McDonald v. Maxwell

12 F.2d 822, 56 App. D.C. 287, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 1926
DocketNo. 4300
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 12 F.2d 822 (McDonald v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McDonald v. Maxwell, 12 F.2d 822, 56 App. D.C. 287, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382 (D.C. Cir. 1926).

Opinion

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

The bill in this ease was filed in the lower court by James McDonald, Jr., the only child and heir at law of James McDonald, deceased, a resident of the District of Columbia at the time of his death, alleging that certain provisions of the last will and testament of the decedent are in conflict with the law against perpetuities, and are therefore void, and praying the court accordingly to decree that plaintiff is entitled as sole heir at law to the possession of that portion of the estate which testator attempted to dispose of by means of the void provisions. The lower court dismissed the bill for want of substance, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The will was executed by James McDonald on June 26, 1913. At that time James McDonald, Jr., was married, and his first child was en ventre sa mere. This child, James McDonald, 3d, was born September 10, 1913, and is yet living. On April 14, 1914, a codicil was executed by the testator, and on January 13, 1915, testator died, at which time the second child of James McDonald, J., was en ventre sa mere. This child, Robert Alexander McDonald, was horn on May 12,1915, and is still living. Plaintiff has no other living children. On January 20, 1915, the will and codicil were duly admitted to probate and record by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a probate court, and letters testamentary thereon were duly issued to Lawfenee Maxwell and the Fulton Trust Company of New York, who are named as executors in the will.

Plaintiff’s bill was filed in the lower court on May 6, 1922, at which time the principal of the estate was about $2,500,000, and the accumulated income was $756,537.56. These amounts have since been increased by additions to capital and income, and on July 12, 1923, the date of the executors’ ninth account, the aggregate thereof was about $5,000,000.

The statutes of the District of Columbia against perpetuities, which are invoked by the plaintiff, read as follows:

“Sec. 1023. Perpetuities. — Except in the ease of gifts or devises to charitable uses, every future estate, whether of freehold or leasehold, whether by way of remainder or without a precedent estate, and whether vested or contingent, shall be void in its creation which shall suspend, or may by possibility suspend, the power of absolute alienation of the property, so that there shall be no person or persons in being by whom an absolute fee in the-same, in possession, can be conveyed, for a longer period than during the continuance of not more than one or more lives in being and twenty-one years thereafter.”

“See. 1036. * * * All the provisions of this subchapter shall apply to personal property generally except where from the nature of the property they are inapplicable.”

The will in question is divided alphabetically into eighteen paragraphs. Paragraphs A to H contain various bequests not involved in this case.

In paragraph I the testator gives his sdn, James McDonald, Jr., an annuity of $10,000 until he becomes 26 years of age, $12,000 from that age until the age of 30 years, and [823]*823$15,000 from that age until the estate is divided according to the will. James is also given an annual allowance of $2,500 for “each child his wife may bear him” until the child reaches the age of 15 years, and $3,000 from that age until the child becomes 21 years of age. (By the third paragraph of the codicil these annuities to James are increased to $15,000, $18,000, and $20,000, respectively, and the following provision is substituted for the foregoing annuities given James because of the children, to wit: “James shall also have an additional annuity of twenty-five hundred dollars for each child his wife maj"bear him and living at my decease until the child reaches the age of fifteen years after that the said additional annuity shall be three thousand dollars until the child reaches the age of twenty-one years.”)

In paragraph J of the will the testator gives to James his library, family pictures, and effects, also certain family jewelry, with directions that the latter shall go to the eldest son from one generation to another, with the following expression of his purpose: “My desire being that the jewelry continues to be worn by a McDonald so long as a direct descendant of mine is alive.”

In paragraph K the executors are authorized “to invest in any business of which they approve and in the management of which James must take an active part any sum not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). All profits resulting from the investment shall go entirely to James but the principal shall remain part of the estate until the estate is divided in accordance with the provisions hereinbefore stated and may be recalled by the executors if they deem it desirable to do so before the division takes place.” The testator also authorizes the executors “to have built for James a residence at such time and place as he may designate at a cost of not exceeding thirty thousand dollars ($30,000).” (In the sixth paragraph of the codicil the testator revokes these provisions but gives James a sum, not to exceed fifty thousand dollars, “for thé purpose of erecting a house at such time and place as my said son James may designate.”)

In paragraph L of the will the testator gives certáin directions in relation to a residence owned by him in London, England. The succeeding paragraphs of the will, to wit, M, N, O, P, Q, and R, contain the provisions whereby the testator disposes of the residue of his estate, comprising its major value. These paragraphs are as follows:

“(M) Each child of James, by his wife, shall after reaching the age of twenty-one (21) years receive an Annuity of four thousand dollars ($4,000) until the oldest surviving one shall reach the age of thirty (30) years when if James is still living the estate shall be divided as follows: One half (%) shall go to James the remaining one half (%) shall be divided between the children share and share alike. If any of the children shall have died before reaching the age of thirty (30) years leaving a wife and child or children the share of such child shall go to the wife and child or children in such manner as the executors may deem best. The share of the child who has reached the age of thirty years shall be made over to him at once but the shares of those who have not reached that age shall be held in trust by the executors and shall be made over to them as they reach the said age. The share or shares of any child or children who may have died before reaching said age leaving a wife and issue may be divided between the wife and issue at such time and in such manner as the executors may deem best. This provision applies in the event of the deceased child being a woman in which case the word husband shall be substituted for that of wife.

“(N) If James should die leaving a wife and issue the widow shall receive from the Estate an annual allowance of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) until the first child of James shall reach the-age of thirty (30) years when it still living she shall receive one-third (%) of the estate the remaining two-thirds {%) shall be divided among the issue in the manner set forth in paragraph M.

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

Related

Langroise v. Cummings
123 F.2d 969 (Ninth Circuit, 1941)
Gertman v. Burdick
123 F.2d 924 (D.C. Circuit, 1941)
McDonald v. Helvering
74 F.2d 1005 (D.C. Circuit, 1934)
McDonald v. Fulton Trust Co. of New York
64 F.2d 158 (D.C. Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 F.2d 822, 56 App. D.C. 287, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-maxwell-cadc-1926.