particular dividend was a distribution by the corporation of the accumulated earnings or profits, or of that which was capital. (Lowry v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., supra, 143; Robertson v. de Brulatour, supra, 305; Matter of Osborne, 209 N. Y. 450, 475; Bourne

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

Related

In re the Estate of Wanzer
177 Misc. 929 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 Misc. 732, 219 N.Y.S. 449, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macy-v-ladd-nysupct-1926.