Court Opinion

ID: 3871266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:05:41.308211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:15:03.560103
License: Public Domain

This cause is before us on the question of the sufficiency of the plea of the city of Providence to the amended bill. The plea sets up in bar to so much of the bill as prays for discovery and relief from the city of Providence, that at the time the trustees sold and conveyed to it the real estate referred to in the amended bill, and that it paid therefor the sum of $45,048.10 to the trustees, there was due from them to Amey A. Smith, the widow of the deceased, a much greater sum on account of the annuity provided for her in his will, and that the sum thus due and owing to her was by the terms of the will a charge and lien upon the estate so sold and conveyed, prior to, and of a higher nature than, the liens of the complainants, or any of them, and that the sum so paid to the trustees by the city of Providence was needed for, and was wholly applied to, the payment in part, and in reduction, of such lien and charge for such annuity.
We think the plea is sufficient.
The complainants object to its sufficiency because, as they claim, the provision for the annuity in lieu of dower gives to the widow no lien superior to their rights as creditors. If these complainants had not accepted the provisions of the trusts created by the testator in their favor, and were proceeding against the widow, legatees, and trustees named in the will, to enforce the statutory lien for the payment of their claims, notwithstanding the provisions of the will, there would be force in their claim. The cases which they cite are of that nature; but such is not the nature of the present bill. This bill is framed upon the theory that the trust created by the will had terminated at the expiration of the ten years limited in the will for its continuance, and that the powers of the trustees, including the power to sell the trust estate, had ceased upon the termination of the trust. At a former term we held that though the trust, so far as it related to the incurring of obligations by the trustees so as to charge the trust estate, expired with the ten years so limited, yet it continued for the purpose of enabling the trustees to wind up its affairs, and that they had an implied power to sell and convey the trust property for the purpose of discharging the liens and claims for which it was charged; since they could not *Page 259 
otherwise convey the portions of the trust estate not required for that purpose to the devisees and legatees entitled under the will to such portions, "discharged of said trust," as directed by the will. By the terms of the will the annuity in favor of the widow was made a lien upon the trust estate superior to any lien arising under the trust, and the estate conveyed to the trustees was expressly made "subject to the devises and bequests and charges for payments," previously made in the will. Among the charges for payments, to which the devise and bequest of the trust estate was thus made subject, is the annuity to the widow. The complainants refer to a subsequent clause in the will to the effect that all undertakings, engagements, and accommodation made or entered into by the trustees shall be as binding upon the trust estate as if made or entered into directly by the testator in his lifetime, as evidence that the testator intended to confer upon creditors rights superior to those of the widow. It will be seen, however, that such undertakings, engagements, and accommodation are made binding only on the trust estate, which, as already shown, is subject to the prior charge for the payment of the annuity. It is apparent, therefore, that under the provisions of the will the trustees had no alternative but to apply the purchase-money received by them from the city of Providence from the real estate sold to it, to the payment of the annuity which was a charge upon the land prior to any liens under the trust, and if they had no alternative but to so apply it, and did so apply it, it was properly applied, and the purchaser, assuming that it was bound to see to the application of the purchase-money, cannot be held liable to account, nor the land be charged, for its payment.
It does not appear that any steps had been taken by the complainants to disaffirm the trust created by the will, and to which they had assented, prior to the sale and conveyance of the land in question to the city of Providence, on March 28, 1888. This bill, even if it could be regarded in that light, was not filed until November 25, 1889, more than eighteen months after such sale and conveyance. Assuming that the complainants have power to disaffirm the trust created in the will, after assenting to and going on under it during the ten years limited for its continuance, we think they would be estopped from proceeding against the trustees, or purchasers *Page 260 
of the trust estate, for moneys applied to the purposes specified in the will, or property disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the will, prior to such disaffirmance. They cannot stand by, apparently assenting to such acts of the trustees or purchasers by not dissenting, and then seek to charge the trustees or purchasers therefor.
The complainants object to the plea on the ground that it is double. We do not think that it is open to this objection. It sets up but one defence, to wit, the application of the purchase-money to the payment of the arrears of the annuity. It is true that it goes on to recite that the widow and the devisees and legatees named in the will joined in the conveyance, but it does not purport to set up this fact as a defence. Its apparent purpose is to show that the sale and conveyance were with the assent and approval of those joining in the conveyance. We fail to see how the statement of this fact in any way strengthens the plea. Doubtless it would have been better pleading if the statement had been omitted. As, however, it does not constitute a defence and does not appear to have been inserted with that view, we do not think its insertion renders the plea double.
After this opinion the respondent, the city of Providence, by consent withdrew its plea and filed an answer. The case then came on for hearing on bill, answers filed by the different respondents, and proof.
February 20, 1892.