Court Opinion

ID: 9651394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:18:27.543181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:33.494507
License: Public Domain

L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree as to Kenan and Beardsley, because it appears that they would have served without added pay. However, there is enough in the record to show that Blount would not have accepted the post at a salary of $5,000. The trust needed three trustees, and the added payment to him was therefore *114“necessary” to the conduct of the business. Was it Mrs. Bingham’s business? On the whole it seems to me that it was. I cannot believe that the statute will not credit a beneficiary with sums paid to make up for the penurious standards of the testator, after it turns out that these make impossible the proper conduct of the business. I think the plaintiff should recover one-third of the amount paid.