The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-09-22
ITS TRUST SACRED
PROVISIONS OF GEN. SIBLEY'S WILL
TAKE PRECEDENCE OF CREDI-
TORS CLAIMS.
IMPORTANT TO TRUST FUNDS.
Is JUDGE KNLY'S DECISION IN
THE LAMP-POPE
SUIT,
40 EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES.
IMPORTANT TO TRUST FUNDS
40 EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES.
Circuit Court of Appeals Keeps the
Streets Open in Kansas at
Least,

Judge Kelly handed down an i'm
portant decision yesterday, dealing
with the question whether a creditor
may get at trust funds held by a
trustee under will. The case in point
concerns the will of the late Hon. II.
H. Sibley. 1t came before the dis
trict court on the motion of plaintiffs,
Henry Lamb & Son, that the court
appoint a receiver and that the de-
PENDANT, Augusta S. Pope, one of the
legateeS under the will, pay over the
sum Of $40 found on supplementary
proceedings, and that defendant give
an order on the st. Paul Trust COM
pany for the payment of sum suf-
ticient to pay the balance of the plain
tiff'S judgment.
Judge Kelly denied the motion for
the appointment of a receiver, but Or
ders the payment of the 500. In the
memorandum accompanying the order
Judge Kelly says:
The important question raised by this mo-
ton is: Can the trust fund or the trust
estate set apart by the last will of the late
Hon. H. II: Sibley, for the support during
life of his daughter the defendant) and her
death, be reached in supplementary proceed
ings by the creditors of the daughter?
Gen Sibley bequeathed his property to the
81 raul Trust Co. and others in trust for
his heirs. The trustees were directed as soon
as practicable to divide the estate In their
hands into as many parts there are law
tuI children surviving the estate at his death
INCLUDING a share for dead child's chill
dren), as nearly equal in value as may be-
In case the testator's daughters, Augusta
A. Pope and Sarah ]. Young or either of
them. be living at the time Of the above
division, the will says the trustees shall
continue to hold their said respective shares
for and during the natural lives of said
daughters respectively" and the trustees are
given the same full and absolute control of
eaeh snare as is given to the trustees with
IN he rIaAl1
the estate in the first instance. Thew are
In case the testators daughter Augusta
!ne entlre net incomes and profits. At the
death of either daughter the trustees must
convey her share to her lawful issue or If
there be none to the surviving children of the
testator: The trustees, however, were given
permission to spend $1,000 of each daugh-
ters share In building her a home, to be &C.
cupied by her free of rent during life and
might make to either such advancements
from her share II 1t should be found that the
income of her share was not sufficient for her
economical support and maintenance.
II IS entirely plain that the testator in
tenued 10 make provision from his own
estate for the prudent and economical sun
port OF the defendant his daughter during her
NE; and that the principal from which this
Income was to be gathered should be pre-
ssfTeo, II possible, and go, first, to the lawful
cplloren OF the daughter surviving and This
Iallng, second, to the surviving children of
the testator.
The trust is valid under the rule in Minne-
sofa both as to the personal and the real
property involved.
But 1t is claimed that this defendant is en-
Titled by the will as a matter of right tn re
eeive from the trustees the "entire NET in
come and profits which shall be by them col
Iecteo ior her share" or her fathers estate
Tor and during her natural life and this in
come and these profits become her property
tne moment they come into the trustees
hands, and like any unkempt property may
be reached by her creditors. And it is argued
with force and FEASIBILITY, that as the tesla
tor In this regard has left nothing to the dis
10 say In so many words. in his will that his
bounty to his daughter shall be free from the
demands OF creditors, or her own IMPROVE
dence, the cause at bar fails to come within
the rules laid down in the American case
This argument, though plausible is fallaci-
Gus. The defendant may enforce the perform
ance OF the trust, but she has no such abso-
Lutte right to the income arising therefrom as
1t reaches the hands of the trustees as is
here claimed If she had. she could assign
IT.. If she can assign it at ALL she can antici-
pate the whole income for life and sell and
assign the whole, and by so doing defeat the
object of the trust. So far as the income
by statute to assign.
can see no reason why the court should
not apply the same rule to personally
that the legislature has made for learty. II
defendants interest in the income Is not such
as she may assign, then clearly her creditor
cannot invoke the courts authority to
pei her to do that which the policy of the
law forbids her to do voluntarily. And,
moreover, in the case at bar. the income
arises both from real and personal property.
/ hold, therefore, both from principle and by
authority cited herein, the defendant cannot
lawfully assign any of the income of the trust
estate while in the hands of the trustees.
Now, I know it is the duty of honest peo-
pie when they are able, to pay their debts
People who are not honest recognize no duty
and are not worth mentioning. And believe
to be the duty of the courts to aid in the
collection of debts by all proper means in all
proper cases. But il it becomes necessary
when the courts aid is invoked to violate a
nri tYNl nf f1fcftn t. ~
of any creditor to be paid then the court
still hesitates. And in this case l hesitate
because the testator Gen. Sibley was under
no obligation. legal moral, to pay the de-
PENDANTS debts past future. He was NOR
ally obligated to provide. as far as he could
for her support and the support of her chill
dren. He had the absolute right, however.
to dispose in any lawful manner OF his sur
plus estate he pleased and the disposition
he has made of his own, being lawful should
not be thwarted.
To apply this income in any manner con-
trary 10 the testators will the terms of which
violate no law. is to deny him the right to