Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1916-02-03
"SPENDTHRIFT TRUST"
GETS BLOW in COURTS
ORDER IN COZENS CASE
Judge Barratt Rules Claims of
Wives and Children May Be
Paid From Interest on
Trust Funds
LAW OF 1913 CITED

A decision opening way for the pene-
tration of "spendthrift trusts" for the
benefit of wives or children deserted by
the holders of trusts of that kind was
given today by Judge Barratt in Common
Pleas Court No. 2. The decision, If up
held, will have a far-reaching effect, as
records show that many wealthy men
who have left their wives or their chill
dren, or both, without support, have been
able heretofore to defy orders against
their income, when the income came to
them from spendthrift trusts.
The "spendthrift trust is a method of
bequeathIns money for youths fond of
the gay life or persons not wholly compe
tent to look after their own affairs, under
the terms of which the beneficiary Is vr-
tually judgment proof 1t is impossible
to collect debts from him through the
courts or by any other legal means,
CozENs' CASE DECISION.
The decision of Judge Barratt today
was made in the case of Edward C. Coz
ems, who has an income from the Edward
]. Crippen estate, and refused successfully
since 1912 TO pay an order for $3.50 a
week for the support of his child.
The amount due on the unpaid order
is $405.25. CoZens has already defaulted
on $500 bond he signed to assure pay
ment of the order at the time it was, made
in court. His interests have been de.
Tended by the Provident Life and Trust
Company and the Fidelity Trust Com
pany, executors of the trust from which
his income came.
Judge Barratt, in a long and compre.
hensive opinion, said he acted under the
act passed by the Legislature in 1918,
which was declared defective and Glass
legislation" by the trust companies, on
the ground that wives and children, as
creditors, were favored in being able to
collect from a spendthrift trust. and that
other creditors were Disseminated against
The main contention OF the trust com
panies was that the act was passed after
the trust was formed, and that not being
retroactive, the law could not apply to
trusts devised before 1t went into effect
The act, the companies held, would divert
the estate in entirely different directions
from the way II was intended to go by
the testator
Judge Barratt cities opinions under the
English law. several from New York
State and one from Pennsylvania, to sus-
tain his position that the order against
Cozens may be paid out of the income
from his trust. Untn the act of 1873
Judge BarTatt pointed out, the courts had
held that trust funds of the spendthrift
variety could not be broken into by any
creditors, even wives or children with
orders for support.
LAW OF 1913
He took the stand that the trust was not
provided with the object OF defeating the
law. and that should II be the means OF
keeping out OF prison a man who had
failed In a duty towards his family the
hanefieent purpose Of the trust would
fail.
THE law Of 1913 rescues the trust from
this peril" said Judge Barratt In his
opinion, by securing TO the wife or fam
lily that provision for inatention for which
the beneficiary might be committed 70
prison"