Case Name: In re TRUMBLE'S WILL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-29
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 763
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re TRUMBLE’S WILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 763–769

Head Matter:
In re TRUMBLE’S WILL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 29, 1910.)
1. Perpetuities (§ 6 )—Testamentary Trusts—Validity.
A will directing the executor to convert the residue into money, deposit the same in a bank and pay monthly $40 to each of testator’s sisters, living at his death, until the deposit and interest are paid, and providing that on the death of any sister before the fund has been paid, the executors shall pay to the heirs of such sister $40 monthly, etc., creates an independent trust for each sister independent of the provision for her heirs, so that the trust for the sisters is valid.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Perpetuities, Dec. Dig. § 6. ]
2. Perpetuities (§ 6 )—Suspension of Power of Alienation—Trusts.
A will directing the executor to convert the residue into money and deposit the same, and pay monthly $40 to each of testator’s sisters living at his death until the deposit and interest are paid, and providing that, on the death of any of the sisters before the fund is paid, the executors shall pay to her heirs $40 monthly, etc., creates a trust in favor of the heirs of any sister, which suspends the absolute power of alienation for more than two lives in being at the death of testator, and is void.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Perpetuities, Cent. Dig. §§ 4r-56; Dec. Dig. § 6. ]
3. Trusts (§ 52 )—Invalidity in Part—Effect.
■ Where an estate is vested under a will in a trustee on several independent trusts, one or more of which are valid and the others void, the latter will- be rejected, and the estate of the trustee will be upheld to the extent necessary to enable him to execute the former.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. § 72; Dec. Dig. § 52. ]
4. Wills (§ 849 )—Disposition of Intestate Property.
A provision in a will that any relative of testator not named in the will shall not under any circumstances have any part of testator’s property does not affect the right of any heirs at law or next of kin in property not effectually disposed of by the will, and the undisposed of estate must be distributed to those entitled thereto, as provided by law in case of intestacy.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Dec. Dig. § 849. ]
-McLennan, P. J., and Robson, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Oswego County.
Proceedings for the construction of the will of William E. Trumble,. deceased. From the decree of the Surrogate’s Court, adjudging the fourth and fifth clauses of the will void, the executors and the beneficiaries named in the will appeal.
Modified and affirmed.
The controversy is over the construction and effect of the fourth and fifth-clauses of the will of William E. Trumble, late of the city of Oswego, which, are as follows:
“Fourth, I give and bequeath- all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, if any, to be paid out as set forth in this paragraph of this, my last will and testament, equally to such of my sisters, Amanda F. Parkhurst,. Waty A. Hodgney, Rebecca J. Dalrymple, Fanny M. Tyler, and Mary B. Draper, as are living at the time of my death.
“I hereby direct my executor, hereinafter named, to convert my estate-which has not been disposed of by this will, into money and deposit the same in banks or trustee companies paying interest on deposits, and to pay therefrom monthly to such of said sisters named in this paragraph of this will as are' living at the time of my death the sum of forty dollars to each until such, monies and interest are fully paid out to them.
“In case one or more of my sisters named in this paragraph of my will! shall survive me, but shall die before said fund is fully paid out, then in that case from that time on, I direct my executor hereinafter named to pay to the heir or heirs of such sister, except the heir or heirs of my sister, Amanda F. Parkhurst, the monthly sum of forty dollars until said fund is-fully paid out; it being my intention and direction that the said heir or heirs except the heir or heirs of Amanda F. Parkhurst, shall be substituted in the place of said sister and receive the said sister’s payment of forty dollars-per month, and said forty dollars per month shall be divided among the heir or-heirs of such sister in the proportion prescribed by law for the division of personal property among heirs of a deceased person., And in that event to that end, I hereby give and bequeath to such heir or heirs the sum or sums which he or they shall be entitled to receive under this fourth paragraph of my last will and testament except the heir or heirs of Amanda F. Parkhurst as stated above.
“Fifth, I expressly declare that it is my intention in this my last will and testament, that any relative or relatives of mine not' named in this last will' and testament shall under no circumstances have any part of my estate unless that it may be that a relative or relatives may receive a part of my estate as provided in the fourth paragraph of this will as heir or heirs of one-of the beneficiaries named in said paragraph.’?
The testator left as his only heirs at law and next of kin the six sisters-named in the will, five nephews and a niece, children of a deceased sister,, and another niece, a child of another deceased sister. There are 24 other-relatives of the testator who might take a possible contingent interest in the testator’s estate under the third subdivision of the fourth clause of the-will. The only specific devise or bequest contained in the will is the sum not to exceed $50 for a headstone, and the two farms to the sister Emma A. Ty-ler for life, and after her death to her children in fee; with a further provision that, if the farms had been sold by him before his death, then his sister Emma A. Tyler should have an equal share in his estate with the other sisters mentioned in the fourth clause of the will as were living at the time of" his death. The value of the property attempted to be disposed of by the-fourth clause of the will is upwards of $30,000.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
James S. Thorn, for appellant Trust & Deposit Company of Onondaga.
B. C. Turner, for appellants Hodgney and others.
Claude B. Alverson, for respondents Read and others.
Joseph T. McCaffrey, for respondent Lally.
For other cases‘see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date,.& Rep’r Indexes.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J..
The question presented by the clauses of the will in controversy is not over what disposition the testator intended to make of his property, but whether his intentions can be carried into effect without offending the statutes against perpetuities. It is very plain that what was uppermost in "his mind was to provide for his sisters. He gave the life use of his two farms to his sister Emma, with remainder in fee to her children; and the other five sisters were provided for by the fourth clause in the will, and included his sister Emma, if he sold the farms. All the rest of his property was directed by the fourth clause to be converted into money and deposited in banks and trust companies paying interest on deposits; and, in substance, he directed that $40 be paid monthly to each sister during her life, and upon her death the like monthly payment to her heirs, except the heirs of his sister Amanda. If the fourth clause of the will creates but a single, indivisible trust, it is clearly in contravention of the statute against perpetuities, and invalid, since it suspends the absolute power of alienation of the trust property for more than two lives in being at the death of the testator. I do not see how the provision in favor of the heirs of the sisters can be upheld in any view of the case. But it does not necessarily follow that the provision for the sisters is illegal also. The fund is not a common fund in which the sisters have a joint interest, so that in the case of the death of one or more the surviving sisters are entitled to use what is left of the fund to make the monthly payment of $40 to each of the survivors; but it is provided that the heirs of the one so dying (except Amanda's heirs) are to be substituted in her place and to receive her monthly payment of $40. I think that, although the moneys may be kept together in one fund, there is an independent trust created for each of the sisters, and that the illegal provision in favor of the heirs of the sisters may be disregarded. The trust in favor of each sister is entirely independent of the provision for her heirs, and does not depend upon the validity of the disposition made of what remains of the fund after her death.
The rule is tersely stated in the headnote to the case of Van Schuyler v. Mulford et al., 59 N. Y. 426, as follows:
"Where an estate is vested under a will in a trustee upon several independent trusts, one or more of which are valid and the others void, the latter will be rejected, and the estate of the trustee will be upheld to the extent necessary to enable him to execute the former."
This rule in principle has been applied in many cases. It is sufficient to call attention to only a few of them. Kennedy v. Hoy, 105 N. Y. 134, 11 N. E. 390; Underwood v. Curtis et al., 127 N. Y. 523, 28 N. E. 585; Hascall v. King, 162 N. Y. 134, 152, 56 N. E. 515, 76 Am. St. Rep. 302; Robb v. Washington & Jefferson College, 103 App. Div. 327, 355, 93 N. Y. Supp. 92; Id., 185 N. Y. 485, 495, 78 N. E. 359. The primary object of the trust was to provide for the sisters, and I think under the rules to which I have adverted the provision in their favor should be sustained.
As regards the fifth clause of the will, I think the learned surrogate correctly decided that that provision did not affect the right of any of the heirs at law or next of kin of the testator in respect of property not effectually disposed of by the will. What remains of the trust funds after the death of the. sister beneficiaries should be distributed as unbequeathed assets. The rule in such case is quoted and reaffirmed in Pomroy v. Hincks, 180 N. Y. 73, 75, 72 N. E. 628, 629, as follows:
"It is a settled principle of law that the legal rights of the heir or distributee to the property of deceased persons cannot be defeated except by a valid devise of such property to other persons. It was not sufficient to deprive an heir at law or distributee of what comes to him by operation of law, as property not effectually disposed of- by will, that the testator should have signified his intention by his will that his heir or distributee should not inherit any part of his estate."
It follows that the decree of the surrogate should be modified by adjudging that the provisions for the sisters contained in the fourth clause of the will is valid;, that an independent trust is created thereby, as therein provided, for the benefit of each sister; that the provision therein contained for the heir or heirs of any sister therein named is illegal and void; and that the property embraced therein remaining after the death of any such sister is not disposed of by said will, and passes and should be distributed to the persons entitled thereto, as provided by law in case of intestacy; and, as so modified, the decree should be affirmed, with costs to each of the parties or set of parties appearing by separate attorneys, payable out of the estate. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., and RO'BSON, J., who dissent.