The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-05-25
husband was held not entitled to main
Bowden V. Laing, II Sim, 113.
Ca,r living % Rpay ga


deed is relied upon in support of the
contention that all of the children are
entitled to support from the income Of
the trust estate during Mrs Along
life. The article reads:
Should the income arising from the
trust funds or trust property be dimln-
ished from any cause whatever so as to
be insufficient for the maintenance OF
all of the children of Julia Along begot-
ten by Chun Along and their issue, then
and in that event the income so de-
rived from the trust funds or trust
property shall be appropriated first for
the maintenance and education OF the
minor and unmarried children and
those in reduced and necessitous fnan-
cial condition.
The latter part of article three
deals with the estate and income after
the death of Mrs. Along, and article
four deals with the income after the
death of the surviving parent. Article
five provides for the appointment of
new trustee or trustees, after which fol-
lows the article above quoted.
/ am of the opinion that Article 6
deals with the same condition that the
preceding articles do; that is, after
death of Mrs. Along. 1 am irresistibly
led to this conclusion by the wording
of the article in question. 1t treats of
the whole income. No provision is made
therein for the support of Mrs Along.
The inconsistency under such a con-
structiOn is apparent by referring to the
first part of article three, which is that
the trustee should pay the income to
Mrs. Along, if living, for the support of
herself and her children. And to adopt
such construction would be to hold
L
come for the support of all of the chill
dren, whether being maintained and
supported in their own household or
not, Mrs. Along, would not be entitled
to support.
The first trust deed provides that the
the income of the trust funds shall be
paid upon certain contingencies as in
the second deed set forth to Julia Along
for the support of herself and such of
her said children as the trustee shall
in writing request. None of the chill
dren were entitled to support unless
the trustee saw fit to make request
in their behalf. The second deed en-
larged their rights, and in so far as
such rights are enlarged by said deed,
Mr.. and Mrs. Along are bound BY this |
change l cannot see that there is an in |
dication of an intention to provide sup
port for all of the children. 1t has been |
suggested by compliments counsel that |
the second trust deed may not have |
eliminated the right created by the first |
trust deed. No right to receive support
existed unless the trustee nominated
them as proper objects of the bounty.
and it nowhere appears that any NOM
ination has been made. If there had
been, it would then be question for
consideration no |
rights that the married children DOS
sessed under the first trust deed had
not been restricted under the circum-
stances. Upon the consideration of both
deeds find that the rights of the chill
dren therein named have been increas-
ed or broadened rather than limited or
restricted by the change.
The trust is limited to the support
of the children and upon Julia Afong's
compliance with the terms of the trust,
the surplus balance belongs to her.
In Brown V. PAUL, 1 Sim. N. S., 90,
there was direction to pay income to
a wife for or toward the maintenance,
education and support of children, and
1T was held that the wife took the in
come charged with the support of the
children, and that the surplus belonged
to her, and that she was not liable to
y
1.-The great probability always is that
nothing more was intended than that
the parent should adequately maintain
and bring up the child
See also Gilbert V. Bennett, 10 Sim,
Bill
Hadow V. Hadow, Sim, 44O.
Leach V. Leach, 13 Sim, 3O3.
CarSv. Living, % Beav., 644
The disposition of unapplied income
or surplus in the second trust deed is
urged as showing that Mrs. Along is
not entitled to the same. IF she Mrs
Afong) be not then living, the trustee
shall pay the said income in equal
shares to all of the children of the said
Julia Along begotten by the said Chun
Along, and to the lawful issue of any
deceased child, such issue taking by
right of representation the shares which
the parent if living would have taken
until the youngest surviving child of !
Julia Along begotten by Chun Along
shall reach the age of twenty-one years,
and then to pay, transfer and deliver
the trust funds and all, if any, the un-
applied income thereof, in equal shares :
to the children The deed pro- | {
Vides that the trustees mentioned in
the deed shall pay the unapplied in I
come, if any, to the children. This does :
not refer to unapplied income in the ,
hands of Mrs. Along, for there is no
provision whereby such trustee can get |
control or possession of such fund. Once 5
having paid the income of the trust i
funds in his hands in compliance with !:
the trust deed, his authority or control
over the same ceases, and it cannot be c
said that the trust deed requires of him Il
a duty when it has taken the means for
out of his hands
This brings me to the consideration
of the contention of respondents that t
even though trust exists it is limited /
to the support of the children domiciled i
with Julia Along, and there being no =
that proper support has not l
hnar1 rnrnuidad the Court will not into, | I