The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1910-02-16

ruled further that the statutes make
no provision for a trust to convey or
to transfer or divide the estate of
decedent Particular stress was laid
upon the fact that the will attempted
to create what is known as a per
petuity" BY this is meant an endeavor
TO prolong the trust to indefinite
length.
On this point Judge Coffey said:
AS Court Views 1t
I'VE have said that this testamentary
trust is unit and a continuing trust
and that it does not end with the
death of the widow; that on her de-
mise the estate is to be divided by the
trustees into three equal parts, when
one of said parts is to be transferred
by the trustees to Claus A., one to
Rudolph and one TO be held upon a
further trust during the life of Mrs
Ferris. This is an integral trust. 1t
is plain that it does not end with the
death of the widow, but continues in
definitely beyond, for after that event
obligations of an onerous character
are placed upon the trustees.
Prior to that time their duties may
be light and perfunctory, but after that
they become difficult and delicate. re-
curing great skill and business ca
pacity of an unusual order 1t is APP
parent that the administration of this
] trust consequent upon the division and
transfer, demands an uncommon de-
gree of ability, knowledge and expe-
rfence and that it can not be accom-
plished in a mocha meal manner. 1t is
a task of magnitude and complexity,
an estate of many millions in value, of
multiform character, the evolution of
years of labor and commercial genius,
obviously necessitating extraordinary
care and prudence in its management
and a reasonable time to carry out tes-
tator's purpose, for the will does not
execute itself; it must be executed by
/ the trustees.
''Testator was not his own convey
ANGER His purpose could not be exc
cuted automatically. but through the
activities Of his nominated trustees.
1t is an active, not a passive trust. The
trustees have something to do, and to
! do ii properly they have to call into
exercise high qualities of integrity and
sagacity. Time is needed for consid-
GRAFTON and sufficient time should be
allowed them for elaboration as to the
wise execution of the trust.
1t Us to be expected that trustees,
| especially where the estate is large
and diversified, viii have temporary
| disa greement as TO the methods of
executing the trust. Reasonable time
must be given them to ascertain and
consider all elements that should in
-fuence and control their judgment.
| While the trustees are so engaged,
necessarily the trust terms continues
! current"
On behalf of John d. and Adolph B.
Spreckels the case was presented by
Attorneys Alexander Morrison, w. /.
Brobeck. Peter +. Dunno, Samuel NJ
Shortridge and ". n. Hohfeld. Acting
for Rudolph and Claus A Spreckels
were Attorneys Charles S. Cushing.
| Oscar K. Cushing, o. X. McMurray and
! William Grant.
SAME AS WITHOUT WILL
The main points involved in the de-
cision and the effect of the ruling
were thus summed up by Attorney
| Brobeck:
The effect of the decision rend-
ered by Judge Coffey in the estate
of Claus Spreckels, deceased is to
create an intestacy-that is, it has
the effect of leaving the disposition
Of the property the same as if
/ Claus Spreckels had made no will
Under the terms of the will it
self, Claus Spreckels attempted to
put ell of his property into a trust
and the only disposition he at
tempted to make was that trust
disposition.
When the court declared void
the trust the will was left without
any provision for the disposition
of the testators property. The
laws of the state of California
thereupon became operative to dis
pose Of the property, which the
testator has not disposed of, be-
cause his attempt to do so was
void
The result is, therefore. that all
OF the property which Claus
Spreckels could have disposed of
by will, if he had made a valid
provision in valid will for it's dis
position, goes according to the
laws of the state of California-that
is. to his five children, share and
share alike.
WIDOW GIVEN HER SHARE
The will itself declared that Mrs.
Spreckels should receive her COM
munity interest, and this she did
receive by partial distribution made
some weeks ago, distributing to
her one-half of the estate. The
value of this interest is between
| 100000 and $5,000,000, leaving for
distribution among the children
the same amount.
Under the laws of California
there can be trusts created in real
property only so far as they are
authorized by statute. If, there
fore, there is no provision in the
statutes authorizing the creation
of such a trust as Claus Spreckels
| attempted to create under his will,
the trust is void as being without
the provisions of the statutes
The statutes of the state make no
provision for a trust to convey or
transfer or to divide the estate
OF a decedent.
Under the will of Claus Spreck-
els the attempt was made by the
New York lawyer who drew it to
require the trustees to divide upon
the happening of the death of the
widow among certain named bene-
| ficiaries. These beneficiaries were
declared to be Rudolph Spreckels
and Claus A. Spreckels and Emma
Ferris.
THOUGHT TO GET ALL
Rudolph Spreckels and Claus A.