The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-31
TRUST COMPANY MULCTED.
srso.ooo THE UNION TRUST MUST PAY
OYER AGAIN.
A Trust Estate Wound Up by Consent Twelve
Years Ago md the Money Distributed
Abrogation of tho Trust Declared Illegal
-Couusei Can It "Grnnd Larceny"

ATrust Fstnts Wound Up by Consent Twelve
Years Ago and the Money Distributed
Abrogation of tho Trust Declared ii'cRnl
Counsel can It "Grand Larceny"
The Union Trust Company Is directed by an
order Of Justice BoOkstavcr to pay again. out
Its own resources. SlJO4iO. which It had
prcyiously paid out in the distribution Of an
estate In the belief that this trust under which
the money was hold had been abrogatod. The
money il to be paid TO Fernando Baltes. execu-
tor of Edmund Waring. whose counsel aro
Levcntrltt 4 Brennan The brief OF Miller.
Jcckham K Dixon. counsel for the Trust Com
pany said of the plaintiffs motion:
"Tho executor says to the Trust Company,
YOU hnye administered and distributed this
trust fund precisely as my testntor and all par
ties Interested ask cd you to do. You have paid
out every dollar as requested by my testator.
and now twelve years after such payment.
and four years after the death OF my
tes,ator, aver he had no power to
mako the agreement tpurportlng TO cancel tho
trust) and demand that you shall pay over
again every dollar you have paid. Morally
the executors act is not better than would
have been the act OF Edmund Waring. The
claim. whether for one or the other. Ia that the
court shall assist them to commit grand lar
ccny. II II be the law that this larceny may be
done. OF course the trustee must suffer the con-
segu ,nccs; but We submit that tho court will be
astu,e to the last degree to avoid the role
petitioner would assign to IL OF, under the
forms OF law. sanctloning moral larceny. 1t
has been said that hard cases make bad law.
hut surely It Ia Infinitely worse that the law
should be open to tho reprOach that a moral
ipfamy, like that here attempted should be
Edmund Warning. q wealthy man. had q son.
William, md daughter, Katharine O.. Secor.
In 1875 he turned over all his Property In trust
dssh Edmund tho q estate .h sSH G Se
dyfsd IsswGeg the shar In ISL
psrsonay that Edmund a'1 should have awe
sS should Be dSod at fi IL, heath r.
william died in 1882: leaving all bis prop.
issi Gdnaad WARNS pstton" 'f the D Sour
trustee Of the personally. The Company sued
Fudericka and got Indictment under which she
sTustee' In iss7 ali tie parties to The trust ~
1881 agreed with the Trust Company to can.
@ f. s aSd Mr. the %
estate; The sompany did ID. so ,d Distribute The
Edmond Warine died IN 1895 % years old.
Before his death He LETT viii bsSuanth his
almost all his estate to Mrs. sccor. who had
tor Of this viii contender that the a or
OF 1897 TO abrogate the trust wns invalid be-
cause under the statute allowing sach trusts
and the decisions on the statute. they are ire
vpcable even with the consent Of all parties to
the agreement and of the ccstui que trust and
because the Union Trust Company ~ trustee
did not have the right to enter into the rec
ment OF lSSSI aimee II did nor obtain leave ~
the court. II was commended that as both tho
children OF Edmond Wnrng hri died before
him the trust fund should have reverted TO him
n ; IL was to be divided between the children
only on his death. Mrs. Sccur had signed tho
agreement Of 1887 to terminate the trust. The
judy" says that ono OF the main questions be-
tore him was:
Whether the agreement oi 1887 was effect
ual to accomplish tn" purpose IL purportcd TO
perform, to wit. to terminate the trust in tho
personal property as declared To exist in the
agreement Of March Ii. 1891. and as adjudi-
cnted 10 exist IN former Proceedings between |
such effect, at least. So lar a. concnrna tho |
share OF Katherine G. S"cor. which had not |
then reverted to Edmond Wnrirg. have re- |
mctan'ly concluded Tie result will no n hard |
SHIP a has often been the case whore ,!n wnr- |
rHnird attempts have been made to end trusts |
and TO dispose OF the trust property in n man
ner other than that prescribed In the trust "
The children Of Mrs SerOr. who have already !
received half the personality, will roS get !
twice rs much. In the order directing tho |
Union Trust COMPANY to turn over the money |
to the executor. n stay Of proceedings was |
given TO the company pending appeal. Ii Is |
underatooh that its Un'v redress II IN this pro-
ceeding. as the statute Of limitations would |
bar recovery OF the money paid by mistake to |
the children Of Mrs. SecCr.