Court Opinion

ID: 6422741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:01:20.886486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:50.879677
License: Public Domain

Morton, C. J.
In Sears v. Hardy, 120 Mass. 524, two cases were considered together. One was a bill in equity by the only child and heir of Joshua Sears, the prayer being that the trustees be ordered to convey to the plaintiff so much of the estate in their hands, and the surplus income thereof, as was not required for the payment of the annuities provided for by the will. The other was a bill by the trustees asking for instructions as to their duties under the will. The fourth prayer was broad enough to include the question raised in the case at bar, but the question was not in fact raised, both parties conceding that the trustees were to retain in their hands enough to support the annuities, and the only question discussed being whether the surplus of the estate should be paid over to the heir at law discharged of the trust. The question now presented was not raised or decided in those cases.
Under the decrees in those cases the trustees retained in their hands sufficient of the property to produce a net income of ten thousand dollars, being the amount of the annuity now payable to the heir at law.
The present bill alleges that the plaintiff has the entire beneficial- interest both in the income of the property held by the trustees for his benefit and in the property itself, and prays that this trust may be terminated and the property conveyed to him.
The trustees now hold the trust estate upon the simple trust, as defined in the will, to pay the plaintiff ten thousand dollars per year. There is in the will no limitation over of the estate in any contingency to any other person; there is no discretion *398given to the trustees, and there is no provision that the income or the estate shall not be alienable by the plaintiff or attachable by his creditors. It cannot be doubted that under this will the plaintiff took an equitable estate which he might alienate, and which equity would apply to the payment of his debts. Sparhawk v. Cloon, 125 Mass. 263.
It is said in the opinion in the former case,, that “ it is conceded by all parties that, in order to carry out the plain intention of the testator to secure to his son an honorable support, during his life, not exposed to the risks of his improvidence or misfortunes, the trustees should retain in their hands enough of the estate to produce beyond question the annuity provided for in the will.” It is quite probable that the testator had this idea or intention in his mind; but if he had, he failed to frame his will in such a way as to carry out his intention. • This court has held that the founder of a trust may give an equitable life tenant a qualified estate in income which he cannot alienate and which his creditors cannot reach. Broadway National Bank v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170. But in order to give such a qualified estate, instead of an absolute one, the language of the founder must be clear and unequivocal to that effect. Taking this will as it is, we should not be justified in holding that the plaintiff took anything less than an absolute equitable estate both in the income and in the corpus of the trust.
There is no doubt of the power and duty of the court to decree the termination of a trust, where all its objects and purposes have been accomplished, where the interests under it have all vested, and where all parties beneficially interested desire its termination. Where property is given to certain persons for their benefit, and in such a manner that no other person has or can have any interest in it, they are in effect the absolute owners of it, and it is reasonable and just that they should have the control and disposal of it unless some good cause appears to the contrary. Smith v. Harrington, 4 Allen, 566. Bowditch v. Andrew, 8 Allen, 339. Inches v. Hill, 106 Mass. 575. Stone, petitioner, 138 Mass. 476. Underwood v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, 141 Mass. 305.
In the case before us the trustees hold the fund in question upon a simple trust; the plaintiff is the absolute equitable owner *399of the fund and the income; he may alienate them and they can be reached by his creditors. If the testator had the intention of guarding against his possible improvidence or misfortune, he failed to carry his intention into effect, and thus the reason for the existence of a trust fails.
We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree terminating the trust, according to the prayer of his bill.

Decree for the plaintiff.