New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1916-12-27
OLSEN SUSTAINED BY
SUPREME COURT
Continued from Page l, Col. q


and persisted in for years, may become
more intolerable than blows the SUI
preme court affirms the denial by the
Ramsey county district court OF new
trial asked by Frank A. Mullen in a
divorce suit brought against him by his
wife. When Mrs. Mullen procured false
teeth, Mullen told her that such expense
must be cut out, because she was not
worth it, the testimony showed, and
when she protested that his treatment
was driving her to an insane asylum, he
said, you ought to have been there
years ago."
The Syllabus.
The SYLLABUS in the Pienninger case
reads as follows:
/. A will created trust in certain
funds with directions that the income
therefrom, less the expense OF admlnlstra-
ton, be paid to the wife Of the testator,
semi-annually during her life. 1t IS held,
conceding for the purposes OF the case
that the rights OF the wife became vested
as of the date OF the death Of the testator,
and before the trust property had been
turned over to the trustees, that the pay
ment of the income to the beneficiary
was subject to deductions OF the neces-
sary expense OF administering the pro-
perty while in the hands of the executors
of the will.
2. The will is construed to have in
tended to vest in the beneficiary the
absolute title and right to the income,
received by the trustees, less expenses,
and income in the form Of interest upon
money investments which had accrued
but was not due and collectlble at the
time of the death OF the beneficiary, as
well as interest which was then due but
not collected was the property OF the
beneficiary, and passed to the executor
of her last will and testament.
3. In order to constitute a valid
accord and satisfaction or compromise
and settlement of disputed matters. the
minds of the parties must meet, and they
are concluded thereby only as to matters
actually included therein.
T. A receipt in full of ''ali claims and
demands of every kind and nature
given as evidence of such settlement,
does not operate as discharge OF a
claim which affirnatively appears not
to have been included within the settle
ment as evidence Of which the receipt
was given.
In this case the lower court is sus-
tanned in part and overruled as to
another part. Judge Olsen disallowed
both OF the claims which were filed by
the executors when the trust estate was
being wound up. The first claim aggre-
gates the sum of S6268.57 and the items
comprising the second claim amount to
$29SS.7O.
The will provides, among other things,
that, the entire proceeds and income de-
rived from the investments and trust
property, less the reasonable and talr
expense of managing the same, including
the fair compensation of the trustees,
shall be paid over and delivered to the
testator's wife, semi-annually during the
term of her natural life, as and for her
absolute property and for her sole use
and benefit, except that she may, II she
shall so elect and desire, return any
portion Of the income to the trustees, and
thereupon the portion so returned shall
become part of the principal OF the
trust estate.
The will further provides that on the
death of Mrs. Pfenninger, all and singular
the trust property should pass to the
Persons and in the proportions therein
named, the legatees being nieces and
nephews of the testator and his wife.
Judge Olsen Sustained.
Judge Olsen held that the payment Of
the income to the widow was made sub
ject to the costs and expenses of adj
ministration and as the costs and ex-
penses of administration exceeded the
income, nothing fell to the beneficiary.
In this part of his decision Judge Olsen
is sustained, but the Supreme Court
holds that the lower court erred in dis
allowing the second claim upon the
theory that Mrs. Pfenninger was en-
titled under the will only to the such in
come as might accrue and be paid to her
in her lifetime.
At the time Of the death of Mrs. Pfen-
ninger the trustees had on hand $2450 of
accumulated income, which had not been
paid to her. The Supreme Court holds
that Mrs. Pfenninger was entitled to the
entire income from the trust fund, less the
expenses of administration and that such
title and right attached from day to day
as the income accumulated and hence the
sum of $245O, the accumulated income,
should have been paid over to the