Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of James Campbell, Decsd.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1954No. 2951Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OF

STAINBACK, J.

While realizing that dissenting opinions are futile and usually of little value, I cannot join with the majority of this court in their holding that the trustees of the Campbell Estate can under terms of the will make a binding lease for a period longer than the duration of the trust.

Not only has this court twice held that the will of the testator, James Campbell, did not empower the trustees of their own volition to execute leases that would be binding beyond the termination of the trust, but the trustees themselves have on at least one occasion formally…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Smith T. v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  2. Ruggles v. TysonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Upham v. PlankintonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Hubbell v. HubbellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
  5. Denegre v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1905

10 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