Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 Wis. 94 - Mathiowetz v. Stack

Mathiowetz v. Stack’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
6
states following
January 1960
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 1960

14 state decisions

701935194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Jones Trustee Etc. v. Carpenter · Cowie v. Strohmeyer · In re John's Will · Barron v. Whiteside · Upham v. Plankinton

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The power exercised by courts of equity to enforce the administration of trusts is a supervisory power. It is exerted to carry out the intention of the settlor. Courts of equity will do all within their power to see that the trust is executed in accordance with its terms.” (p. 102.) “From the beginning, for the reasons stated, courts exercising equity powers have been charged with the duty of taking such action upon their own motion as was necessary to carry out the intention of the creator of the trust. From the very nature of things the continuation of a trust is often burdensome to the trustee and to the beneficiaries present and remote, and for that reason all sorts of devices have been resorted to in an effort to move courts of equity to modify the terms of the trust or, as in this instance, to terminate it. The courts have, on the other hand, refused to yield to the importunities of interested parties, and save for some well-established exceptions require the trustee to administer the trust in the manner laid down by the settlor. If the trustee refuse or fail the court will appoint another trustee. “In no jurisdiction perhaps have courts adhered more firmly to these fundamental principles than in the state of Wisconsin.” (pp. 98, 99.) Will of Stack, 217 Wis. 94 , 258 N. W. 324 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The conduct of the petitioners is not wholly equitable. The tax was based on the rate applicable to next of kin of the deceased. Without making any allocation whatever, peti tioners now seek to- apply the highest brackets applicable in cases of trust property and deduct the whole amount SO' ascertained from the amount paid. This would leave them with much less than their proportionate share of the taxes. This is hardly an equitable method of apportioning the tax. If an advantage has been derived as against the United States and the state oí Wisconsin because the tax was assessed upon a basis which now appears to have been wrong, an equitable apportionment would require that the trust res be assigned its share of the advantage.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““We find no warrant in the law under the circumstances of this case for establishing a lien upon the trust res in favor of petitioners. • It is claimed that a lien arises by reason of sec. 72.07. This section authorizes an executor to sell property to pay inheritance taxes, but it makes no provision for a lien. We find nothing in the section from which it can be inferred that where the taxes are paid without a sale a lien upon the property which might have been sold arises.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.