Opinion ID: 1551069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Premature Action.

Text: This contention is that while the life tenant survives, there can be no action to adjudicate title of the remaindermen or to protect the remainder estate. The present action does not involve nor seek to affect the enjoyment of possession or other rights of the life tenant. Its sole purpose is to protect from spoliation and loss property which is in possession of the life tenant, but alleged to belong to the estate coming to the remaindermen (with absolute right of possession upon death of the life tenant), and, as to which, the life tenant is entitled only to the income therefrom. Therefore, the legal issue is whether a remainderman is entitled to equitable relief to have protected property belonging to him in the rightful possession of the life tenant who is entitled to the income, for life, therefrom. As a necessary incident to such relief (if allowable), the remainderman must prove that he is such as to the property involved but this is not a proceeding where the only or main purpose is to have the title of the remainderman adjudicated  it is a bona fide action to protect a remainder estate alleged to exist. Appellants rely upon several state cases and the following cases in the Supreme Court or in inferior federal courts: Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72, 25 L. Ed. 51; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 5 S. Ct. 932, 962, 29 L. Ed. 205; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 12 S. Ct. 103, 35 L. Ed. 906; United States v. Evans, 213 U. S. 297, 29 S. Ct. 507, 53 L. Ed. 803; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 31 S. Ct. 250, 55 L. Ed. 246; Arnold v. Garth (C. C.) 106 F. 13; Pluche v. Jones (C. C. A.) 54 F. 860; Preston v. Smith (C. C.) 26 F. 884. The Williams and Marye Cases involved the validity of state statutes relating to securities issued by the state and in each the court said that no existing or threatening injury was alleged and, therefore, the issue presented was purely abstract and courts would act only upon legal rights actually in controversy. The Singer and Evans Cases were refused determination because the issues therein were purely moot. The Muskrat Case refused decision because the issue was not a justiciable controversy. The Arnold and Pluche Cases held merely that a statute of limitations did not begin to run against a remainderman until his right to possession accrued. The Preston Case (being a ruling on demurrer to a bill) held the action was more like an effort to establish a doubtful title than a proceeding to protect from serious wrong a clear or adjudicated title (page 889), and that only upon an adjudicated or a clear title will a court of equity issue an injunction to restrain waste by the life tenant. Thus, it appears that none of the above cases are applicable here nor are any statements in the opinions therein except those above quoted from Judge Brewer in the Preston Case. Those expressions clearly imply that, at least under certain circumstances, such right of action would exist during the life estate. However, the matter is not in doubt. In Cross v. Del Valle, 1 Wall. 5, at page 15, 17 L. Ed. 515, the court said: A remainderman may have a decree to protect the estate from waste, and have it so secured by the trustee as to protect his estate in expectancy. The court will interfere under all needful circumstances to protect his rights, but such cases do not come within the category of mere declaratory decrees as to future rights. Undoubtedly, the same rule prevails in the state courts. See 23 R. C. L. 579, where it is said: One who has a vested remainder in land has a right to protect the estate, so that he may receive the same when it ought to come to him by the terms of the limitation, and may maintain a proper action for any injury to the inheritance, committed or threatened, whether by the tenant in possession or by a stranger. Also, at page 580, it is said: While a court of equity will not maintain a bill merely to declare future rights, it will interfere in all needful cases to protect the rights of remaindermen. Again, at page 581, the right of the remainderman to require security bond and accounting (the relief here sought and accorded by the trial court) is stated as follows: Formerly it was the practice to exact from the tenant for life security that the property should be forthcoming on the happening of the contemplated event. This security is still required in exceptional cases. But, before security for the forthcoming of the property at the termination of the life estate will be required, the remainderman must have reasonable grounds to apprehend the loss or removal of the property, or that his rights are in danger. 139. Filing of Inventory. Unless the remainderman can show some necessity for exacting security, the only remedy which he now has is to require the tenant to make an inventory which shall show the property which he received, and to which the remainderman will become entitled upon the termination of the particular estate. And, though an inventory has been filed, the tenant, upon a proper showing of real danger, may be called on to account and be required to give bond. 140. Seizure and Impounding of Property. The property may also be seized and impounded for the protection of the remainderman. Should the tenant attempt to sell, or in any other mode waste or misuse the property, so as to threaten its destruction, the court may impound it, that is, take it into the hands of the court, by its officer, and give the first taker the profits. The practice is to require security for the lawful use of the property during the life estate, and if this is not given, then pursue the mode of seizing upon the property. Also in 21 C. J. at page 996, § 153, it is said: Since a remainderman has only an estate to vest in possession in futuro, he is entitled neither to actual nor to constructive possession of the property until the termination of the particular estate. He may however bring an action in equity during the lifetime of the life tenant to preserve the property, and, without taking actual possession to complete his title, he is entitled to all the remedies which may be necessary to protect and enforce his right at law. Again, at page 1013, § 172, it is said: Where the property is in the hands of a trustee any breach of trust or improper conduct on the part of the trustee is a ground for equitable relief, and where a trust deed has been set aside under a decree fraudulently obtained, the remainderman may maintain a bill to have the property restored to the original trust. If the trustee is already under a valid and sufficient bond to protect the remainder interest, the remainderman is not entitled to any other relief; and the remainderman cannot, during the continuance of the life estate, sue on the trustee's bond to recover any part of the amount wasted, although he could proceed in equity to compel the trustee to bring the money into court to be invested. The remainderman may maintain a suit for the appointment of a new trustee and for an accounting. Also at page 967, § 105, it is said:  Right to Equitable Relief in General. A remainderman or reversioner unless barred by laches, is entitled to come into equity by a bill quia timet for the protection of his interest when the property in the hands of a life tenant is in danger of loss, deterioration or injury, or when the life tenant is claiming a right to the property adverse to that of the remainderman. Also, at page 967, section 106 states that, under certain circumstances, injunction may be employed to protect the remainder estate; page 968, section 107, that accounting may be had; page 968, sections 108 and 109, that sequestration and a receiver are sometimes proper. The above statements in Ruling Case Law and in Corpus Juris are based upon abundant citations from various state courts  to which may be added later citations as follows: Abbott v. Wagner, 108 Neb. 359, 188 N. W. 113, 121; Ivey v. Lewis, 133 Va. 122, 112 S. E. 712, 716; Newport v. Hatton, 195 Cal. 132, 231 P. 987, 994; Commercial Building Co. v. Parslow (Fla.) 112 So. 378, 381; Huey v. Brock, 207 Ala. 175, 92 So. 904, 905; Powe v. Payne, 208 Ala. 527, 94 So. 587; Colburn v. Burlingame, 190 Cal. 697, 214 P. 226, 27 A. L. R. 1374; Hodgman v. Cobb, 202 App. Div. 259, 195 N. Y. S. 428; In re Niles, 122 Misc. Rep. 17, 202 N. Y. S. 475; Thomas' Adm'r v. Thomas, 220 Ky. 101, 294 S. W. 776. The last four cases deal with protecting bonds. This record leaves no doubt that these trustees, the life tenant and several of the remaindermen are denying any right or interest of plaintiff to any property in the possession of the trustees and especially to the increases of stock in the Burroughs Company. Also, all of the property is in the form of securities which might be easily disposed of. These securities are concededly worth more than $4,000,000, yet the trustees are under a bond of only $100,000. Also, the trustees have always refused to give plaintiff any inventory or accounting and persistently deny his right to such. Also, the trust agreement provides that, on the death of Mrs. Franz (now more than 83 years old), all of the property shall be held by them for account of the estate of said Sophie Franz, to be administered by the probate court of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, in accordance with the last will and testament of said Sophie Franz, and in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri in such case made and provided. If this quoted provision were followed, all of this property would be subject to various taxes, fees and costs (in course of such administration) which should not attach to any of such property belonging to the remaindermen because such would be deliverable direct to them by the trustees, upon termination of the life estate, and would not pass through the administration of the estate of Sophie Franz. The above discussed law leaves no doubt that equity does afford, during the life tenancy, remedies for remaindermen to protect their estates and the above facts make it equally clear that a situation is here present justifying the use of such remedies at this time. Therefore, the suit was not prematurely brought.