King v. Donnelly
New York Court of Chancery
The complainant in this case filed his bill for the partition of certain premises, an undivided share of which premises was devised to two of the defendants, in trust, for the use of the other defendant. The trustees, who had never acted, put in an answer and disclaimer, refusing to accept and execute the trust. The complainant thereupon applied to the court, by petition, for the appointment of a new trustee of the share of the premises which had been so devised in trust.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Where several persons are named as trustees, and one of them refuses to accept and execute the trust, the whole estate will vest in the others who act, in the same manner as if he were dead or had not been named as a trustee. (Hamp. on Trust. 90. 3 Paige’s Rep. 430.) It is otherwise where lands are devised to trustees, and all the devisees decline the trust. There the legal estate must of necessity vest in the devisees, for the benefit of the cestui que trust, who is the real object of the testator’s bounty, if the trust itself is legal; and they cannot wholly defeat the…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Taylor v. BenhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Adams v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- McCosker v. BradyNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
- Shockley v. FisherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Williams v. ConradNew York Supreme Court · 1859
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.