Mackay v. Mackay
Before: Fleet
Synopsis
Estates of Deceased Persons—Bequest to Executors nr Trust—Payment of Income—Rights of Beneficiary—Jurisdiction of Probate Court.—Where a bequest was made to executors in trust of a sum of money which they were directed to invest, and to pay the income thereof to a beneficiary named, the only right of the beneficiary in the probate court is the right to move the court to make distribution of the fund to the trustees, which the court may grant at any time the circumstances of the estate will warrant it, without awaiting final distribution of the general estate, and the court has no authority to order the executors as such to pay out of the general estate an amount equal to the income to be derived from the investment provided for in the will.
Id.—Distribution to Trustees—Legacy for Maintenance—Allowance of Interest from Death of Testator.—Where it appears that the beneficiary of the trust created by the will had been supported by the testator for a long period, and was in receipt of such support at the time of the making of the will, the bequest in trust of the legacy, the income of which is to be paid to her, is to be considered as a legacy for maintenance under section 1569 of the Civil Code, and will bear interest from the death of the testator; and it is the duty of the court, in distributing the fund to the trustees, also to distribute to them such interest as shall have accrued upon it at the date of the distribution, to be paid to the beneficiary in lieu of the income specified in the legacy, up to the date of the distribution.
Van Fleet, J. The deceased, Patrick N. Mackay, died, resident of the city and county of San Francisco, on the 21st of April, 1893, leaving a last will, wherein appellants were named as executors thereof. Subsequently said will was duly admitted to probate in the superior court of said city and county, and letters testamentary thereon were issued to appellants.
Among other things the will provided: “Third. I bequeath to my said executors in trust the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, which I direct them to invest in such security as they may deem advisable, and to pay the income thereof to Hattie Schenck, housekeeper, presently residing at Ho. 1625 Polk street, in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, during her life.”
In August, 1894, the respondent filed a petition in the superior court, setting up in substance, among other matters not necessary to recite, the fact of decedent’s death and the admission of his will to probate, setting out the provision of the will above quoted, and stating that she was the same person referred to in said provision as Hattie Schenck; that notice to creditors had been published and that more than a year had elapsed since its first publication; and that an inventory and appraisement of the estate had been returned showing the value of said estate to be upwards of three hundred thousand dollars. She further alleged that at the time of the death of deceased, and for many years prior thereto, respondent was wholly dependent upon deceased for support and maintenance, and was entirely supported and maintained by him, and that since the death of [305]deceased she has been without means of support, but dependent upon charity; that the executors of deceased had not paid her, “ nor has she ever received any part of said legacy, or income thereof, or any interest thereon, or any thing whatsoever from the said executors or said estate in any manner.” And after alleging that the executors entertain a feeling of enmity and malice toward her, and “ that they have attempted, endeavored, acted, managed, and conducted the administration of said estate so as and with the design, purpose, and intent to keep petitioner out of and deprive her from receiving or having in any manner any part of the legacy, income, or interest” provided for in said will, and that by reason of their said feeling and conduct they are not fit or proper persons to administer said trust, she prays: “ That the said executors may be compelled to hand and pay over unto the said petitioner, Harriet Schenek Mackay, all the moneys whatsoever due in and by virtue of said legacy, together with the legal interest thereon accrued, dating from the death of said deceased up to and including the time of the granting of the relief herein demanded; also that the trust fund hereinbefore mentioned may be taken from the care, custody, control, and management of the said executors, and that a proper and fit person be appointed as trustee to receive, take, hold, invest, manage, and control said legacy for the uses provided in said last will and testament, and that this court make such order or orders and grant such other and further relief as to it may seem just and equitable.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)