Case Name: Estate of Henry G. Freeman. Appeal of S. Angusta Freeman, Henry B. Freeman, Isabel F. Frost née Freeman, August F. Richardson née Freeman and Marion F. Wills, née Freeman
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1897-05-27
Citations: 181 Pa. 405
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 559
Parties: Estate of Henry G. Freeman. Appeal of S. Angusta Freeman, Henry B. Freeman, Isabel F. Frost née Freeman, August F. Richardson née Freeman and Marion F. Wills, née Freeman.
Judges: Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 181
Pages: 405–415

Head Matter:
Estate of Henry G. Freeman. Appeal of S. Angusta Freeman, Henry B. Freeman, Isabel F. Frost née Freeman, August F. Richardson née Freeman and Marion F. Wills, née Freeman.
[Marked to be reported.]
Decedents' estates — Tenants in common — Sale of real estate — Long term, lease — Act of April 18, 1858, sec. 2 — Constitutional law.
Section 2 of the Act of April 18, 1853, P. L. 503, known as the Price Act, authorizing the orphans’ court to decree a sale where property is held intrust and “ one or more persons required to consent. . . . unreasonably withhold consent,” is not unconstitutional, as it does not defeat or interfere with the individual rights of property differently and further than any other mode of changing the rights of joint owners to severalty, or regulating the management until that is done.
Testator by his will gave his trustee power to make sale of all or any part of his real estate at its discretion, but directed that no such sale should be made without the consent in writing of the several cestuis que trustent. He also gave the trustee power to make leases from time to time of the real estate, and to collect, demand and receive the rents, income and proceeds thereof. Among the real estate were several lots and buildings thereon, in the business part of a city. The buildings had been formerly residences, and the main value of the prox^erty was in the land. The trustee proposed to execute an improvement lease for fifty years which would at once double the net revenue from the property with an increase in the future. The owners of a one sixth interest opposed the lease. In proceedings under the Price Act the orphans’ court authorized the trustee to execute the lease. Held, (1) that it was not error for the court below to treat the lease as practically amounting to a sale; (2) that the objection by the owners of one sixth interest was unreasonable within the meaning of section 2 of the Act of April 18,1853, P. L.
503 ; (3) that the orphan’s court had jurisdiction to make the decree authorizing the lease.
Argued Jan. 18, 1897.
Appeal, No. 559, Jan. T., 1896, by S. Augusta Freeman et al., from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1881, No. 228, directing trustee to execute a lease.
Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
Affirmed.
Sterrett, C. J. and Williams, J. dissented.
Petition under the Price act to lease real estate.
From the record it'appeared that Henry G. Freeman, who was an attorney at law, left a will by which he devised nnto the Girard Life Insurance Annuity & Trust Company of Philadelphia, certain real estate at the southeast corner of Broad and Chestnut streets in the city of Philadelphia, to have and to hold the same upon certain trusts, viz :
In trust to make sales of all or any part of his real estate, at its discretion, for the benefit of his estate, either at public or private sale, etc. Provided always, nevertheless, That no such sale of any part of his real estate shall be made without the consent in writing of the several cestuis que trustent having any interest therein, and who may at the time being, be of lawful age and accessible.
And further with power to make leases, from time to time, of the real estate, and to collect, demand, and receive the rents, income, and proceeds thereof, etc.
On January 12, 1895, James Black Freeman, one of the parties in interest, presented to the orphans’ court his petition praying that the trustee might have leave to advertise for proposals to lease the property at the southeast corner of Broad and Chestnut streets, upon an improvement lease, for a term of years not to exceed fifty years, the proposers to submit plans showing the character of the building proposed to be erected, the amount of rent to be paid and the shortest term for which the proposers would agree to lease the premises. The proposed lease was objected to by parties representing one sixth interest in the estate. The court entered a decree authorizing the trustees to execute the lease.
Error assigned was in making the 'decree authorizing the lease.
Henry B. Freeman and I Newton Brown, for appellant.
The orphan’s court had no jurisdiction to order the lease : Ervine’s App., 16 Pa. 256; Kneass’s App., 31 Pa. 87.
Geo. Tucker Bispham, with him Sharswood Brinton, for The Girard, etc. Trust Company, Trustee, appellee.
The orphans’ court had jurisdiction under the Price Act to order the lease. This act is a remedial statute and it is to be benignly expounded : Gilmore v. Rodgers, 41 Pa. 120. Alienation for payment of debts does not fall within the act: Spencer v. Jennings, 114 Pa. 618 ; Van Dusen’s Est., 29 W. N. C. 573; Anthracite Savings Bank v. Lees, 176 Pa. 402.
Instances where the jurisdiction of the court under the act has been sustained in this court, where it appeared that the property was unproductive and a charge to the estate, or repairs and improvements were necessary, and a sale therefore decreed are: Moorhead v. Wolff, 123 Pa. 365; Grenawalt’s App., 37 Pa. 95; Stevenson’s Est., 5 Dist. Rep. 5.
It maybe reasonable that the term should extend beyond the period of the life of the trust: Taylor on Landlord & Tenant, sec. 30.
A reasonable time, of course, is to be viewed under all the circumstances of the case, as where a great profit or, conversely, a great loss will result to the estate from making or not making a lease of suitable duration. The trustee must be guided as to the length of the term by a consideration of what is most beneficial to the trust estate: Greason v. Ketteltas, 17 N. Y. 491; Newcomb v. Ketteltas, 19 Barbour, 608; Goehring’s App., 81* Pa. 283; Hill on Trustees, 482.
George P. Rich, with him Henry O. Boyer for Henry G. Freeman et al., appellees,
cited Burton’s App., 57 Pa. 219; Davis’s App., 60 Pa. 118.
Parker R. Freeman, for Chapman Freeman, and J. Edward Carpenter, for James Black Freeman et al., appellees.
May 27, 1897 :

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The proposed lease is within the words of the testator's grant of power to the trustee to lease the property from time to time at its own discretion, but considering the length of the proposed term in relation to the probabilities of life of the testator's children now living, the trustee and the court below preferred to treat the lease as practically amounting to a sale, and therefore coming within the testator's restriction requiring the consent of all the cestuis que trustent of age and accessible. In so doing the trustee and the court displayed commendable regard for the equitable rights of the heirs, as well as for the security of the title to be passed to the lessee. No reasonable objection can be made to such action.
Treating the lease on the basis of a sale, the testamentary power of the trustee cannot be exercised for want of the unanimous consent of the heirs which the will required as a condition precedent, and resort was therefore had to the orphans' court under the Act of April 18,1858, P. L. 503. The case falls within the express words of section 2 authorizing the court to decree a sale where property is held in trust and " one or more persons required to consent . unreasonably withhold consent."
The constitutional objections to this statute raised by the appellants are not tenable. As applied to the case, the statute is not the divesting of estates of parties sui juris without their consent, but the regulation of joint rights where the joint owners cannot agree in the control and disposition of the property. It defeats or interferes with the individual rights of property no differently and no further than any other mode of changing their rights to severalty or regulating the management until that is done. The right of a joint owner is to an undivided interest in every portion of the joint property, but this right is accompanied with the ancient incident of partition. Each owner has the right to enlarge his estate to severalty, though in so doing he must reduce its corpus so that the other .owners may also have the like privilege. The mode of doing this has always been within legislative control, and this statute does no more. There is no question even of retroactive application of the law, as the act was in force for more than twenty years before the death of the testator, who as an experienced member of the Philadelphia bar must be assumed to have written his will with the knowledge that the powers of leasing and sale which he gave his trustee could be supplemented if occasion arose, by the powers of the orphans' court.
The further argument that the testator ohly intended short leases, or at most those of ordinary length, would have much force if the trustee were acting on its own discretion under the testamentary authority to lease from time to time, but as already said the trustee and the court have treated the case as practically involving a sale, and if the requisite steps for a valid sale have been taken they must certainly include the lesser act of leasing even for so long a term as fifty years. Such leasing does not contravene any express direction of the testator, but only supplements the authority he gave by a resort to the power of the court to meet circumstances not anticipated and therefore not provided for by him.
The only remaining question whether the court was right in deciding that the consent of appellants was unreasonably withheld, cannot be seriously contested. The main value of the property is in the land. The buildings are only a survival of the private residences to which the neighborhood was originally devoted, temporarily adapted for business, but falling far short of the kind of improvement that the present uses of the neighborhood demand. The rental of the property in its present condition is an inadequate percentage on its assessed value for taxation, and the latter is constantly increasing. It is admitted that the proposed lease will at once double the net revenue from the property, -with an increase in the future, in actual amount as well as in indemnity against the increase in taxation; and the property will revert at the end of the term, improved by the erection of a building adapted to its most modern needs, at a cost, entirely defrayed by the lessee, of more than one half the amount of the highest present valuation of the whole property. This plan has the active support of the owners of five sixths of the property, and has been approved by the judgment of the trustee and the court below. The decree is framed with great care to secure every possible interest of the cestuis que trustent, and we are of opinion that it was not only within the jurisdiction of the court, but also that the power was properly exercised.
Decree affirmed.