Legal Opinion

Brahmey v. Rollins

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 7, 1935PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

As stated in the defendant’s brief, the issue presented is whether the provisions of the trust instrument against alienation and seizure by creditors are valid when the trustee’s duty to pay to the beneficiary is absolute. It is conceded that in the cases of spendthrift trusts hitherto decided here the trustee’s obligation to pay is only discretionary. But it is contended that their thought and reasoning in sustaining a spendthrift character of the trusts therein considered show no difference in principle when the trustee’s duty to pay is fixed and when it is dependent.

Whether the creditor…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Nichols v. EatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Broadway National Bank v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  3. Amy v. WatertownSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. Smith v. TowersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1888
  5. Pacific National Bank v. WindramMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Buxton v. UllmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  2. Keeler's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. In Re Estate of ToneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1949
  4. Charlotte Park & Recreation Commission v. BarringerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. Brainard v. CanadaySuperior Court of Delaware · 1955

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API