Colton v. Colton
Citations
- 127 U.S. 300
- 8 S. Ct. 1164
- 32 L. Ed. 138
- 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1990
Syllabus
<p>The intention of a testator, as expressed in his will, is to prevail when not inconsistent with rules of law.</p> <p>No technical language is necessary for the creation of a trust in a will, and no general rule can be formulated for determining whether a devise or bequest carries with it the whole beneficial interest, or whether it is to be construed as creating a trust.</p> <p>If a trust be sufficiently expressed and capable of enforcement, it is not invalidated by being called “ precatory.”</p> <p>When property is given by will absolutely and without restriction, a trust is not to be lightly imposed, upon mere words of recommendation and confidence; but if the objects of the supposed, trust are definite and the property clearly pointed out, if the relations between the testator and the supposed beneficiary are such as to indicate a motive on the part of the one to provide for the other, and if the precatory clause, expressing a wish, entreaty, or recommendation that the donee shall apply the prop-' erty to the benefit of the supposed cestui que trust warrants the inference • that it is peremptory, then it may be held that an obligatory trust is created, which may be enforced in a court of equity.</p> <p>C, a citizen of California, died there, leaving a will which contained the following provisiqns: “ I give and bequeath to my said wife E. M. C. all of the estate, real and personal, of which I shall die seized, possessed, or. entitled to. I recommend to her the care and protection of my mother and sister, and request her to make such gift and pro vision*for them as in her judgment will be best. . . . I hereby appoint my said wife .to be the executrix of this my last will and testament, and desire that no bonds be required of her for the performance of any of her duties as such executrix.” This will was duly proved in the probate court of San Erancisco. The widow having failed to make suitable provision for the mother and sister, each filed a bill in equity again
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that it was the “duty of the court” to determine the trust pay ments due after rejecting the trustee’s interpretation
- stating that it was the “duty of the court” to determine the trust payments due after rejecting the trustee’s interpretation
- discussing rules of construction for wills
- discussing rules of construction for wills
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Matthews
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.