Court Opinion

ID: 9652936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:35:36.430252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.275292
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I think that the decision of the lower court is right.
The testator in his will expresses a desire to treat his children equally as nearly as possible in the distribution of his estate, but the specific provisions which he makes for them are not uniform. He directs that the sum of $30,000 be placed in the hands of a certain insurance company in trust for his daughter Susan, and a similar sum for his daughter Frances, the income from which is to be paid to them severally during their lifetime, the principal to be paid upon their decease to their surviving children or their descendants. Similar trusts in the sum of $50,000 each are established for his .son Henry, and his daughter Sarah, the income from which is to be paid to them severally during their lifetime, the principal to be paid upon their decease to-their children or their descendants. A one-fifth interest in the remainder of the estate,, less the foregoing specific provisions, is given outright to each of these four children. The will contains no provision for an outright payment in any amount to testator’s son James, but his entire share of the estate is placed in trust by that part of the will which is involved in this case. This *670reads as follows: "One part or share is to go to my daughters, Frances Pickering Thomas and Susan Walker Fitzgerald, in trust, for my son, James W. G. Walker. They are to hold this share and the sum of thirty thousand (30,000) dollars to be paid to them, in trust, itnder the fourth item of this will, at the death of my said wife, in trust, to have and to hold the same for and during the term of' the natural life of the said James W. G. Walker, paying to him from time to time for his own use and upon his separate receipt the income accruing therefrom, less the expenses of administering said trust and less such further sums as shall be required to keep the principal of said trust fund intact and to make good any losses, by depreciation or otherwise, in the investment thereof, and for this and for all other purposes of this trust to change such investment from time to time, in their discretion, without being held to liability for any loss or depreciation therein, ■except such as shall arise from their own several wilful default; and upon the death of the said James to divide the principal sum, as the same shall then exist, into as many equal parts or shares as there shall then be living, children of said James, or issue of any deceased child or children taking per stirpes * * *.”
By the plain terms of this provision the testator specifically provides that the trustees during the natural life of James shall pay him from time to time the income accruing from the trust estate less such sums as shall be required to keep the principal of the trust fund intact and to make good any losses by depreciation or otherwise in the investment thereof. This provision requires that the trustees shall withhold from the income annually any amount necessary to make good the losses resulting from the depreciation in value of the investments composing it in order to prevent a diminution of the corpus of the fund. The testator provides that the principal of the trust fund should be kept intact. The term “intact” is defined by Webster as "left entire”; synonym “whole.” Accordingly, to keep the principal of the trust fund intact plainly means that the corpus of the fund shall not be diminished in value, but shall remain at a value equal to that of the fund when first established. The term “depreciate” is defined by Webster as “to lessen in price or estimated value,” and the word “depreciation” is defined as the “state of being depreciated.” The term “depreciated,” as applied to securities, is well understood as signifying the amount which the securities have diminished in market value as compared with a prior standard. In common usage it is generally applied to a lessening of the value of securities without a total destruction of their value, and it does not primarily imply a sale of the securities in order to determine or ascertain the amount of the depreciation. Such a sale may be necessary in exceptional circumstances, as in income-tax procedure, in order to establish the exact amount and irrevocable character of the depreciation at a given time, but such a procedure is not required by the language of the will. It may be noted also that the will of the testator was written about ten years before the enactment of the income-tax laws.
It will be observed that the term “depreciation” is used twice by the testafor in the course of this paragraph. He first speaks of making good “any losses by depreciation or otherwise in the investment thereof,” and, second, he provides that the trustees may change the investment of the fund from time to time in their discretion “without being held to liability for any loss or depreciation therein, except such as shall arise from their own several wilful default.” The term “depreciation,” as used in the' latter clause, does not admit of any other interpretation than a diminution in the value or price of the latter securities as compared with the former ones.
It is true that the general intent and purpose of a testator as manifested in his will is important in construing any of its provisions. In this case, however, there is no place for the application of this rule. The language of the will is unambiguous, and, moreover, the provision as thus construed is not contrary to .the general purpose of the will. The testator had in mind not only the care of his son James during his lifetime, but also the preservation of the trust fund intact for the benefit of the children of James or their descendants upon the decease of James. In fact, the language of the will discloses that the testator was quite as solicitous-for the welfare of his grandchildren and their- descendants as for his own children. His extreme solicitude for the descendants of his children is strikingly ’manifest in the terms of the will. Under these circumstances it was not unnatural nor unreasonable for the testator to provide that. James should receive during his lifetime the income from the trust fund, subject, however, to the continued preservation of the fund at its original amount.
*671In a construction of a will by the court it must be kept in mind that it is the duly' of the court to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator as expressed by the terms of the will. The court should not undertake to make or rewrité a will for the testator under the guise of construction, even to do equity or accomplish a more equitable division of the estate or to make the will more liberal and just. It may be in the present case that the court can now write a better will for the testator than he wrote for himself, but this is not consistent with the court’s real function in the case.
In my opinion, the decision of the" lower court should be affirmed.
Mr. Justice ROBB concurs in this dissent.