Thyng v. Moses

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Thyng v. Moses

18 A. 197, 65 N.H. 106

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 5, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A. 197 (Thyng v. Moses) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thyng v. Moses, 18 A. 197, 65 N.H. 106 (N.H. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

*107 Clark, J.

The trust was created by the provisions of the will respecting the life legacies and the support of Ann A. Moses. The uncertainty as to the amount which would be required for her support rendered a division of the estate impracticable during-her lifetime; but her death removed the uncertainty, and the debts and special legacies being paid, no contingency remains, and no reason exists why a distribution of the estate cannot now be made. Ordinarily the beneficiaries under a will, unless it is otherwise provided, are entitled to their respective shares of the estate-as soon as they can be determined and distribution can reasonably be made; and, unless the contrary appears, it is to be assumed that the testator intended that distribution should be made as soon as practicable. Where a testator by his will bequeaths to-his executors several sums of money in trust for different parties, each trust should be kept distinct from the others, so that every step in its management may be distinctly traceable in the accounts-of the trustees and in the investments they make. The trust must not, through investment, be complicated -vyith the rights of strangers, or required to share in the losses of other funds. 1 Per. Tr., s. 463; Fowler v. Colt, 25 N. J. Eq. 202; McCullough v. McCullough, 44 N. J. Eq. 313.

The amount of the bequests to the life legatees and their children is a definite sum, ascertained to be $7,179.44. The balance of the estate belongs to the residuary legatees; and the fact that the trust has not been fully performed as to the life legacies, furnishes no ground for withholding from the residuary legatees the shares to which they are entitled. There is nothing in the will indicating that the testator intended that the distribution of the-estate should be postponed until after the death of the life legatees ; and the balance of the fund above $7,179.44 should be distributed among the residuary legatees.

Decree accordingly.

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

*107 Clark, J.

The trust was created by the provisions of the will respecting the life legacies and the support of Ann A. Moses. The uncertainty as to the amount which would be required for her support rendered a division of the estate impracticable during-her lifetime; but her death removed the uncertainty, and the debts and special legacies being paid, no contingency remains, and no reason exists why a distribution of the estate cannot now be made. Ordinarily the beneficiaries under a will, unless it is otherwise provided, are entitled to their respective shares of the estate-as soon as they can be determined and distribution can reasonably be made; and, unless the contrary appears, it is to be assumed that the testator intended that distribution should be made as soon as practicable. Where a testator by his will bequeaths to-his executors several sums of money in trust for different parties, each trust should be kept distinct from the others, so that every step in its management may be distinctly traceable in the accounts-of the trustees and in the investments they make. The trust must not, through investment, be complicated -vyith the rights of strangers, or required to share in the losses of other funds. 1 Per. Tr., s. 463; Fowler v. Colt, 25 N. J. Eq. 202; McCullough v. McCullough, 44 N. J. Eq. 313.

The amount of the bequests to the life legatees and their children is a definite sum, ascertained to be $7,179.44. The balance of the estate belongs to the residuary legatees; and the fact that the trust has not been fully performed as to the life legacies, furnishes no ground for withholding from the residuary legatees the shares to which they are entitled. There is nothing in the will indicating that the testator intended that the distribution of the-estate should be postponed until after the death of the life legatees ; and the balance of the fund above $7,179.44 should be distributed among the residuary legatees.

Decree accordingly.

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A. 197, 65 N.H. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thyng-v-moses-nh-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack