holding settlor-beneficiary was bound by terms of trust, even though its spendthrift provision was ineffective as against his creditors
How later courts described this case
- holding settlor-beneficiary was bound by terms of trust, even though its spendthrift provision was ineffective as against his creditors
- "the trust is valid but the spendthrift clause is void as to the present and future creditors"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Petition for Rehearing.
In the latter part of December — shortly after our opinion in this case came down— appellee filed a petition for rehearing which now, upon due consideration, we think must be denied. One point is made in the petition, however, which we think proper to notice. Appellees state we were in error in assuming that the trust in issue was made subsequent to the proceedings for divorce brought by Mrs. Hicks against her husband. And also that we were in error in saying that Hicks made two trust agreements, the one in Wisconsin and the one in issue in t'he present suit.
As to all of this it is enough to say that, granted we were mistaken in the respects mentioned, neither error is or is claimed to be in any degree material or in any way affects the conclusions announced in our opinion. And to this we think it proper to add that the case was heard below and by us on the pleadings, and that we took the two statements 'from the facts pleaded in the answer of the guardian ad litem which, in the respects mentioned, were never challenged.
Petition denied.