The morning call., 1894-06-30
CHARLIE TO WAIT.
Fair and His Brothers
Fortune.
HE WANTED 1T AT ONCE.
Taught a Lesson in Patience by
the Supreme Court.
MUST WAIT TILL HE IS THIRTY.
A Decision Which Leaves the Execu-
tors in a Better Position to
Protect the Estate.

Charlie Fair Will not be allow cd to touch
the S500,000 which has reverted to him
through the death of his elder brother until
be arrives at the ripe age Of thirty years.
The Supreme Court has upheld the
judgment OF the lower court on this point,
and has enabled young Fair to learn a les
son in patience. 1t will be remembered
that on the death of Mrs. Theresa Fair,
mother of the boys, she bequeathed to her
daughters, Theresa and Virginia Fair, the
sum of S1,500.000 apiece on their attaining
the age Of % years; to James G. Fair Jr.,
S500,000 on his attaining the age of 80 years,
and to Charles l.. Fair a similar sum on
his attaining the age of 80 years. In case
of death the fortune of either was to revert
TO the other.
Now, when bis brother Jim died, Charlie
Fair was undesirous of being trammeled
with such things as legal provisions or
contingencies, aud set about seeing how he
could most speedily obtain possession of
bis deau brothers share. He applied 10
the courts for a formal order. directing
John w. Mackay and r. Y. Dey, the
executors. to hand over the amount of the
legacy, but the court declined so to do.
Charlie was told he must wait until his
thirtieth birthday arrived, and SD be ap-
from such bondage.
But the Supreme Court has had the bad
taste to refuse 10 SO far accommodate
Charlie Fair, as 1t has sustained the de-
cislon of the lower court. The main opin-
ion In which the court in bank concurs is
written by Commissioner Haynes. The
history OF the case Is set out at length,
and then the legal points in question are
discussed in the following terms:
"Ihe VIII does not expressly state at
what time the death of the original legatee
should occur TO entitle the survivor to the
legacy which would otherwise have gone 10
the deceased brother or sister, nor whether
the date OF payment should thereby be
changed, and therefore these questions
must be left TO construction. 1t is obvious,
| however, that the payment of any of these
original legacles TO the legatee upon arriY-
ing at the prescribed age takes the money
so paid out of and beyond the operation
of the will. which imposes no conditions
or restrictions OF any character upon il
after its payment TO the legatee, and there
fore all facts and circumstances affecting
| its disposition must exist or occur at OF
| before the death of the primary leEatee.
James having died unmarried, the pI o.
vision relating to surviving wife or law
tul issue need not be considered
Recurring then to the question whether
there is anything in the will authorizing
the payment of the legacy in question ia
Charles al an earlier dale than that fixed
for the payment 10 James. l think the
answer must be in the negative.
The language of the clause principally
in question does not require such earlier
payment. II the language were upon
the death Of James, or, in case of the
death of jane. his portion shall then
be paid 10 Charles. there would be 3
reasonably clear expression of an inten.
tion to change the time of payment; but
the language, In case of the death OF
James, bis portion shall be paid tC
| Charles does not enable US to say thai
the testatrix intended such earlier paw.
ment, and If we look to the other pro
visions of the will l think it clearly ar
pears therefrom that such was not her 10.
| tention.
THE will devised and beQueathed the
entire estate to Mackay and Dey. in trust,
to be held and possessed by them Will
power to sell and dispose of it and re.
invest any surplus proceeds for the be
| interests of the estate. 1t was inevitable
that all or the estate should remain ir
their hands for time, and it was impOr
tant that the times at which the trus
should terminate as TO the d !fferent pOr
tions, or legacieS, should be definitely
fixed. so as TO enabIe them TO best preserve
and increase the estate, and be prepared tC
pay the different legacies when they be-
came payable.
| tere5ts OF the estate as a whole, and the
proper discharge of their duties by the
trustees, IL ought to require a: least a rea
sOnably clear expression of Intention tc
make the time of payment depend upon
the happening of eOnlingencies, in theil
nature uncertain, 10 justify the court In
! holding that such change in the time OF
payment was intended.
THAT the time of payment of the severa
legacie5 is norehanged by the accident OF
the death of any of them, but only The
person to whom they are to be paid, is
apparent from the several provisions OF
the will, provisions that cannot be com.
piled with if appellants contention is tC
prevail"
The court further remarks that there is
similar provision iD The will in favor OF
James in case Charles should die first. and
in case of the death of both brothers Il
the sisters, Theresa and Virginia Fair
Then the court concludes: "Other possible
contingencies, not arising upon the facts
contained in the record, may vet arise, buI
none, l think, which can affect the coz.
clusion stated.
The conclusion of the court below that
Charles would be entitled 10 the legacy in
question II he were 80 years of age, think
is erroneous; but as the judgment OF dis.
missal is right, it should be affirmed.
HAYNES, G.
eve concur:
IVAN CLIEF, G.
"BELCHER, G.
After full consideration of the case in