CAVENDER 'V. CAVENDER.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Mi88ouri; September 23, ISS!.)
The purpose of a general replication is to put in issue the new matter set forth in the answer.
SAME-EFFECT OF GENERAL DENIAL All TO ADMISSIONll IN ANSWER.
A complainant does not deprive himself of the benefit 'of admissions in the respondent's answer by a general denial of the allegations thereof.
Where a devise is alleged in the bill and admitted in the answer, it is not necessary, though proper, for the complainant to produce the wIll in evidence.
4. TRUSTS-DuTY OF TRUSTEE-lNVE!I',l'MENT OF FuND-NEGLECT OF DUTy-INBOLVENCy-REMOVAL-ApPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEE-HIs DUTms.
In Equity. T. A.. If H. M. Post, for complainant. John R. Shepley, Lucien Eaton, and J.,S. Garland, for defenda,nts. MCCRARY, C. J. We have considered this case upon the evidence and argument of counsel, and our conclusions are as follows: 1. The pleadings sufficiently show that John Cavender bequeathed one·half of his estate, after the payment of his debts, to respondent in trust for complainant during his natural life, to be invested in real or personal securities, and the income to be paid to the complainant v.8/no.9-41
semi-annually. This is distinctly alleged in the bill, and as distinctly admitted in the answer..::,·i[t:-istrne that:the answer contains an averment that, by,tlle,t.e;-.wa Clf,the will, after the successively of the life estates of complainant and Caroline M., his wife, in the trust property, such: ;pr9perty: will de S,c end to responde,nt and heirs fee-simple forever, discharged of the trust; but this allegation is immaterial, since we are now asked to deal with the income of tha trust fund Qnly dudngthenatural life of the'cbniplainant. Nor does the fact that there is a general denial of the allegations of the answer by complainant's replication deprive him of. the benefits of the a;dmisslons cciht'a,ined in the answer. The purpose of the general replitlation is to put in issue any new matter set forth in the answer. It does not nullify the effect of an admission in the answer of an allegation of the bill. While it would have been proper to have produced the will in evi. dence, and we think it· would have been better if he had done so, we are constrained to"hold that respondent is hound by the admissions of his answer,and tha,t they are broad enough to relieve complainant the necessity of producing will itself. ' 2. We are of the opinion that the proof sufficiently shows that reo spondent JohnS. Cavender, as executor oithe will of John Cavender deceased, stood charged, in his 0fficial capacity, in the sum of $17,169AO, which sum, on' the twenty-third of April, 1879, he turned over to himself as trustee for the complainant under said will, and executed a receipt therefor from himself as trustee to himself as executor; that upon filing aaid receipt in the probate court of the city of St. Louis, and' upon giving band and ,security approved by said court for the faithft!-l' administration af saM' was' by the said probate court, on,the thirtieth day of April; 1879, discharged as executor, and stood charged for that amount as trustee. All these facts appear in the certified transcript of proceedings of said probate court, including a certified copy of the said receipt, bond, and discharge, and by the deposition of; McEntire, the deputy clerk, of said court, who testified that said papers are true copies of the originals on file and of entries made upon the record 'of said probate court. There is 'no' testimony tending to show that the said final receipt and bond were not in fact executed by respondent, nor that the transcript is nota true copy of the original record and of the papers filed in the course of the proceedings in .the probate court. The proof hefora us, if not oonclusive, is certainly prima facie ,evidence of the facts relied upon by the complainant..
PERRY V. PH<ENIX ASSURANCE CO.
3. This fund of $17,169.40 came into the hands of the respondent, as trustee, on the thirtieth day of April, 1879, and it was his duty, within a reasonable time, to invest it aLthe current rate of. interest, and to pay the income thererromsemi"annually to the complainant. He has, for more than two· years, neglected to do either; and he admits, in his testimony, that he. is insolvent. It is clearly the duty of the court, under such circumstances, to remove him from his trusteeship, and to appoint some suitabl-e person, whose duty it will be to. proceed to collect, from hiD'). and the sureties on his bond, the saId sum, with interest from the time it came into his hands. The interest, when collected, will be payable to complainant; the principal will be, by the.,trustee, invested at current rate of interest, as provided by 'thewill,and the semi-annual income will be by the trustee: paid to the complainant. 4. It appears in evidence that there is certain real estate in the.' county of , Illinois, which belongs to the estate of John der, deceased, the one-half of the income of which heretofore received by the respondent, if any, and also one-half of its income in the future, is payable to the complainant. It will be the duty of the trustee to proceed to collect from respondent and his sureties one-half of any income he .may have received from said real estate since the thirtieth day of April, 1879, and also to take measures to recover hereafter the portion or the income from said real estate which properly belongs to the complainant, and to pay the same over to him. Let decree be entered accordingly.
PERRY V. PH<ENIX ASSURANCE
(Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.
PnECEDENT-GENERAL A V"ElRlImNTB-DEMURRER. In an action on a policy of fire insurance, where the terms of the policy are set out in the declaration, and there is a failure to aver specific performance of conditions precedent, held, that the declaration is demurrable. Hdd,also, that the defect is not cured by a general averment of performance by the plaintiffs .' of all things by them to be performed.
"Demurrer. 'F. W. Miner, Wm. J. Roellcer, ThQ1J1,Ila A Jenelces, and Chas. A. ' Wilson, for plaintiffs. Beach d: Allen, for defendant