The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-05-25

/ tate; that Julia Along threatens to
make away with and dispose of the ac-
/ cumulations of the income, and that
there is imminent danger of such dispo-
sltion TO the utter exclusion of pc
! tltloneTs, thereby causing irreparable
| damage TO them; that Julia Along has
surrendered her directions under the
trust deeds to Maria X. Humphreys and
a. >. Humphreys, her husband, through
their influence; that Julia Along is
alienated from her children, the COM
plainants, and is now acting with avow-
ed hostility, dislike, animus and bias
against them.
The bill prays that respondents be or
dered to account for all sums or proper-
ty received by them which now or Mt
any time has formed part of the income
from the original trust estate or part
of the accumulations of the income
therefrom; that a permanent trustee
and receiver be appointed to receive
the accumulations of the income and
to receive and dispense the income
hereafter accruing in the place and
stead of Julia Along; also that a tenn
porary receiver be appointed to take
charge of the accumulations, and also
the accruing income, and for an injunc-
tion.
The respondents, Julia Along Maria
X. Humphreys and A. S. Humphreys,
demurred to the amended bill and the
issues raised by such demurrers are the
matters now under consideration.
The principal ground of demurrer is
that the trust deeds do not create a
trust in favor of plaintiffs. This uues-
ton involves the construction of the
deeds.
These are deeds of trust emanating
from c. Along as settler or grantor i'm
favor of his wife, Julia Along, and her
children by him begotten.
During the absence of Chun Along
from the Hawaiian Islands the trustee
named in the deeds shall pay the in
come of the trust funds to said Julia
Along, If living, for the support of her
self and her said children"
The general rule is that a provision
to pay income to wife for the support
of herself and children creates a trust
in the wife for the benefit ofsth chill
dren so long as the children do not be-
come foris familiated. and that the sur
plus OF such income, after providing
suitable support, belongs to the wife
without liability to account The wife
takes the income charged with the duty
OF maintaining and supporting the
children. The provision cannot be CON
strued as an absolute gift coupled with
a mere declaration of the motive in
making the gift; it creates an express
executed trust in the wife for the sup
port of the children.
Brown V. PAUL, Sim. N. S., 90.
LOngmore V. EIcum, Y. & c., 363
Cole V. Littlefeld, 35 Me, 439.
Carr V. Living, 26 Beav., GA.
Hadow V. Hadow, 9 Sim, 440.
Leach V. Leach, 13 Sim, 203.
Raikes V. Ward, l Hare, 445.
Chase V. Chase, 2 Allen, 101.
BOwden V. Laing, IA Sim, I13.
Gilbert V. Bennett, 10 Sim, 371
Jubber V. JubbeT, 9 Sim, SOB
Loring V. Lorings 100 Mass, $40.
The intention of the parties as shown
by the instrument must control when
ascertained.
1t cannot be supposed that the settler
or donor intended TO provide for his
wife alone so long as she lived The
consideration recited negatives any
such intention. Natural love and af-
fection for his said wife and her said
children by him begotten" must be ta-
ken as indicating the object and pur-
pose of the transfer, and when consid4
cred with the provision that the income
should be paid to the wife during his
failure suitably TO maintain, sup
port and provide for her or any
of her children by him begotten,
shows that the donor intended
and did make provision for the
support of her children by him begOtten
as well as for his wife. When the ma
ture Of the instrument is considered it
becomes apparent that this is a natural
and proper disposition. 1t is settle
ment for the support Of his wife and
those of his own blood. The presumed
intention, if there were doubt upon this
point, would be to make provision for
his children, and just and proper con-
struction would give effect to that in
tention.
The children that are married and
obtaining support from their respect
i've husbands are not entitled to any
part Of the income during Julia Afong's
life.
when the income of property is
given, as in this case, to the mother
for the maintenance of herself and her
children, what is intended is that she
shall receive the whole Of the income
and shall maintain the children out Of
it so long as they form part Of the
family. But when they are fOris famili-
ated they lose the right to main
tenance." In this case a married daugh-
ter provided for and living with her