The Portland daily press., 1885-03-10
THE BROWN ESTATE.
Judge Haskell Announces His
Decision.
He Removes Mr.. Rand from His
Trusteeship.

terday Judge Haskell delivered his decision in
the case of Brown ct al. We. Rand, in which he
removes Mr.. Rand from the trusteeship. Judge
Haskell spoke as follows:
John B. Brown, citizen of Portland, died
January 10th, 1881, testate. He devised his
mansion house, its furniture and equipment to
his widow during life, together with $4,000
and the annual sum of $4,000, to be paid to
her annually during life; the same to be in lieu
of dover and all other interest in his estate.
He devised certain real estate to his only sur
yiving two sons and to each of them 800, 900,
less their respective debts to him, and upon
the decease of his widow, 100000 each. He
devised to his only daughter $500 and GER
tain real estate to trustees in trust for her use
during life, and upon the decease of his widow
the income of special trust fund of 100000
during life, the fund and real estate at his de-
cease to be distributed among her children.
lie created certain minor trusts, gave annuities
to other of his kindred and relatives, and be-
queathed legacies to charitable institutions and
others. He devised the residue of his estate,
amounting to about So, 000, 900, to the orators
and the respondent, Mr.. Rand, in trust, to be
invested and preserved, and the income ap-
piled to the payment of the annuities which he
had created, and the residue thereof divided
annually, or semi annually, one-tenth to
granddaughter, the daughter of his deceased son,
James 0. Brown, and three tenths each to his
daughter and two sons, these orators, during
their respective lives, and upon the decease Of
his last surviving child the same to be dis
tributed among his grandchildren per capita,
and the lineal descendants of any deceased
grandchild by right of representation. He
provided that majority of his trustees, Mr..
Rand, or his successor, being one of such ma
iority, might make any decision, and do any
act authorized, or required in the execution of
the trusts imposed upon them, and that
majority of them, not including Mr.. Rand, or
his successor, might do so, having first OBJ
tanned the appreciation of the judge of probate
for the county of Cumberland for the time
being therefor. In case of refusal to accept
decease, resignation, or incapacity of any of the
trustees, he provided the manner in which
a successor should be appointed, and invested
with the powers of trustee, and directed that
his said trustees should not be required to give
boEd for the performance of their trusts, and
appointed his named trustees executors with
out bonds. The will bears date March IL,
1877. He executed codicil modifying the
will in minor particulars February 10, 1872
Both were admitted to probate in January
1881.
For several years prior to his decease, the
"
himself and these orators, negotiating business
under the name of 81. B. Brown & Sons" The
assets of this firm, the executors received and
distributed according to law.
MIR. Rand was the senior member, and be-
came the legal adviser Of both executors and
trustees. By the terms of the will, his con-
currence became necessary, that majority of
the trustees might act,--not that each trustee
could not perform alone certain duties that
devolved upon him in the administration of
the trust. as the collection and receipt of in
come, but the fruit, or result of this action
when done must then be controlled and dealt
with by the three, and disposed of by only the
stated majority. No extraordinary, or unusual
powers were accorded any one trustee by the
WILL but their unanimous action was modified
and waived, provided Mr. Rand and one as
sociate concurred. To Mr.. Rand was accord
ed one voice. and to each associate one half
vote. The trustees could do no act without
his vote and the vote of one associate, To
them collectively, and to no one of them, was
given power to govern and control the trust,
and to exercise the functions of trustees.
Collectively, as board of management, they
govern the estate, and no part of it can be dis
posed Of or applied to trust uses, without
concert Of action and joint voice. That this
must be SO, is seen from the fact, that more
than one trustee is named by the will. The
manifest purpose of confding important in
terests to several is, that joint action, to be
had only after conference, and comparison of
views, is less likely to be hasty, i'll
advised and injudicious, than the best iudg-
ment of one man, and thereby safe, wise and
conservative counsels are more likely to pre-
vail. To insure this result, harmonious action
among the trustees is essential. They must
confer together, consult together, be consider
ate OF each others opinions, and act carefully
and judiciously.
1t appears that these trustees continued in
their employment for care of the real estate
belonging to their trust, Mr.. Douglass, to
whom the testator had for series of years in
trusted that duty; that by agreement among
themselves, it was arranged that the orators
should receive from him the entire rents; from
it, pay the current bills of repair; collect the
income from the personal estate; and monthly
return to Mr.. Rand an account of all the same,
and pay to him at first one halt, and later four
tenths of the net income of the entire trust
estate. The amount of income that they were
allowed to retain did not exceed the share of it
devised to themselves. Mr. Rand retained in
his exclusive control as trustee the residue,
and deposited the same subject to his own
check. 1t was also arranged, that Mr.. Rand
should collect and retain and pay over to Mrs.
Clifford the income of the property specially
bequeathed to her.
The probate accounts were prepared by Mr..
Rand, the orators having had little or no ex-
perience in the proper manner of stating them
Early in the administration of the estate, a
large error of some $67, 900 crept into the
probate account of the executors, and it is not
clear by whom this error was caused perhaps
all the trustees are not without fault in regard
to it; but nevertheless, it created confusion
and controversy and anxiety among the trus-
tees. The orators as surviving partners were
called to account for that sum of money in ex-
cess of what they should have been, and after
much controversy with Mr.. Rand about it,
they were relieved from paying it to the exc
cutors, and the probate account of the exc
cutors was corrected accordingly.
During the first three years of the trust the
business OF the estate was conducted in the
manner before described. The Brown block
was IN process of construction, and many
dlf1erences OF opinion arose between these ora
tors and Mr.. Rand in regard to it. The evil
dence shows, that he was peremptory and un-
willing patiently to listen to their suggestions,
and failed to apparently treat them with the
consideration they deserved, as coming from
associates, and persons too. largely interested
In the estate as cest@is que trust. Much
SflueHCe las Deeu introduced Claimed TO prove,
that Mr.. Rand's speech and manner towards
these orators were curt, insulting abusive
and in violation of such respectful treat
ment as the law requires should be given an
associate in SO important trust duties
and obligations, and that thereby the trust was
deprived of that harmonious, cool and consid-
crate action, that its welfare required The full
extent to which these complaints are well
grounded, it is difficult to determine, for man
ner is hard to be described, and words not cas-
lily proved, spoken during period of SO many
years and months, but it is proved, that Mr..
Rand did not concede to the orators that cour-
teous treatment, and accord to their views that
considerate judgment, which he ought to have
given them. He has stated to the court dur
ing the progress of this cause that the sum of the
charges in the orators bill in substance is, that
they are not pleased with that clause in their
fathers will, which restricts their control of
the trust estate, and in regard to it says, "Wel
If l were in their places do not know as 1
should be particularly pleased with it, butt
should be obliged to submit to it, and if lived
upon the bounty of J. B. Brown, the man who
made that will, l think I should cheerfully
submit. They were Inundated. Well, may it
please the court if they were Inundated, they
were certainly NOT hmm rod hx,- +baxo