The Portland daily press., 1885-02-26
THE BROWN ESTATE.
Argument of Mr.. Putnam Con
cluded.
Judge Haskell Reserves His Decision.

AT the opening OF court yesterday Mr.. Put
nam continued his argument for the complain
ants. He said that Mr.. Rand's position as to
the notice to tenants of the termination of the
agency OF Mr.. Douglass might be correct if it
were not for the last clause in which he says
that nothing can be done with reference to the
estate OF j. b. Brown without his Mr.. Rand's
concurrence, He put in that clause because
ne knew It would create a state Of doubt and
uncertainty in the minds of the tenants as to
the authority of Douglass il he undertook to
act for the otheI trustees. 1t was clause en-
tirely unnecessary to the notice and was put
In Ior the purpose OF creating confusion in the
affairs of the estate.
Mr.. Rand starts with the proposition that IL
in any single act in his relations to this trust he
mss been guilty OF any act of commission or
omission detrimental to the estate, he is will
ing to be tried by the strictest rules And
tnen ne goes on afterwards and takes mp each
separate transaction, each item by itself, trsats
OF 1t by itself, disregarding the spirit of the
act, looks at it simply as a transaction discop-
nected from everything else in the case, asks if
that particular act injured the estate and then
lays 1t aide as circumstance of no impor-
tance. Now, this trustee is not to be tried by
the strictest rule for a single act Take any
single one or two Of the things alleged in the
case, no matter how clearly proved, and they
would not be sufficient to Justify the removal
OF this trustee. We are ell human, and all IL
able TO err. Those of us who consider ourselves
the safest from error sometimes make the
most gr1evous mistakes. He is to be tried mn.
on this record as q whole, upon his acts taken
together, and viewed in their relations to each
other.
Mr. Rand discussed the question of the Joint
possession of the trust funds as though we
were In court OF common law instead of in q
court OF equity. 1t may have been in ancient
times that trustee was excused for retaining
trust funds in his exclusive possession, because
then they had not the modern i'm proyements
OF safety vaults and banks where such funds
and securities could be deposited, accessible
alike to each one Of the trustees. All these old
rules referred to by him grew out Of the neces-
sities OF the case, and have now in the light of
modern appliances aud conveniences been
superseded by the better rule that the funds
Shall go into banks of unquestioned security,
subject to the joint order and joint possession
OF all that compose the board.
Mr.. Putnam replied to Mr.. Rand's explana-
tion OF the $67, 900 mistake, as it is called
Mr. Putnam claimed that the error was made
solely 0y Mr.. Rand in the probate accounts;
that it occurred by his mixing up the prin-
eRss ey OF sS aNPbe s sntrH tb essis Rrown had
YsiHgId n0thng f I'd De IT, .i4h in no way re-
Mr.. Rand says that this estate has reeeivsd
no detrlment through any of bis acts which we
have alleged in this bill. We have not under
taken to show to what extent the estate Los
suffered detriment from the condition of
things existing by the fault OF this respondent,
but anyone can see that the interests OF the es-
p0lo buucE II LuSEo lS u Wdnb Ol harmony
OF the character and to the extent that we find
among those trustees. There never was time
when il was SO diff cult to invest trust funds as
it is today, and the utmost harmony and dis
erection is necessary on the part of the persons
managing trust funds to enable the estate to
produce any considerable income. Mr.. Rand
says the estate has Suffered no detriments. If
this court hadn't stepped in and put its hand
on Mr.. Rand, this estate today, so far as its
real estate is concerned, would be in the ut
most confusion.
Mr.. Rand says that he took these coupons
and these bonds and justifes his doing it upon
the harsh provision of the common law which
permits cc-tenant who can get possession of
chattel to retain it, He says nothing about the
fact that he broke in like burglar and made a
raid upon the joint property in the possession
OF three trustees and cut off these coupons and
hid them away, but he puts it upon the simple
proposition that he has the extreme rights of
co-tenant IN ehattel; that he may at his
own caprice exercise his extreme legal rights
without consultation with his co-trustees But
the doctrines OF the common law have no place
in court OF equity, and the exercise of ex-
treme legal rights between trustees has no
place whatever in the administration of the
trust. II Mr.. Rand is right, it he may exercise
his extreme. legal rights without consultation
With his co-tr0stees, without regard to the in
terests of the estate but simply accord
ing to his OVID caprice as he says he may,
then either co-trustee has an equal right in
that respect with him and they each can do it;
and il they each undertake to assert their ex-
treme legal rights what becomes OF the trust?
Assuming that they have these rights and
that they exist, are there any confidential rela-
tions in life where parties are brought togeth-
er for the common good or common purpose in
which the parties can exercise their extreme
legal lights without destroying the common
purpose and common object?
All through this case MIR. Rand goes upon
the principle OF receiving his pound of flesh.
he says, ~ have got the pound of flesh aud
had right to take it," No one knows better
than this respondent how the taking of that
pound Of flesh agonized the system from
which 1t was taken. No one of us can 90 the
verge of our extreme rights and stand there.
The thing is impracticable. Let a man act
under the advice of ths best legal talent he can
get, let him proceed under the scrutiny of the
best legal mind to avail himself of his extreme
legal rights and he will cross the border And
IN this case, assuming the gentleman's law to
be correct, assuming that he has only exer-
cised his extreme legal rights, assuming that
he had right to take the pound of flesh, no
matter how much pain and agony it might
cause his co-trustees-in this case he has gone
farther and he has taken with it Christian
blood.
The respondent says that he is anxious about
the future Of the estate. doubt not the court
will find somebody who can perform the duties
degolviDg upon this respondent as well as he,
and doubt not that this estate will go on and
the trust be properly managed even if the
slight circumstance of this respondents con
nection with it should disappear.
Mr.. Putnam closed at $50 O'Clock.
Judge Haskell said he would take the case uu-
der advisement and announce decision at fa-
ture day as early as practicable in view of the
great mass Of testimony and authorities in the
case and the Importance OF the case itself.
Court adjourned until next Tuesday, which
is February rule day in chancery.