New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-02-10

AFORESAID
sunrjion and under sncll belief ....,u nor
claims and alleges the fact to nc that such Ca Ns
ecutca Tor good and valuable constellation, nu' hS
ron your petitioner, and greater ia inNun' ~" IN
Gee cue 10 said Ed@m D. worSesier Teai at tee
time petitioner as>epied - shcA IT, ~ ", II
and trustees he did not know that the sad "iuu ~,
Vanderbilt and believed That me cohVs5Hi S
Of suca property simply gifi RON Dih' El' % ,c
know that the negotiations when fcSuhSu -. ~
termination Of all niigatons perianng - ts suS
tween your peioner ana SaiI MulaI i. -, nrris,e
CLAIMS and alleges that for the reasons "it ,,%
said wIutm H. vanaerolt - no. non u1~rr Ia
trust should be executed so "a TO give YOU h
petitioner portion Of sS Sono! G%pet Cont
will appoint Indifferent person ID j., 'i, ',s lad
he power to terminate the limitations 10 TIE aosoin
ownership Of tne property by your FG~fn
n W0rcnstcr, or that It be adiudged that y0ur
petitioner the absolute owner o! sJca properly OF i
other different reiiei as 10 TINS "oho'a''' O
DENIAL BY JUSTICE DoNOHvE
Jusfics Donohue, before whom the Application was
made rote out following opinion In denying t''
motion:
In this case the acrs simple The applicant ana ma
tue rarty Fought 10 ne superseded rs Nrs'et nv
nrotlrrs IN MAY, 1879 the respondent by & Uuht
deet placed In the nand OF W. - 1e rece,yrI
ana colt rccd bv W and paid over =" tn, u
nc his Hfe ne raw" the right by WI l" oSgoS ' ~
wrrr Inserted. one IN regard 60 cnanehg seeu
ND, ana dnO3DcI 'u ~ i'.
consent OF both applicant and respondent ne tfu't
nfcbl be- terminated, tho applicant assuming thal the
fund ca @e1r"f Fiat S| Sn The lair Construction
the deed it might not have brer ,con''hh,
retu,ncd 10 the respondent; circumstances might
he oscd IN winch that could have been for ihe ln
csi,s on tnjs mont and nat The Curt have the rig
10 substitute tae trustee ~ proper CASE INV ~. H.
can use rart Of the money In business "o'h W
mis- advancement ~ money ana nea. u, sS We
the resnn.dcnt 20 unite IN ending the trust n %
5000 600 and 10 that amount over 10 Tue apu.aI
This Tho respondent does rot accede to- and me app
cant asks tlat s sSni yy Tn 40 NAY o'
whether the Court should do this or not Gepe9 ,l
eotuevhaf on questions; the frat Is whether tuc
p4riies did uotin tie trust creaedrey on me luoge
and discretion OF those named IN WHOSE Snut
mcnt they had mutual confidence. ana To Wh0se
decision hey intended submit IL would D"
to discnss the rent nv whether aS the IL not on
inherent w original transaction, on u wou,r ecu
c@s de s4g ne mater at length state
cusOn which the facts bring me, ,that s,ch Mas W.
doutedly the Intention and there being nothing 20 I'm
9eecb the b~na Gdes ur fairness of the judgment al
which respondent has arrived, the Court shoulA u"'
sibstitItc q new trustee.
Rut mere is another ground on which Il seems 10 me
the same result would be reached II che respondent
asking for advice as what he should do on the
request OF Tue applicant the Court would direct him not
10 make tho "0nsent asked, ana cortny u ue OonIt
transfer asked without application 10 the Court. Here
is fund the history Of or reason Tor the execution ~
which we need not inquire which appears 10 proNlde
and careful Nv guard very large income for person OF
tina wears aud position Of the appellant ~
the trust. his income, large one Is
nmt bevond question for his life and
th mower 10 dispose of the whole corpus by w ana
rho Cnnrt the custodian Of all truss Is asked 10 place
mr. all,v TO be % aced and the applicants IL
come AT TIE hazard and risk or business or an
uncertain future. II % me there can be M
case IN which the aid the Court has been exercised
m giving such direction to such trust and that the
direction OF the Court II case existed for changing
trustee, would be TO new trustee 10 1e-
cline making such disposition. "a hardly
necessary 10 cite authorities 10 sustain ether
OF the positions assumed. They arise not only from
natural equity hut the constant pracce OF the Courts
TIE MOTION el efOrc. must he denied the trus ee so
tar papers presented disclose having thheh
course wnich the Court approves ~ -,
The pout tint {. j. Vanderbilt did not know tho
ground operating tbs mind OF the respondentor mat
the respOndent did know what Oeiaeh Oh thc nlhd
of applicant do not think changes the case.
The name OF Mr. Worcester was at first written III
ruli by Justice DOnohue IN his opinion, aud then
changed TO the W" FORM
The TRlBUNE's STATEMENTS CONFIRMED.
The valuable consideration" mentioned IN the pc
tou TO the Court moving from your petitioner. aud
greater in amount than the property con
yeyed" appears TO refer 10 the consent by
Cornelius Vanderbilt withdraw any further
litigation over his fathers estate These papers indicate
fh,r the statements In THE TRIBUNE on the morning
alter the will closed, To the terms or
the retirement were substantially correct Cornelius
IN ado iiion 10 OF 100000 under bis father
" his old debts settled aud heavy fees were paid
TO his counsel. including II Is SAID @lOooOO Obcotl
Lord.