The San Francisco call., 1905-02-16
ALICE SKAE'S
TRUST VALID
Judge Coffey, in Written
Opinion, Upholds PrOyi-
sions of Attacked Will

Alice Warren Skae Of New York
must be content for the remainder
of her-life with the income of the San
Francisco estate left by her mother.
Alice Skae. If she marries. her hus-
band will receive $4,000 when he be-
comes a widower. II children should
survive her. property now worth
S230,000 will be divided among them,
but if there is neither husband nor is
sue the estate will be distributed to
six persons residing in New York State
and Canada after a payment of $10,-
900 has been made to the Children's
Hospital of this city and $4,000 to
the San Francisco Museum OF Art for
the purchase of paintings.
The daughter, whose inheritance IS
subject to these peculiar provisions,
sought to break her mothers will un-
der the guise of a petition for a par
tial distribution of the estate TO her.
wherein she attacked the validity of
the various trusts created by the will.
Her application was opposed by the
Mercantile Trust Company. trustee
under the will. and yesterday in a
long written opinion. Judge Coffey de-
MED her petition and upheld the trust.
The property involved consists of
about $4,000 in money and the block
at the corner of Larkin and Fulton
streets, valued at 100000. In her
original will Mrs. Skae directed the
demolition of the vault in the Oakland
Cemetery wherein were the remains
of her husband and two children, and
she ordered the construction of new
vault to cost $4,000, but this provi-
sion was later revoked by codicil and,
after the payment of certain expenses
and fees, the entire estate goes into
the life trust. Next week the court
will probably order the distribution
- Ill -. @4r-~r- 10 he
pany.
Judge Coffey's interesting opinion
deals with the doctrine of equitable
conversion" The basis of the daugh-
ter's attack upon the will was In the
contention that the provision Ito dis
tribute to the children" after her
death was a trust to convey real prop
erty and therefore void because ssuch
conveyance is inhibited by the law.
The three points made by the trus-
tees were that the court should sus-
tain the will rather than overthrow 1t;
that there was no trust to convey in
the will, and that authority was, given
to the trustees to sell the realty, and
that the other provisions that the
property should be distributed as per-
sonal property rather than real estate
were sufficient to create an equitable
F! conversion.
Mrs. Skae's will authorized the trus-
! invest the proceeds, but there was no
direct command to do so. Because
the provision was not mandatory the
daughter contended that the benefi-
| ciaries under the will could elect to
! take the land before any sale was
made. The court was of the opinion
! that the use of the words pay and
paid" in the will involved the idea of
liquidating the bequests in money or
| its equivalent and it would be impos-
| sible to carry out these terms of the
will without a sale of the property
The duty to convert, therefore, results
from the duty of the trustee to carry
out the provisions of the will. and
this duty existing renders the discre-
ton of making sale imperative
Upon this reasoning it is held that
the necessity of conversion to accom-
plish the purposes of the will is equiv
alent to imperative direction to con-
| vert.
The Judge says: Can this court,
without distorting her diction, destroy
her will and produce intestacy where
she clearly intended to dispose of
every particle of her property in pur-
suance of an intelligent design in a
we'll wrought out scheme?''