Gilman v. Bell
1881 Ill. LEXIS 159, 99 Ill. 144 (1881)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity will not compel the donee of a power of appointment to exercise that power for the benefit of their creditors, as an unexercised power does not grant the donee any title or property interest that can be subject to claims.
Facts:
- Solomon Bell created a will, which he later modified with a codicil.
- The codicil devised property to Ellen L. Bell to hold in trust for the natural life of her husband, Robert B. Bell.
- Upon Robert B. Bell's death, the property was to be conveyed to his heirs at law.
- The codicil contained a provision stating that if Robert B. Bell, during his lifetime, requested Ellen L. Bell to convey the property to himself or any other person, she was required to comply.
- Robert B. Bell has never exercised this power to request conveyance of the property to himself.
- An appellant holds an unsatisfied monetary judgment against Robert B. Bell.
Procedural Posture:
- A judgment for $1000 was rendered against Robert B. Bell (appellee) in the Superior Court of Cook county.
- Appellant purchased the judgment.
- An execution on the judgment was issued and returned 'no property found.'
- Appellant filed a bill in a court of equity (chancery) seeking to subject property from Solomon Bell's will to the payment of the judgment.
- Appellee filed a demurrer to the bill, arguing it was legally insufficient.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed appellant's bill.
- Appellant appealed the dismissal to this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court of equity have the authority to compel a debtor, who is the donee of a power of appointment over property, to exercise that power in favor of himself or his creditors to satisfy a judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Walker
No. A court of equity cannot compel a debtor to exercise a power of appointment for the benefit of creditors. The will grants Robert B. Bell a mere naked power to acquire an interest, not an actual property interest itself. Following long-established English common law, a court of equity will not aid creditors in a case of non-execution of a power. The court distinguishes this from cases of defective execution or cases where the power is executed in favor of a volunteer, where equity might intervene. Until the power is exercised, the donee has no title or interest in the property; it is merely an offer that he can accept or reject at will. To compel acceptance for the benefit of creditors would be to convert the donor's property into payment for the donee's debts, which a court of equity will not do.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional common law distinction between a property interest and a mere power of appointment. It establishes that potential control over an asset is not equivalent to ownership for the purpose of satisfying creditors' claims. The ruling protects a donor's intent and reinforces the principle that a power is a personal choice of the donee, not an asset that can be forcibly seized. This precedent would require creditors to wait until a debtor actually exercises such a power before they can attempt to claim the resulting property.
Unlock the full brief for Gilman v. Bell