Summary
In Matter of Hall (164 N.Y. 196) the court held that a discretionary power in the making of investments by a trustee does not authorize investments in new, speculative or hazardous ventures, and, as stated by the court: "If the trustees had invested in the stock of a railroad, manufacturing, banking, or even business corporation, which, by its successful conduct for a long period of time, had achieved a standing in commercial circles and acquired the confidence of investors, their conduct would have been justified, although the investment proved unfortunate.
Summary of this case from Gould v. GouldOpinion
Argued June 8, 1900
Decided October 2, 1900
C.N. Bovee, Jr., for appellants. William C. Cammann for respondents.
Bernard J. Tinney, special guardian, for infant respondents.
The question in the case is as to the liability of the appellants as trustees for an investment of twenty-five thousand dollars in the debenture stock of "The Umbrella Company." The authority given the appellants by the will is: "I hereby give my said executors and trustees hereinbefore named full power to reinvest the proceeds of such sale or other act as aforesaid in any security real or personal which they may deem for the benefit of my estate and calculated to carry out the intention of this my last will." The testator himself had been in the umbrella business, and by the sixth clause of his will he directed that his interest in the business be closed on the first day of July or the first of January immediately following his decease. The referee acquitted the appellants of any bad faith, but held them liable on the ground that the character of the investment was illegal. This report was confirmed by the surrogate and the surrogate's decree unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which, while it held that under the will the trustees were not limited to what might be called ordinary trust investments, was of opinion that the investment was speculative and hazardous. and, therefore, improper. With this view we agree. As there was a unanimous affirmance below, unless we are prepared to decide that good faith exonerates the trustees from liability, no matter how speculative, hazardous or unwise the investment may have been, we must affirm the judgment and cannot look into the evidence to see how speculative or unreasonable the investment was.
The investment in the case at bar was in the preferred stock of a corporation organized to conduct the manufacture and sale of umbrellas, and formed by the consolidation of several firms at the time engaged in that business. The corporation had no real estate or plant. The preferred or debenture stock was issued for merchandise, fixtures and book accounts of the firms, while the common stock was issued for the supposed good will of those firms. While the money was not paid on an original subscription of stock, but the stock was bought from a holder, still it was during the very first days of the existence of the company and before experience had shown that it could achieve any success or stability. After doing business for a short time the corporation failed and two-thirds of the investment of twenty-five thousand dollars was lost. One of the firms from the consolidation of which the corporation sprang was that of the appellant Hall, in which firm the testator at the time of his decease was a partner. As pointed out in the opinion delivered by Justice BARTLETT in the Appellate Division the testator certainly never intended that the money he had directed to be withdrawn from the business should be invested in the same business.
We concede that under the terms of the will the trustees were given a discretion as to the character of the investments they might make, and that they were not limited to the investments required by a court of equity in the absence of any directions from a testator. The trusts of this will are to provide the testator's children with incomes during their lives, and on their deaths the principal is to go to their issue. The very object of the creation of the trust, was, therefore, the security of the principal, otherwise the testator might better have given the property outright to his children who were the primary objects of his bounty. The range of so-called "legal securities" for the investment of trust funds is so narrow in this state that a testator may well be disposed to grant to his executors or trustees greater liberty in placing the funds of the estate. But such a discretion in the absence of words in the will giving greater authority should not be held to authorize investment of the fund in new speculative or hazardous ventures. If the trustees had invested in the stock of a railroad, manufacturing, banking, or even business corporation, which, by its successful conduct for a long period of time, had achieved a standing in commercial circles and acquired the confidence of investors, their conduct would have been justified, although the investment proved unfortunate. But the distinction between such an investment and the one before us is very marked. Surely there is a mean between a government bond and the stock of an Alaska gold mine, and the fact that a trustee is not limited to the one does not authorize him to invest in the other.
In our judgment the authority given to the appellants by this will is quite similar to that vested in trustees in the New England states, where the strict English rule as to the investment of trust securities which prevails in this state does not obtain. In Mattocks v. Moulton ( 84 Maine, 545) it was held that in the investment of trust funds the trustee must exercise sound discretion as well as good faith and honest judgment. The court said: "It will be generally conceded that a mere business chance or prospect, however promising, is not a proper place for trust funds. While, of course, all investments, however carefully made, are more or less liable to depreciate and become worthless, experience has shown that certain classes of investments are peculiarly liable to such depreciation and loss. These, of course, would be avoided by every prudent man who is investing his own money with a view to permanency and security rather than chance of profit. A trustee should, therefore, avoid them, even though he sincerely believes a particular investment of that class to be safe as well as profitable." In Dickinson, appellant ( 152 Mass. 184), a trustee was held liable for an investment in Union Pacific railroad stock. It was there said: "Our cases, however, show that trustees in this commonwealth are permitted to invest portions of trust funds in dividend-paying stocks and interest-bearing bonds of private business corporations, when the corporations have acquired, by reason of the amount of their property, and the prudent management of their affairs, such a reputation that cautious and intelligent persons commonly invest their own money in such stocks and bonds as permanent investments."
Several of the equitable life tenants consented to the investment made by the trustees and are estopped from questioning its propriety. The courts below have so held and have authorized the trustees to retain the shares of such life tenants in the income produced by the sum which the appellants have been directed to pay into the fund on account of the loss on the securities. The decree, however, does not go far enough in this respect, for in certain contingencies these life tenants may be entitled to share in the principal of the fund. The decree should be modified so as to provide that in case any beneficiary who has assented to the investment in the umbrella stock should become entitled to any part of the principal of the fund paid by the trustees, then the trustees may retain such part, and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party.
O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT and LANDON, JJ., concur; PARKER, Ch. J., and VANN, J., dissent.
Judgment accordingly.