Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-01-09
SPRECKELS CASE
CContinued from Page y

especial attention TO IN the dtcls!Lh
ana are the basis Of discussion.
( lause second says.
Il hereby give, devise and Eequeatn
unto my Trustees hereinafter nan.eu
all my estate. real, personal and mix
ed, OF every nature, Kind and ueetrIp-
ton. wherever situate and however
held which is or may be subject 10
my testamentary disposition at the
time OF my d"atn, 10 have and 10 hOlE
the same, in trust, nevertheless, Tor
the uses and purposes, with the pow
ers and in the manner hereinafter
mentICned.'
Clause (bl says:
Upon the Death OF my vie. Oh
upon my death if she be not then
surviving, to divide said estate into
three equal parts, when one of said
parts snail be forthwith assigned,
transferred, set over and delivered
by my said trustees to my son Claus
A. Spreckels, and the same shall be
and become his ABSOLUTELY and for
ever, and another of said equal third
parts shall be forthwith assigned,
transferred, set over and delivered by
my said trustees TO my son Rudolph
Spreckels, and the same shall be and
become his absolutely and forever"
Judge Cooper's decision frankly ad-
mits that the intention of the old sug-
ar king was that his estate should be
divided into equal third parts among
Claus, Rudolph and Emma after his
Wife's death. But lie Hawaiian jurlst
holds that the court is bound to con.
strute the will of the testator ny the
| words he deliberately selected and
left as his last and final direction,
| and further, that if the construction
of the will results in a judicial veto
of the testator's attempt TO dispose
of his estate, it is nevertheless the
| duty Of the court to proceed where
there is no ambiguity in the langu-
age used, and declare the legal effect
of the will notwithstanding the re-
suit"
In brief, the decision holds that
! there is legal intestacy existing after
the death OF the widow, who had a
valid life estate, and that upon her
death the. estate should be divided
equally among the five children, as
heirs outside of the will The Cali
fornia decision is held not binding on
the local court because the local court
! is passing on the title to real estate
situated in Hawaii. The decision here
also goes further than the California
decision in construction of the gen.
eral terms OF the will.
| The handing down of the decision
: created lively interest among bust
ness men this morning. Recently
Robert W. Shingle of the Waterhouse
Trust Company negotiated deal to-
ward disposlng of the Spreckels
downtown property under authority of
the heirs as determined by the Cali.
/ fornia decision. 1t is expected now
that the case will be carried to the
supreme court of the territory and
| probably from there to the United
States supreme court, and final set
tlement is hardly expected before two
years or more.
The syllabus made by Judge Cooper
says:
| l. The case Of Spreckels VS.. Spreck
els 1862 Cal. $50 hello: Not to be d
controlling decision in this jurisdiction
, and not followed a. rrecedent in the
decision Of this case.
2. A testator devised to his trustee
ell his estate wherever situate and
however held to have and to hold the
same in trust "a" to pay over the an
nual income to his wife during life
and ID" upon the death of his wife tC
divide his estate into three equal parts
when one of said parts shall be forth
with assigned, transferred, set OVel
and delivered by his trustees to his
son G. and the sane shall De and be
core his absolutely and forever, and
another Of said equal third parts Sinai
be forthwith assigned, transferred, Sc
over and delivered by his trustees Il
mis- son X and the same shall be ant
become his absolutely and forever ant
&C" to pay over the annual income de
rived from the remaining equa; thirt
EarI of the estate to his daughter +
curing her life with remainder OVel
TO her children then living neld: No
to be a direct devise of either a iega
or equitable estate that the vestng 0
the estate in the benetiCiares is con
tingent on the action Of the trustees il
making a final division ana transfer o
equal third parts.
3. The Will fails 10 provide a fetln
tie time within which the ltnai uivi
siOr and transfer is to take place
Held; That the trust provision IOr dl
vision and transfer arc VOl0 unGer thu
rule against perpetUities.
4. As the trustees TOOK On;y sue
estate as was necessary 20 Calry GU
the valid provisions of the trust. Held
That there is q legal inteStacy rs L
the entire fee simple estate situate il
the territory and that the p.alntiG
are each entitled to the immc.ia,e uet
and possession Of an undivided one
l. fifth part of the lands CcsCIlOcI III me
= complaint.
The decision says in part:
Counsel for Plaintiffs preraCou thei
argument by stating two propositions
on which they rely and they admit
that both must he found to hC sound IL
! order that they NAV prevail
1t is quite proper that thes'
propositions snovil be quO.eI iierp
They are as follows: THAT the IS
tatCS given by the SpreCkcis will SNh
,b,, Iro-l, nF tpCt a or