The Portland daily press., 1885-02-18
THE BROWN ESTATE,
The Hearing in Progress Before
Judge Haskell.
The Proceedings of the First Day.

OF Fhlllp Henry Brown ana John Marshall
Brown, for the removed of their associate,
John Rand, from the Office of trustee. and the
appointment of a successor by the court. The
will of the late j. B. Brown left all his large
estate, after the payment o: debts and legacies,
to the management of the trustees named, for
the benefit OF his heirs. The bill in equity al
leges that Mr.. Rand has excluded his assoc-
ates from proper, just and necessary share in
the control of the property, and has further
more shown an arbitrary, capricious and M.
comfortable disposition, SO that the joint ad-
ministration OF the trust is hindered and em-
barrassed beyond endurance.
Tho respondent admits the acts specifically
alleged. but denies that there was in them
any irregularity or improperly, and also denies
that his disposition and manner have been
such as to give any just cause of complaint.
At the preliminary hearing, July 18th, the
complainants offered motion for the appoint
ment of a recsiver for the estate The Court.
instead of appointing receiver, ordered the
respondent, while the proceedings were pend
ing, to correct the practices specifically COM
planned OF in the plaintiffs bill. An amend
ment to the bill complains that the spirit of
this order has been violated by the respondent.
to which Mr.. Rand replies with general and
specific denial.
Judge Symonds opened the case yesterday
morning for the complainants. It was under
stood and agreed, he said, at the first meeting
OF the trustees in 1881, that the general con-
duct of the estate should proceed as in Mr.
Browns lifetime. Mr.. ]. S. Douglass, the
agent appointed by Mr.. Brown, was to collect
the rents and provide for customary repairs of
buildings occupied by tenants. His collections
were to be deposited and his expense bills
were to be rendered at the office of j. B.
Brown & Sons. The coupons aud dividends
on personal property were also to be collected,
as before, by the complainants, who were to
keep an account of their receipts and disburse-
ments and to render monthly statement to
Mr.. Rand and to pay to him at first one half
and afterward four tenths of the net receipts.
The probate accounts were left exclusively to
Mr.. Rand, and at bis suggestion, though with
some hesitation, the real estate and personal
property left in trust for the benefit of Mrs.
W. H. Clifford, were confided exclusively 10
the management of Mr. Rand. He was the
only lawyer among the trus tees and his assc-
~-~S0S NASfSSS4
But when he proposed to keep his bank ac,
count as trustee in his own name, without the
addition OF the word trustee. they dissented
and this point he yielded.
Mr.. Rand's separate account, kept at the
Canal Bank, was very large. The monthly
balances ran from $40. 900 to S600O0. averag-
ing over $4,000. This deposit, thus wholly
withdrawn from the custody OF the plaintiffs,
Judge Symonds characterized as illegal aud
wrongful. On the 21st of March, 1884. Mr..
Rand Furthermore went privately, without
notice to the other trustees, and removed from
the Safe Deposit Vault all the coupons falling
due in April, amounting to about $4,000.
April TO- 1884. also without notice or consul
tation, he ordered Douglass thereafter to pay
to him directly one third of all the rents col
lected. Mr.. Douglass, embarrassed by this
order, took advice of counsel aud was told to
deposit all the rents in bank to the order of
all the trustees in conformity with the provi-
sions of the will. The complainants also con
suited counsel upon these proceedings of Mr..
Rand. and were informed that the method OF
conducting the joint trust up to that time was
faulty and hazardous; that they should open a
new set of books, as was expressly directed by
the will that all bank deposits should be payable
to the order OF the trustees, not of one trustee;
that the segregation OF the Clifford trust was un-
authorized; and that the missing coupons were
wrongfully in the hands Of Mr. Rand.
On the 10th of April, 1884, the plaintiffs
notified Mr.. Rand that they had opened an &C
count at the First National Bank to the Joint
credit of the trustees; and that all receipts
from the trust estate, including the rents, were
to be deposited there. They also opened the
books required by tho will. Therenpon Mr.
Rand again visited the Safe Deposit Vault
and privately removed all the coupons falling
due during the next two years. He had thus
removed from the custody and control of his
associates and held in defiance of their protest
not less than $4,000 belonging to the estate.
On the Both of June he issued printed notice
to tenants, informing them that Dou glass had
no authority to collect the rents of the estate.
and himself collected $1,000 to $500 on the
LIST OF July. Mr.. Douglass had no notice of
this proceeding until he called upon the ten
ants and found that Mr.. Rand had been bafora
him. On the Sd of July Rand endeavored to
secure the insurance money payable on the
ship OF U. q. Chapman, and told the agent
that he could not recognize payment to the
other trustees as legal payment of the loss
ThereupoR On the 7th of July the plaintiffs
filed their complaint
At the hearing, July 12th Mr. Rand con-
sented to restore the missing coupons; to re-
woke his notice to tenants and cease interfering
with Mr. Douglass; to sign checks upon the
joint deposit, which up to that time ne had
refused to recognize, and to deposit the trust
funds In his custody subject to the joint order
of the trustees. The order of court covered All
these points, but the plaintiffs allege that Mr..
Rand since that time has repeatedly cast doubt
upon the authority of Douglass as agent: has
refused to approve the accounts of the COM
plainants, alleging that he does not approve
OF certain items but refusing to indicate what
items; and has persistently refused to render
any account of his own transaction as trustee,
so that il is made impossible to keep the books
which the will requires to be kept. He has
also insisted, without reason, that payments
for expenses shall be made at his Office and
not at the office of j. B. Brown & Sons, and
himself retains the vouchers.
All these arbitrary and irregular proceed
ings, Judge SSmonds said, were not only with
out provocation but could not be avoided by
the utmost forbearance. The plaintiffs yielded
every point which they could yield to con-
ciliate Mr.. Rand. They EMPLOYED him as
counsel not only for the estate but in their
private business, though he never had been
their general attorney, or the general attorney
of J. b. Brown & Sons.
They received constant complaints from
people who had been insulted BY Mr.. Rand in
the transaction Of necessary business, and con-
6tantly nuFlsed ConSlQ6fate ana cOnClliatory
course towards him. But when he began ar
bitrarily to take into his own hands a large
part of the estate, they were compelled to pro-
tect themselves. They were compelled to be-
lieve that Mr. Rand's faults of temper had
reached such pitch as to disqualify him for
his duty as trustee, and to ask the court to ap-
point his successor.
AT this point the court adjourned.
In the afternoon Judge Symonds cited and
read from long array of authorities both in
this country and England to the effect that tie
exclusive control of trust funds by one trustee
with the consent of his co-trustees, or the de-
posting of trust fdnds in his own name with
the consent of his co-trusteeS, is a breach of
trust, and in the event of loss all of the trus-
tees would be liable;and yfortiorS it is breach
of trust where he undertakes TO control the
funds and deposit them in his own name
against the wish and express directions of
his co-trustees. He also cited authorities and
precedents where trustees have been removed
by court of chancery because the trustees
could not act together harmoniously in the
management of the estate and the interests of
the ceStui que trusts were thereby endangered
or liable to suffer.
Judge Symonds then read from the record of
- n