Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-02-04
KELLOGG CONTROLS IT
Decision of Judge Curtiss in ihe
 Ap0lhecsries Hall Case.

The decision of Judge Howard J. Curtis of the superior court in the appeal of Ella s. Williams, wife of Samuel P Williams, from Judge Loves decision in the probate court, refusing to grant an order to sell the much talked of 409 shares of stock in the Apothecaries' Hall Co, was received by Clerk Marsh to-day The following IS a copy of the original memorandum of judgment:
 The appellee, Mary B. Munson, claims that an order for sale of the 409 shares of the stock of the Apothecaries' Hall Co cannot be made by the probate court because under the will of Archibald Rice one third of the said stock vested in each of the children at the death of MT Rice. In other words, that the will should be construed as if the testator had said at the end of para grapn third that al the death of his wife the stock should be divided among his three children share and share alike It appears from the will that the testator made the said stock trust fund; that he provided that the specific stock should be held in trust, and hence not subject to sale by the trustee. The appellee claims that the condition of the tes- tator's property was such as to all other property, except that given to the widow for life and this trust as to the stock, that his estate could be fully settled, as it was in fact, inn mediately after his decease. There fore that since upon the death of his wife, the estate would be presuma- bly fully settled. and this specific stock would stand in the trustees hanis for distribution among the other cestui que trust, the residuary clause was in effect and intent spe- cific bequest of the stock to the three children. Furthermore, that the will !n its treatment of this stock indi- cates an intent on his part that the stock should pass directly to his children at the termination of the trust. The appellee claims there fore that in the absence of consent by the three children the probate court has no authority to order a sale of the stock
 The appellee further claims that if this construction of the will is wrong yet since the estate was fully settled shortly after MT Rice's death, and the house and furniture, etc, passed into the possession of the wife as life tenant and this stock passed into the hands of the execu- ter and his successor as a specific trust fund. that this stock is no long CT properly to be considered a part of the estate undergoing settlement and subject to the authority of the probate court under general statutes, section 352; and that since the pur- poses of the trust have terminated and the trust estate is ready for dis tribution there is no authority for a change of investment under general statutes. sections 254 and 255, even if the terms of the will creating the stock trust permitted it, and hence that the interest of each child is now a vested interest in the stock.
 The appellee further claims that. !. since upon the facts her interests I would be injuriously affected by a l sale of the stoef instead of a dis tribution of one-third of it to her. l the probate court could not order a sale to benefit the other legatees. I ag1inst her consent.
 ! sustain the sppelleeis claim that the stock Is not now subject to sale l at the order of the probate court.
 CURTIS. Judge.
 In an probability an appeal to the supreme court will be taken. for the I above is a judgment against Mrs 4 Williams and gives l. P Kellogg the interest in the Apothe- rarsrS' Han co.