Holmes v. Hrobo

103 N.E.2d 845 (1950)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Holmes was the trustee under the will of Thomas. Holmes sought instructions concerning the administration of the trust. Thomas died testate in 1938 leaving the residue to Holmes, his attorney for many years in trust to pay to his widow, Mae. This was to come from his laundry and a codicil authorized continuation of any business of the testator and added the wish that his laundry business would be continued as long as it was profitable. On the death of Mae, the trust was to be terminated and distributed to the testator's legal heirs. The laundry business was worth about $75,000. During the period until 1946, the widow, who had remarried got $33,000 annually for a total of $260,000. In September 1946 she demanded additional money including the amounts expended for the purchase of five competing businesses and the purchase of machinery and other capital expenditures. These demands were in excess of $302,000. The referee held that the business was to be run as a good business should be run and to reinvest some of the gross profits in expansion of the business and that basically the trustee could do anything necessary to operate a successful business. This appeal resulted.