Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-06-25
SUMNER GETS HIS MONEY
CONTINUED from Page ~

entitled to the money. In this he was
supported by his sister and her son,
Wally Davis, and opposed by his neph.
ews, the three Ellises, including Mrs.
Buifandeau.
Sumner prayed that the money be
declared his absolute property and
that il be paid to him"
The Court then goes further into
the history of the case. One conten.
ton was that the trust could be ter.
minated by consent of all parties in.
terested and was in fact so terminated
when the $4,000 was distributed
among the relatives and certain insti.
tutions.
1T is clear that, by the terms Of the
trust, as set forth In the latter part of
the will. Summers nearest blood rela
tives living at an uncertain future
time had contingent interests and
they are yet undetermined, and so
cannot consent. They may be chill.
dren of Sumner yet unborn. In order
t. justify the termination of a trust
by consent, all interests must con.
sent. A sufficient answer to this Is
that nearest blood relatives are not
the same as heirs. Even nearest rel.
atiyes' would not, much less would
nearest blood relatives, include a
wife-who would be included under
our statute among heirs
IF anything is clear in this case II
q that H.. n
for moment that he was incompe.
tent to manage his own property. II
there is one thing he has dreaded Il
has been the imputatiOn of insanity.
No one has so much as suggested
that he is Incorporate or spendthrift.
IF, as the Ellises allege in their
| answer, Sumner executed the deed be-
! cause he was harrassed by the litiga-
ton in which his relatives were in
volving him: II, as the argument seems
10 be, he was forced or blackmailed
into executing the deed for the purpose
of trying up his property for his rela-
tlyes, this is one OF the strongest rea
sons for holding the deed revocable.
| There is no doubt that Sumner felt tho
humiliation of being declared insane.
II looks very much as If he was prac-
tically forced into executing the deed
and these circumstances afford strong
additional ground for holding the deed
reyoCable.
Sumner never regarded the deed az
! irrevoCable. His actions have har-
monized with the theory that he be-
lieved 1t revocable. And there is much
reason to believe that all others direct.
~ interested. as well as their attorneys
" the time of the distribution. thought
so too.
Apparently the suit was brought by
the Bishop out of abundant caution to
get judicial determination in view OF
the fact that the Ellises had questioned
the termination OF the trust. The sir
attorneys who represented the various
parties at the time of the distribution
were of the same opinion, or else they
were guilty of deliberately joining In
the spoliation Of the trust for share
NJ the booty.
1T was known all along by the FL.
lies that Sumner needed at least $l5,.
600 to take back to Tahiti for his bus.
Iness there.
1T is remarkable. we may observe
In passing. that, notwithstanding the
large interests involved, the length anG
heat Of the negotiations and the mum
Der and ability Of counsel, there is sc
little direct evidence as to the exaci
understanding on the final Distribution
of the fund.
But II is clear that Summers inten
ton was, and that all the relative, in
GLIDING the Ellises, kne wit was, anC
what they led him to believe. and thai
they all knew he gave them the severa
sums on the strength that he would b,
rid of them forever SO far as the bal
ance Of the fund was concerned.
1T is unnecessary to say how fal
the case should be classed under any
one head of equity jurisdictlon-suct
as mistake, fraud or undue influence
II looks very much as II II presented 9
compound OF these and perhaps othei
ingredients, though. perhaps. not al
in equal parts.
Justice Perry, dissenting. says, IL
his opinion the deed cannot be revoked
by Sumner alone and the court SHOULD
not now terminate the trust.
The decision is lengthy one, abou
5000 words. The dissenting opinion
covers over 5000 words.
$~--