Stieff v. Collins

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The testator John Eschbach directed his executors to sell so much of his real or personal property as might be necessary for the payment of his debts. The rest and residue of his estate, he devised to his sons Leo and John, in trust. — First, to ascertain the amounts advanced, to his several sons, and daughters and sons-in-law, the said amounts so ascertained to be added to his estate, and the entire estate to be then divided into ten equal parts, the number of his children. This division he directed to be made by three persons to be appointed by a Court, having jurisdiction over trust estates.

To each child he gave one share, the said share to be charged however with all advances made to such child. The language of the will being “each of my sons to have one share, and to be charged with advances made or to be made to him, and so with the shares of the daughters.” He gave to his sons Leo and John, their shares absolutely, and to his other children, he gave a life estate in the shares thus devised to them, with remainders to their children. In the quantity of estate no distinction was made among the children, each was to have the one-tenth. Leo and John having declined to act as executors and trustees, the appellees were appointed administrators with the will annexed, and trustees in their place. ⁷² Pending the administration of the estate, the administrators were sued on a bond of John, one of the sons, in which the testator was the surety, and judgment was recovered in the Circuit Court of the United States for the sum of $10,961.52.

Prom this judgment an appeal was entered, with the full understanding however among the children of the testator that the appeal should not delay the division of the estate, but that a sufficient sum should be impounded to satisfy the judgment in the event of its affirmance. In