Pederson v. Berg

37 F.2d 265, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJanuary 20, 1930
DocketNo. 4136
StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.2d 265 (Pederson v. Berg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pederson v. Berg, 37 F.2d 265, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527 (7th Cir. 1930).

Opinion

PAGE, Circuit Judge.

Iver Pederson died in September, 1914, leaving individually owned real estate and a three-fifths interest in Iver Pederson & Co., a copartnership conducting a general mercantile and milling business on his real estate. By his will he directed his executors to raise, out of his estate, a trust fund of $8,000, the income from which was to be paid to Mary Pederson, his widow, during her life.' Until the trust fund was created, she was to be paid $500 per year by the executors, who were a son, Albert M. Pederson, and a son-in-law, P. M. Benrud. Instead of creating the trust fund, as directed, Iver Pederson’s four children (including Albert M. Pederson and the wife of Benrud) incorporated the Iver Pederson Company to which they deeded testator’s real estate on October 30, 1915, for a stated consideration of $12,325, and also turned over to it testator’s interest in the partnership assets, which amounted, after the payment of the partnership debts, to less than $6,000. In 1927, the corporation was adjudged a bankrupt.

The widow and the executors (appellants) filed a petition in the bankruptcy proceedings1 asking that the estate in the trustee’s possession be impressed with a trust in favor of the widow. The defense was made by the trustee in bankruptcy and three mortgagees. The District Court, in dismissing the petition, held: (1) That the mortgagees were innocent purchasers; (2) that the widow, having acquiesced in the leaving of her legacy in the business of the corporation for upwards of ten years, was estopped; (3) that the statute of limitations did not run in favor of the corporation.

The main contention by appellees is that the statute of limitations of Wisconsin, St. Wis. 1927, § 330.10 had run because the corporation had been in adverse possession under the deed from the heirs for more than ten years. As the mortgages were taken in 1925, within two years of the adjudication in bankruptcy, the statute could not of course have run in favor of the mortgagees.

[266]*266Iver Pederson’s will gave Ms wife, in lieu of all statutory rights, furniture, household goods, etc., absolutely, the homestead for life, and made the following trust fund provision:

“I further give and bequeath to the executors of this my last will and testament, in trust for my said wife, Mary Pederson, the sum of $8,000, to have and to hold the same during the life of my said wife and to pay to her on the first day of January of each year during her life time, the total income from the said $8,000 wMeh amount shall not be less than $500 per year; I further will and .direct that my said executors shall as soon as it is practicable to realize from my said estate without sacrifice said sum of $8,-000 invest said sum in first class security and continually thereafter during her life as much as practicable maintain and continue such investments; and until such investments can be made I will and direct that my executors pay to her annually on the first day of January in each year the sum of five hundred dollars ($500).”

It is stated, off the record, that the will was probated February 9, 1915, in the county court of Trempealeau comity, Wisconsin, where the testator resided and the property was situated. A bond, dated February 13, 1915, was made by the executors, as trustees, to H. A. Anderson, county judge of that county, conditioned that it should be void if said trustees

“shall carry out and execute the provisions of said trust in accordance with said will and the law applicable thereto, and shall make and return to the County Court aforesaid, within such time as the Court shall direct :
“1. A true inventory of the manner of investing said trust estate under the terms of the will,
“2. Shall annually render an account to such Court of the trust in their hands and of the management, disposition and annual income thereof, * *

It contained other provisions, not here material. There are here shown only four items relating to the administration of the estate: (1) sometime between December 2nd and 13th, 1915, the executors filed a petition for final settlement, a part of wMeh purports to be a statement of the personal property received by the executors, and of claims paid by them; (2) as'of December 13, 1915, appears an order made by Judge Anderson, fixing February 1, 1916, as the day for hearing the petition; (3) a certificate of publication of that order; (4) following the testimony of one of the executors concerning the account shown in the application for discharge is tMs entry:

“This matter came on for hearing on a petition for final settlement and upon an order for the determination and adjustment of the inheritance tax. O. J. Eggum, attorney for petitioner. No minors. A. M. Pederson, one of the executors, sworn and examined. * * * Inheritance tax adjusted and paid. Final judgment entered.”

Albert M. Pederson and one Runnestrand, who owned the two-fifths interest in the eopartnersMp not owned by Iver Pederson, carried on the eopartnersMp business during the last illness of Iver Pederson. When the corporation was organized the business was managed by Albert M. Pederson, its president, and other children of testator. The capital stock of the corporation, as first organized, was $25,000, but it was later increased to $60,000. How much stock was issued to any person does not appear, except that a son-in-law of Iver Pederson, one Aaby, who was an officer of the corporation, paid $5,000 for stock. Albert M. Pederson, without notice to the widow or to Ms coexeeutor, had a certificate issued for 80 shares of stock to “A. M. Pederson and P. M. Benrud, as Adm. for Mrs. Iver Pederson.” It also appears that stock was issued to A, M. Pederson and Runnestrand for their two-fifths interest^ the copartnership. There is some testimony indicating that each got in excess of $2,000. Stock was also issued to A. M. Pederson and each of Ms three sisters to represent their supposed interest in the residuary estate. The net amount of the personal estate, after payment of the debts, as shown by the petition of the executors, was $5,789.-75. TMs, added to the consideration named in the deed, showed the net value of the estate as $18,114.75.

After her husband’s death, the widow was supplied from the store, 'first by the estate and then by the corporation, approximately $500 per year in trade. She had been sick for some 35 years, and most of the time had been confined to her house. Her husband never talked of his business affairs to her, and neither Albert M. Pederson nor Ms coexeeutor told her anytMng about the business. It does not appear that she knew, until shortly before bankruptcy, that the deed was made by the heirs to the corporation. Whether she had any notice of the probate of the will, with an opportunity to renounce, as she had the right to do within one year under the laws of Wisconsin, does not ap[267]*267pear. If it is to be presumed that she had notice by publication that the first Tuesday of February, 1916, was fixed for a hearing upon the petition for final settlement, filed by the executors, we think that no conclusion adverse to her interests can be predicated upon that fact. Neither the petition, nor the statement of the account, made any reference to the trust estate or to the real estate left by her husband.. The only references to the widow or to her interests in any way are in two items: “Household furniture given Mary Pederson, $309; To support of widow for 15 months, $625.” The widow testified:

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

Related

Richard Harrold v. Lewis Hagen
Fourth Circuit, 2026

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 F.2d 265, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pederson-v-berg-ca7-1930.