Case Name: SPENCER et al. v. SPENCER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-07-09
Citations: 154 N.Y.S. 527
Docket Number: No. 7193
Parties: SPENCER et al. v. SPENCER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 154
Pages: 527–531

Head Matter:
SPENCER et al. v. SPENCER et al.
(No. 7193.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
July 9, 1915.)
Tbusts <®=»274—Expenses—Residuaby Estate—Taxes.
Where testator left his residuary estate in trust to pay the “net annual income” to his widow for life, taxes on his one-third interest in unproductive farm land which became part of the residuary estate were payable out of the income, where there was no contrary direction or intention in the will that it should be paid out of the principal of the estate.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. §§ 389-392, 493; D'ec. Dig. <@=»274.]
Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissenting.
<g=s>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.'
Proceeding by Lorillard Spencer, 3d, ■ and others, as trustees, etc., against Caroline S. Spencer, impleaded with Lorillard Spencer, 4th, and others. Judgment entered on a decision after a trial settling the accounts of plaintiffs as trustees, and defendant Caroline S- Spencer appeals. Judgment and order affirmed.
'Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, DOWLING, and'HOTCHKISS, JJ. ' '
Herbert Barry and J. Mayhew Wainwright, both of New York City, for appellant.
Wolcott G. Lane, of New York City, for respondent trustees.
Charles H. Edwards, of New York City, for respondent Sands,

Opinion:
DOWLING, J.
By the sixth clause of his will, Lorillard .Spencer, 2d, provided among other, things as follows:
"Sixth.—All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate of every nature and kind, whether real, personal or mixed, and wheresoever situated, which I have or may have or of which I may die possessed, and whether in possession, reversion or remainder, so far as X have power to dispose of the same by will, I give, devise and bequeath to my said Trustees hereinafter named, their survivors or survivor, successors or successor, in trust, however, for the following purposes: To invest and reinvest the funds of said trust estate and change the investments thereof according to their or his best skill and judgment in the way and manner hereinafter provided; to collect and receive the rents, dividends, interest and income thereof and to pay over to my said wife, Caroline S. Spencer, during her life, the net annual income in quarterly installments."
Among other property deceased left a one-third interest in a tract of land situated at Williamsbridge, borough of the Bronx, city of New York, which had come to him through inheritance, and which had been in his family for many years. As to this one-third interest-he directed by the third=clause of his will that if the farm was not sold by the executors of his brother Charles before July 28, 1911, the proceeds of the testator's interest in said farm should be divided as follows: If he sold his entire interest in the farm previous to his death, he bequeathed to his son, Lorillard Spencer, Jr., the sum of $100,000; or, if he only sold a portion thereof before his death, then a sum equal to 25 per cent, of the net proceeds of the sale. If, after the testator's death, the whole of his interest in the farm, or any part thereof, was sold by his executors, then he gave and bequeathed to his son, Lorillard Spencer,-Jr;, a sum equal to 25 per- cent, of the net amount realized on the sale. If the son should die before him, or if, at the time of his death, the whole or. any part of the farm should .remain unsold, then he gave to his daughter-in-law,- Mary R. Spencer, the same share in the proceeds -of said property which his son would have received if living. No disposition was made of the remainder of his one-third interest in the said farm, or the proceeds of, sale thereof, or any interest therein,' over and above the amount' so bequeathed to his son. The personal property turned over to the trustees amounted to $156,-802.50, in securities and cash, subsequently increased. The testator held' other real estate' as well as the Williamsbridge farm.
The complaint set forth that all of the real estate owned by the testator was held by the trustees as part of the residuary estate, and that allegation was admitted by the answer of the appellant, although she subsequently sought leave to amend the same. The Williamsbridge farm is unproductive, and the taxes thereon have been paid by the trustees out of the income of the residuary estate. The appellant claims that the taxes and carrying charges should not be paid out of the income of the estate, but that she should receive her share thereof without deduction. It is a settled rule that annual taxes and carrying charges must be borne by the person having a life interest in the property, unless there is an unmistakable direction to the contrary in the instrument creating the various estates therein. Pinkney v. Pinkney, 1 Bradf. Sur. 269; Booth v. Ammerman, 4 Bradf. Sur. 129; Matter of Albertson, 113 N. Y. 434, 21 N. E. 117; Woodward v. James, 115 N. Y. 346, 22 N. E. 150; Chamberlain v. Gleason, 163 N. Y. 214, 57 N. E. 487; Matter of Tracy, 179 N. Y. 501, 72 N. E. 519. It is to be noted that the income which is to be paid over to the testator's widow is "the net annual income." There is nothing in this will from which can be spelled out any intention upon the part of the testator that the carrying charges upon this property should be paid out of the principal of his estate, or that it should not be deducted from the income. To insert such a provision in the testator's will would, it seems to me, be making a will for him, and would not be construing the will which is actually made.
I therefore think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
McLAUGHLIN and HOTCHKISS, JJ., concur.