Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-17
Says Amount Received Was Out
0fProportion TO Service Rendered.

Further information regarding the
litigation commenced by Edward p.
Warren and Frederick F. Warren, in
volving the property of S. d. Warren
& Co. at Gardiner and Westbrook is
of interest in this section, as S. d.
Warren & Cos. plant at Gardiner,
known as the Copsecook paper mill, is
one Of that city's large manufacturing
establishments.
The petitioner asks for the removal
trust formed by the member of the
family in 1889 to operate or lease the
Cumberland mills at Westbrook and
the Copsecook mills at Gardiner, which
had been owned and operated by their
father, S. D. Warren, ST., who died in
1885
The plaintiff was granted an eX parte
injunction by Judge Hammond, re-
straining Samuel d. Warren from APP
pointing any co-trustee or terminal
ing the trust, as the trust allows him
~ W, liSll tilV III IlISI oIuSl vi tllC
court. An order of notice was also is
sued returrable Dec. q. The plaintiff
also seeks to obtain an accounting.
TIL plaintiffs father. Samuel D. War
rem, ST., left widow, Susan C. War
rem, and five children, Samuel D., Hen
ry c.. CorneIia L., Frederick F.. and
the plaintiff. The estate included the
two mills, valued at about 10000 900.
He left all his property to his widow
and children. He had Mortimer B. Ma
son with him as partner in business.
In 1889 the widow and children ar
ranged to carry on the business, and
it is declared the trust agreement was
drawn mp by L. D. Brandels, who was
the law partner of Samuel D. Warren.
The declaration of trust giveh the
trustees the right to carry on the
business or lease the property to a
partnership on such terms as the trus-
tees deemed best for the beneficiaries.
1t also provided that the trustees could
have membership in the partnership
that took the lease. Samuel D. War
rem. Mason, the old partner of the eld-
err Warren, and Mrs. Warren were tht
trustees.
The plaintiff claims that the de-
PENDANT, Samuel D. Warren, was tbs
dominant and active trustee. 1t is
alleged that the property was leased
by tie trustees to a copartnershiI
composed of Samuel d. Warren. Ma.
son and Frederick Fiske Warren
though the latter has only small in
terast The plaintiff claims that Sam
81 %tn n ont S,t,n H.
have known that his interest in the
partnership would conflict with his
duties as a trustee and that the
beneficiaries should have had indie
pendent advice in the matter.
The partnership was to receive a
commission which was to be deducted
before the net profits were arrived at.
For the first five years the commits
sion amounted TO 100000 and down to
the present time it has amounted to
81 200. O0G, which the plaintiff claims Is
disproportionate to the services rem
dered
In 1899 Henry c. Warren died, leav-
ing his interest in The trust to his three
brothers and his sister. In March, 1898,
Mrs. Susan C. Warren died. Under her
will, executed at the suggestion of
Samuel D. Warren. it is alleged, the
residue. amounting to $1.100,000, was
placed in the hands of Samuel d. War
rem and Mortimer B. Mason as trustees
for the benefit of the four children.
Under the will the trustees could
loan to the partnership running the
business any part of the residue
without security. Il is alleged the
trustees, Warren and Mason, loaned
100000 to the partnership comprising
themselves and Fiske Warren
The book value of the mill trust is
about $4,000. The plaintiff alleges that
the trustees, Warren and Mason, re-
ceiveG as compensation under the trust
$2,024, 200 for services, which he claims
was excessive. He says they were en-
titled only to a reasonable compensa-
ton, and they received $1024,000 more
than reasonable compensation.
Plaintiff alleges that Warren and
Mason did not appoint third trustee
to succeed Mrs. Warren, and since the
death of Mason, Warren is the sole
trustee.
Hollis r. Bailey and William S.
Youngman represent the plaintiff.
BranGels, Dunbar & Nutter represent
the defendants The case will come up
TucStiay