Spendthrift

A person who, by excessive drinking, gaming, idleness, or debauchery of any kind, shall so spend, waste, or lessen his estate as to expose himself or his family to want or suffering, or expose the town to charge or expense for the support of himself or family. Rev. St. Vt. c. 65, § 9.

A person who, by excessive drinking, gaming, idleness, or debauchery of any kind, shall so spend, waste, or lessen his estate as to expose himself or his family to want or suffering, or expose the town to charge or expense for the support of himself or family. Vt. Rev. Stat. c. 65, § 9. A person having the entire right to dispose of property may settle it or give it by will in trust for another, with the provision that the income shall not be alienated by the beneficiary by anticipation, or be taken by his creditors in advance of its payment to him, although there is no cesser or limitation over of the estate in such an event; Broadway Nat. Bk. v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170, 43 Am. Rep. 504; Baker v. Brown, 146 Mass. 369, 15 N. E. 783; Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523, 24 L. Ed. 264; Pope’s Ex’rs v. Elliott, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 56; Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 33; Merriman v. Munson, 134 Pa. 114, 19 Atl. 479, 21 Atl. 171: White’s Ex’rs v. White, 30 Vt 338; Garland v. Garland, 87 Ya. 758, 13 S. E. 478, 1.3 L. R. A. 212, 21 Am. St. Rep. 682: Spindle v. Shrove, 4 Fed. 136; Roberts v. Stevens, 84 Me. 325, 24 Atl. 873, 17 L. R. A. 266; Jotirolmon v. Massengill, 86 Tenn. 81, 5 S. W. 719; Wood v. Mc Clelland (Tex.) 53 S. W. 381; Merchants’ Nat. Bk. v. Crist, 140 Iowa 308, 118 N. W. 394, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 526, 132 Am. St. Rep. 267; Jackson Square Loan & Savings Ass’n v. Bartlett, 95 Md. 661, 53 Atl. 426, 93 Am. St. Rep. 416; Seymour v. Mo Avoy, 121 Cal. 438, 53 Pac. 946, 41 L. R. A. 514; Bennett v. Bennett, 66 111. App. 28; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 *Mo. 515, 88 S. W. 00. 107 Am. St. Hep. 308, 3 Ann. Cas. 1005. Contra, Hutchinson v. Maxwell, 100 Va. 169, 40 S. E. 655, 57 L. R. A. 3S4, 93 Am. St. Rep. 944; Nelson v. Nelson, 2 Ky. Law Rep. 64. The doctrine rests upon the principle of eujus cst dare, ejus cat disponcrc; it has regard solely to the rights of the donor; consideration for the beneficiary docs not in the remotest way enter into it; Morgan’s Estate, 223 Pa. 228, 72 Atl. 498, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 236, 132 Am. St, Rep. 732. Where property is devised in trust for a testator’s son and his family, the profits to be applied to the extent the trustee sees fit, judgment creditors of the son cannot reach the property or its income; Brooks v. Raynolds, 59 Fed. 923, 8 C. C. A. 370. An absolute discretion vested in trustees to make payments out of trust property confers no interest on the beneficiary that can Ed. 254, where the court sustained the doctrine of trusts of this class in a forcible argument. The income of a spendthrift trust Is not subject to the claim of the spendthrift's creditors, even though there is no express provision therefor; Seymour v. Mc Avoy, 121 Cal. 438, 53 Pac. 946, 41 L. R. A. 544; where the beneficiary’s mother was his creditor, her executor could not apply the income to extinguish the debt; In re Temple, 36 Misc. Rep. 620, 74 N. Y. Supp. 479; the income of a spendthrift trust cannot be attached for the maintenance of the beneficiary’s wife and child whom he has deserted; Board of Charities v. Lockard, 198 Pa. 572, 48 Atl. 496, 82 Am. St. Hep. 817; but equity will enforce a physician’s claim for services rendered to a spendthrift who habitually indulged in alcoholic excesses; Sherman v. Skuse, 45 App. Div. 335, GO N. Y. Supp. 1030; id., 166 N. Y. 345, 59 N. E 990. The instrument need not call the cestui quc trust a spendthrift, nor is it necessary that it shall contain all the specifications and qualifications incident to such a trust. If it appear that the donor or testator intended a spendthrift trust, that is enough. The court will not inquire whether he is a spendthrift; Wagner v. Wagner, 244 111. 101, 91 N. E. 66, IS Ann. Cas. 490; it is not necessary to provide expressly that the income shall not be subject to execution in order to create a spendthrift trust; First Nat. Bank of Nashville v. Trust Co. (Tenn.) 62 S. W. 392; nor need there be a devise over after the beneficiary's death; Minnich’s Estate, 206 Pa. 405, 55 Atl. 1067. Where the testator permits trustees to pay income in their discretion, and provides for accumulation, it is a valid spendthrift trust; Mason v. Trust Co., 78 Conn. 81, 61 Atl. 57, 3 Ann. Cas. 586; Sterling v. Ives, 78 Conn. 49S, 62 Atl. 948; and so where the executors are to hold the trust and pay only such part of it as they shall deem necessary for the beneficiary’s support and on his death to pay the remainder to his heirs; Russell v. Hilton, SO App. Div. 178, SO N. Y. Supp. 563, affirmed in 175 N. Y. 525, 67 N. E. 1089. A party can not by conveying his property in trust, reserving to himself the income thereof during his life, with remainder over, place his beneficial interest beyond the reach of creditors; Sclienck v. Barnes, 156 N. Y. 316, 50 N. E. 967, 41 L. R. A. 395; Wenzel v. Powder, 100 Md. 36, 59 Atl. 194, 108 Am. St. Rep. 380; Pacific Nat. Bank v. Windram, 133 Mass. 175. One cannot create a spendthrift trust of his own property for his own benefit; Appeal of Mackason, 42 Pa. 330, 82 Am. Dec. 517. Nor can there be a valid spendthrift subject of the trust; Appeal of Mackason, 42 Pa. 330, 82 Am. Dec. 517; Wanner v. Snyder, 177 Pa. 208, 35 Atl. 604; Pacific Nat Bank v. Wind ram, 133 Mass. 175. A trust to place one’s property beyond the reach of creditors, while retaining full enjoyment of the income, through the instrumentality of a trustee, cannot be created by a married woman or a woman in contemplation of marriage: Brown v. Mc Gill, 87 Md. 161, 39 Atl. 613, 39 L. R. A. 806, 67 Am. St Rep. 334. A married woman may,' however, make a valid spendthrift trust in favor of her husband; Wanner v. Snyder, 177 Pa. 208, 35 Atl. G04. Upon a petition in equity by a wife living separate from her husband, who was the beneficiary under a spendthrift trust, a decree was made, by the consent of the husband and in pursuance of an agreement between them, directing the trustee to pay to the wife the portions of the income according to the terms of the agreement. Afterwards a bill of review was filed by the husband seeking to annul the decree; the appellate court reversed the decree of the lower court annulling the original decree and reinstated the latter, but upon the ground that the bill of review was not filed for more than two years; Holloway v. Deposit' & Trust Co., 122 Md. 620, 90 Atl. 95. In [1895] A. C. 186, it was regarded as settled law that one taking a vested legacy is entitled to receive it as soon as he can make a valid discharge although there was a declaration to accumulate. This appears to be the opposite from a spendthrift trust In Shelton v. King, 229 U. S. 90, 33 Sup. Ct. 686, 57 L. Ed. 10S6, the court refused to follow this rule, preferring the contrary rule adopted In Claflin v. Claflin, 149 Mass. 19, 20 N. E. 454, 3 L. R. A. 370, 14 Am. St. Rep. 393, which sustained a gift to a son at 21 and a like kum at 25 and the residue at 30 years of age. The trust was sustained. If the cestui quc trust is given an absolute right to the fund or its avails (as a right to occupy land and take its income) or if land is conveyed to him on condition that it shall not be subject to his debts, it is not a spendthrift trust; Kessner v. Thillips, 189 Mo. 515,

A person who by excessive drinking, gaming, idleness or debauchery of any kind shall so spend, waste or lessen his estate as to expose himself or his family to want or suffering or expose the town to charge or expense for the support of himself or family. Rev. StVt. c. 65, § 9; Appeal of Morey, 57 N. H. 54. The word "spendthrift," in all the provisions relating to guardians and wards, contained in this or any other statute, ls intended to include every person who is liable to be put under guardianship, on account of excessive drinking, gaming, idleness, or debauchery. How. St. Mich. 1882, § 6340.

— Spendthrift trust. A term commonly applied to those trusts which are created with a view of providing a fund for the maintenance of another, and at the same time securing it against his improvidence or incapacity for his protection. Provisions against alienation of the trust fund by the voluntary act of the beneficiary or by his creditors are the usual incidents. Bennett v. Bennett, 66 III. App. 28; Guernsey v. Lazear, 51 W. Va. 328, 41 S. E. 405.

See Committee; Trust, 1.