Opinion
06-30-1904
EVANS v. EVANS et al.
Willard P. Voorhees, for demurrant, Mary F. Evans, administratrix. John S. Voorhees, for complainant.
Bill by William G. Evans individually and as substituted administrator of John 11. Evans, deceased, against Mary A. Evans and Mary F. Evans, as administratrix of the estate of John C. Evans, deceased. On demurrer to the bill. Sustained.
Willard P. Voorhees, for demurrant, Mary F. Evans, administratrix.
John S. Voorhees, for complainant.
EMERY, V. C. On the bill filed by complainant individually I have given the reasons for holding that, as cestui que trust under the will of his father, Rees Evans, the complainant is entitled to an accounting of the trust estate from both the surviving trustee and the administratrix of the deceased trustee. Evans v. Evans (N. J. Ch.) 57 Atl. 872. I held in that suit that complainant, having alleged in the bill that he was substituted administrator of his brother, John H. Evans (one of the beneficiaries under the Rees Evans will), was, in his capacity as such administrator, a party to that suit for the purposes of the accounting of the Rees Evans trust estate. I further held, on the authorities cited, that all beneficiaries under the Rees Evans trust should be parties to that suit, in order that there might be but one accounting, which would bind all parties. So far, therefore, as complainant's claim in this case is based on or requires an accounting of the property or income received by John C. Evans, as trustee of the Rees Evans estate, since his last accounting in 1897, it should be enforced or included in the other suit, and 1 consider it to be so included. Complainant's right to an accounting against John O. Evans, administrator for the Rees Evans estate, unaccounted for by John C. Evans, is an equitable right, and one which is to be asserted in a single suit against both the surviving trustee and the representative of the deceased trustee who have failed to account to the surviving trustee. This equitable right of complainant is entirely separate and distinct from his right to the personal estate of John H. Evans as substituted administrator under the statute of 1901 (P. L. p. 304) § 3. To this estate of John H. Evans complainant has legal as well as equitable title by the statute; and the right of recovery from defendant Mary F. Evans, as the personal representative of John C. Evans, the deceased administrator of John H. Evans, is based on the substituted administrator's own title under the statute, and is not a mere equitable claim, to be asserted under the right of another, who is bound to assert it for the beneficiaries. This is the case in the claim to an accounting of the Rees Evans trust estate, where the surviving trustee must for this reason be a party to the accounts, and as having the right, perhaps, to require any payment directed by final decree to be made to her for the purpose of paying over to complainant and the other persons equitably entitled.
This bill asks such accounting of the income received for the Rees Evans trust by John C. Evans in his lifetime, and Mary A. Evans, the surviving trustee, is a party, but the surviving trustee has no interest whatever in the personal estate of the deceased beneficiary (John H. Evans) which actually came to the hands of his administrator, John C. Evans, after the death of John H. Evans, nor has the accounting for such estate received any necessary connection with the accounting for the amount due the Rees Evans trust estate. When the accounting of the Rees Evans estate is completed, it is possible that Mary A. Evans, the surviving trustee, may, as surviving trustee, be a creditor of John A. Evans, as trustee, and may hold this claim for the complainant and any other persons interested in the estate of Rees Evans; but this is not a creditors' bill for the administration of the estate of John C; Evans, the deceased trustee. The two claims of complainant are thus distinct in character, derived under separate interests, and in any suit for enforcement require different parties. In the absence, therefore, of any special circumstances set out in the bill showing the necessity or propriety of including both accountings in one suit, the bill must be held multifarious, and the demurrer must be sustained for that reason.