Opinion ID: 1703357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Div. 143 (53010)6 Div. 144 (53010)

Text: The two appeals, with a prayer for alternative writ of mandamus in each case, involved in cases numbered 6 Div. 143 (53010) and 6 Div. 144 (53010), are from two decrees entered on March 20, 1950. The decree in 6 Div. 143 appointed Dr. Doak Mudd, son of Mr. and Mrs. Mudd, as successor cotrustee of the trust in which Mrs. Mudd was beneficiary, and the decree in 6 Div. 144 appointed him successor cotrustee of the trust in which Mrs. Riley was beneficiary. The last sentence of paragraph numbered 8 in the decree of the court set out in 6 Div. 657, supra, reads: The appointment of cotrustees under the remaining four (4) living trusts is reserved for further orders of the court. Pursuant to this reservation, the court appointed Dr. Mudd to succeed Edward Wilkinson, Jr., as cotrustee of these two trusts. After the rendition of the decree of August 22, 1947, in 6 Div. 657, supra, the trustee personnel of the trusts and shares involved were: Shares (1) Testamentary trust under will Trustees Edward Wilkinson, Jr., and First National Bank of Birmingham .................. 151 (2) Grace H. Wilkinson trust Trustees Edward Wilkinson, Jr., and First National Bank of Birmingham ................. 30 (3) Edward Wilkinson, Jr., living trust Trustee Edward Wilkinson, Jr ............................ 20 (4) Elizabeth W. Lanier, living trust Trustee Edward Wilkinson, Jr............................ 20 (5) Mrs. Dimmis W. Riley, living trust Trustee Bethea McCall ......... 30 (6) Mrs. Marguerite W. Mudd, living trust Trustee Bethea McCall ......... 20 ___ 271 The decree in the instant cases provided all the trusts with cotrustees except (3) and (4) of whom Edward Wilkinson, Jr., remained sole trustee. Appellants, Edward Wilkinson, Jr., and Mrs. Lanier, concede that these cases are dependent, in part, for decision on the outcome of 6 Div. 657. The court could have appointed Dr. Mudd at the same time the First National Bank was appointed cotrustee of the testamentary trust and the Grace Wilkinson trust. The mere fact that it waited until later to appoint him is immaterial. Having refused to hold that the court abused its discretion in removing and appointing the trustees in 6 Div. 657, supra, we reach the same conclusion in these cases respecting the appointment of Dr. Mudd. Appeal dismissed in each case and petition for mandamus denied in each case.