The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-07-15
CURIOUS WILL CASE.
uew n Father Tied the Hands of n Son Until
He Attains the Age of Thirty-five.

He Attains the Age of Thirty-five.
Marshal (Hich,) Cor. Indiana Tribune.
A case of unusual interest, and in which large
amount of property is involved, is now pending
in our court. In 1860 Joseph Sibley, an old resi-
dent of this place, and man of wealth, formed
q partnership with Horace j. Perrin, also of this
place, in the banking and milling business and
general speculation. In September, 1864 Mr.
Sibley died, the partnership having not yet eX
pired. He left but one heir, son then nineteen
years of age. He left to his widow, in lieu of
dover, the sum of $4,000, in addition to her
homestead, and, with the exception of two or
three legacies, bequathed the whole remaining
portion of his estate to Francis NJ. Sibley his SON.
He, however, nominated five executors, who
were to have entire charge of the estate, They
were directed to pay to his principal legatee the
sum OF $1,000 per year until he should reach the
age OF twenty-one, when he was to have $3000
and $1000per year until he should be twenty-five
when If in the opinion of the executors he
would not squander or waste it, he should re-
celve $4,000 and $1,000 per year until thirty,
when he was to have S15,000, If thought by his
executors competent to manage it, and $1,000
per year until thirty-five, when If, in the opinion
of his executors he should be possessed of suffi-
cient discretion to take care of the estate, they
were to give him the whole. If not they were
directed to retain it for his heirs and If he should
die without issue, then to the collateral heirs of
the testator. Mr.. H. j. Perrin was named as
one of these executors, and was the only one
OF the number who qualified or ever acted
He proceeded with the settlement of the
estate, set apart the legacy, ETC., but
having quarrelled with young Sibley, and
that gentleman not feeling satisfied with
the management of the estate filed bill in
chancery against the executors setting forth that
NJ. Perrin had in his hands of partnership pro-
perty about $250000, of which $150,000 be-
longed to him as the heir and legatee of his
father, and asking the court to decree that an
account be taken and Perrin be compelled to
pay over; also setting forth that, inasmuch as
but one of the five executors had qualified or
acted, and as the estate had been substantially
settled, lac, the complainant, was entitled at
once to come into possession of the whole; the
trust was a personal one; that unless all acted
the action of the balance would not be valid;
and that he was at once entitled to the estate,
and discharged from the discretionary power of
the executors To this the defendant demurred,
alleging a complete remedy at law, and
that as to the first part of the bill,
the Probate Court alone had jurisdiction to set
tie the matter, and that the Court of Chancery
would only interfere to aid the Probate Court in
some collateral matter, and as to the second part
of the bill the defendant takes issue and claims
that as matter of law, one executor out of a
number may act; that when the trust is coupled
with an interest, and when a trust is created
bearing discretionary power as to the execu-
tion, one might execute it, distinguishing this
case from a mere naked trust. The argument
was heard on the demurrer on Saturday before
Judge Woodruff at chambers. The questions
were very ably argued by E. w. Meddaugh, of
Detroit, for the complainant, and by d. d.
Hughes of this city, in support of the demurrer.
decision has not yet been given.