Court Opinion

ID: 4483536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-16 21:16:09.794693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:27.332247
License: Public Domain

Tukner, /., dissenting: It is my view, on the facts found and appearing herein, that the letter of Charles W. Stimson under date of December 15, 1941, as a matter of law, effected the creation of an express trust and that the Court’s conclusion to the contrary is in error. Direct gifts to the granddaughters had been made in prior years and had proved troublesome and unsatisfactory in so far as the subsequent management of the property was concerned, and the parties, for good and sufficient reasons, decided that subsequent gifts should not be direct, and it is my view that the duties and obligations conferred upon and accepted by Harold A. Miller and Jane S. Miller were under the law trust duties and obligations. I do not regard the question decided as a question of fact, or as a matter of mixed law and fact, but a question of law, and it is my view that the Court erred in reaching its conclusion. I accordingly note my dissent.