Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Nichols Assignee v. Eaton — Opinion of the Court

To compel them to pay any of this income to a son after bankruptcy, or to his assignee, is to make a will for the testatrix which she never made; and to do it by a decree of a court is to substitute the discretion of the chancellor for the discretion of the trustees, in whom alone she reposed it. When trustees are in existence, and capable of acting, a court of equity will not interfere to control them in the exercise of a discretion vested in them by the instrument under which they act.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Nichols Assignee v. Eaton — Opinion of the Court

We concede that there are limitations which public policy or general statutes impose upon all dispositions of property, such as those designed to prevent perpetuities and accumulations of real estate in corporations and ecclesiastical bodies. We also admit that there is a just and sound policy peculiarly appropriate to the jurisdiction of courts of equity to protect creditors against frauds upon their rights, whether they be actual or constructive frauds.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature