The Portland daily press., 1885-02-24
THE BROWN ESTATE.


~f Holm Rand, Esq.
In the case of P. III. Brown and others
against John Rand and others, in the Supreme
Court, before Judge Haskell, John Rand for
the defence delivered his argument yesterday
to large audience.
He had been. he said, for thirty years.in con-
slant personal and professional intercourse
with the late j: B. Brown. His character and
his "peculiarties," to use the word selected
by the plaintiffs, were we'll known to Mr..
Brown. With this knowledge, Mr.. Brown
made him trustee and directed that no bonds
should be required of him. 1t was proper that
his discharge OF a trust SO important, under
the obligations of this special confidence of
the testator, should be strictly examined, and
il through any fault of his the estate had suf-
Tered, he should be removed. But he should
be tried by his acts, not by his words.
1t has been stated that the plaintiffs were
men OF large business experience and business
capacity, and Mr.. Rand did not controvert
that statement 1t was Mr.. Brown intention,
however, that his estate should not be iu-
volved in their transactions. The estate, after
the payment of just debts and legacies, was
lett to the management OF three trustees. The
plaintiffs were beneiciaries as well as admins
traitors OF the trust, and although the books
say that, as q general rule these relations are
incompatible and should not be combined, yet
In the present case it was right and proper that
the plaintiffs should be joint trustees.
1t has been alleged that the Clifford trust
was improperly separated from the general
trust, but that separation was made by the
will Mrs. Clifford was to have not only an
equal share in the income of the general trust
with her brothers, but also the income of
srecifed portion of the real and personal estate
besides; and Mrs. Clifford in her answer to
this bill, as one of the respondents, says she
does not desire the removal of John Rand and
the appointment of a new trustee.
Satisfactory and reasonable arrangements
for the management of the estate wei made
as soon as the will was proved; and for three
years no complaint came from any quarter.
NO injury to the estate is now alleged No
loss has occurred. 1t is alleged that the in
terests of the estate are liza Bile to suffer, but
this is not proved by the evidence.
The first clouds appeared in the spring of
1883. The difficulties arising then related in
part to the Brown Block, but mainly to the
deposits OF trust funds. Mr.. Rand said his
tional bank. The funds of the estate, he
thought, should be separated entirely from his
own, and he deposited them in the Canal bank
to his credit as trustee. The bank allowed
interest on the monthly balances. The plain
tlfs kept their receipts from the estate in their
own hands. He objected to that, and repeat
edly suggested that they should deposit their
trust funds, as he had done, in some national
bank, to their own credit as trustees. This
advice may have been wrong. The deposit in
If SO 1t was harmless error of Judgment and
uot sufficient cause for the removal of a
testamentaIy trustee. There is no pretence
that the estate has suffered any damage in
consequence of this deposit.
But in Mr.. Rsnd's judgment, subject to the
opinion OF the court. the deposit was right.
Any OF the trustees could collect money hs-
longing 10 the estate; and collecting implies
holding the funds for time, until they can De
in some way applied to the purposes of the
trust. deposit by any one of the trustees in
national bank, to his own credit as trustee,
was in Mr.. Rands opinion lawful and
proper disposition of the trust moneys. There
was no possible breach of trust in such de-
posit and 30 liability of loss save by misappro-
prIatlon, which was not alleged or pretended
In April, 1884, the plaintiffs opened an ac-
count to the credit ct the three trustees, and
demanded of Mr.. Rand as legal right that
he should recognize that deposit. He refused.
He did not consider himself under any legal
obligation to consent to such deposit. He
did not consider the arrangement expedient
or convenient. He did not consent to it, and
refused to be maze party to the arrangement
against his will Ii any creditors were delayed
by his refusal to sign checks on that deposit,
jt was the fault of the plaintiffs. They had
put the funds in their possession beyond their
own control; this course they had taken with
out Mr.. Rand's consent and in spite of his obJec-
tion; when the embarrassment and inconven-
fence occurred which he foresaw, it was not
his fault but theirs.
The court here asked Mr.. Rand il it was not
his duty to rccogui10 ting deposit fuUt, aud
to sign checks upon 1t ia order to prevent en-
barrassment.
Mr.. Rand replied that he could not sign
checks without recognizing and SO far approx
ing the joint deposit. He was within his right
in refusing his consent to this method of doing
business, and he understood that the demand
was legal demand. 1t was never alleged that
the method which he preferred was hazardous,
but that it was illegal, and he did not accept
that doctrine.
Tho court asked ii there was any legal obisc-
ton to joint deposit.
Mr. Rand said the law permits it, but does
not require it. 1t was the duty of the plai n
tiffs to keep the funds which came into the ir
hands within their own control The demand
made upon him professed to be based upon
legal obligation, which he did not admit, re-
curing his consent to method of doing bust
hess which he considered cumbersome and in
convenient.
At this point the court adjourned.
AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS.
In the afternoon Mr.. Rand continued and dis
cussed the allegations concerning his conduct
in taking sole possession of large amount of
coupons belonging to the estate, in collecting
certain rents and notifying tenants not to pay
the agent who had usually made the collec-
tions and concerning his manner which was
represented IS overbearing and insulting.
He said the estate has not lost anything by
the cutting off of these coupons and it is
rather difficult to perceive how any waste was
committed as none of the securities have ever
been sold. He did not see how the value of
the securities could be thereby impaired as the
coupons could be attached to the bond pro-
vided any purchasers should buy the coupons
He admitted that he cut off the coupons, and
some of them were not due. The plaintiffs
before that time were making an entire change
in the business of the estate, diverting the
funds from the possession of Mr.. Rand and
allowing no funds to go into his hands that
they could possibly control; and he, Mr.. Rand.
for the purpose of obtaining some portion of
the income of the estate to be used and applied
in the manner 1t had been heretofore applied,
cut off these coupons and took them into his
possession. lie claimed that he had right to
the possession OF these coupons as be had a
right to the bonds themselves; that the law
did not require the trustees to have manual
possession of the securities OF the estate, but
that the possession of one was the possession of
all.
AS to the circular revoking the authority of
j. s. Douglass that was only revocation of
his authority as agent of MIR. Rand; he did
not undertake to revoke his authority to act
for the other trustees. He claimed that he
had the authority to do that and it was neces-
sary for him to do it because Douglass defied
his, Mr.. Rand's authority and power conferred
upon him by the will and said he should do
just as the Browns said
AS to the uncivil language to and about the
Messrs. Brown he may have used language at
times in reference TO some particular TRANSACT
tion such IS is testified TO, but he denied that
any incivility was intended. He did not doubt
but that they had said uncivil things about
him, but he never thought of making it a sub
ject of judicial investigation, and if he had he
doubted If it was sufficient to ask court to
remove testamentary trustee.
Mr.. Rand had not closed at the adjournment
of court, but said he should not occupy more
than an hour in the morning. Mr.. Pntnam
will then make the closing argument for the
compiainants.
The KELLEY CASE.