Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-10-10
RESCRlPTS.
Appeal Dismissed in Knox
Probate Case.
Verdict Of $500 Stands in
Lewiston Damage Suit.
Exceptions TO Nou-Suii overruled
In Case Five Times Heard.

T9te law court "wednesday. handed
down q rescript dismisaing the appeal
from Die decree Of the Judge OF Probate
Of Knox county in the case of J6nn ~
BuYpee, AYit.. W. Samuel a BuIpee
appellee Rescrlnts we're also handed
down~in important Androscog$h and
Sagadahoc county cases
Knox County.
John a. Eurree Applt Us. Samuel A.
HuIpee, appelee- Rescript Whitehouse,
c. j.
This is an appeal fronfa decree of the
pointing tie appellee samuel A.. Burpee.
trustee Under the will Of his, father.
samuel II. Burpee, who died testate i'll
May, 1905. Leaving six children, four sons
will is as follows
"fiftl-I hereby nominate and appoint
my sons, samuel a. Burpee, Charles II.
Burpee. RiclTard r. Burpee and John A.
direct that no bond be required of them,
nor shall they be required to return in
Eentofy or settle account in either
capacity a. executors or as trustees. "
II appears that the estate consisted of
100 shares Of the capital stock of the \.
A. & :. II. Burpee Furniture Co, and
an undivided half of a bricka5block on
Main street in Rockiand and 1t was
claimed in behalf of the appellee and
there was evidence tending to show that
the business of the Furniture Co. was
so thoroughly organized and systematic
cally conducted by an experienced ana
competent manager, that ordinarily the
only service required of the trustee IN
practically sdiseharging the trust after
the death of the testator, was to collect
the iAcome and disbufse it according TO
tie terms of the Will.
rhe -four sons named in the viii as ex-
ecutors and trustees, never qualified as
- 1rrr ytar inc a41A- ra6
statute. and their nominations! as ,fus-
tees was never Confirmed by the Judge
of Probate. But during the four yesHs
succeeding the death of the testatDr. the
affairs of the estate appear to have been
managed by the appellee samuel n. Bur
pee. with the acquieseence of his CO.
executors, except that in March 1907, a
power of attorney was given 10 the ap-
pelIant by the executors to collect and
distribute the income of the estate but
this was surrendered by the appellant
not long thereafter upon complaint OF
the co-executors thai he had exceeded
his authority hereunder and abused his
trust.
soon after the Withdrawal of this
power of attorne2 the appellant and his
brother Charles filed a petition asking
that they be appointed trustees and
thefeupon the appelles and Richard filed
similar petition as to themselves II
ter a full hearing the judge of probate
appointed the appellee Samuel A. Burpee
To be sole trustee.
In support of the appeal taken from
this decree. the appellant John A, Bur
pee assigns IL reasons But the evidence
introduced in support of the appeal fails
To substantiate any of the objections
stated in the reasons OF appeal which
would constitute sufficient cause for re-
versing the decree below whereby SAM
ueI a. Burpee was appointed sole trus-
tee Ills interests in the successful man.
agennent of the estate were identical with
those Of the other heirs, and whatever
would benefit or injure him must have
the same effect upon them. There is
abundant evidence To show that samuel
A, Burpee who has for many years been
Il director II the tT9cEland Trust Co. and
alse IN the Rockland Loan and building