The nature of the debtor's interest in the trust property, under his father's will, was an equitable estate for life with a power of disposing of the remainder in fee by will; in default of such disposition, such remainder to be conveyed to his heirs at law; there being also a clause in the will against anticipation and alienation of the rents and profits during the debtor's life. It is quite clear, that it was the intention of the testator to make an alimentary provision for his son during life, which should give him all the advantages of an estate in fee, without the legal incidents of such an estate, alienability, unless by will, and subjectiveness to the payment of the son's debts. Such restraints, however, are so opposed to the nature of property - and so far as subjectiveness to debts is concerned, to the honest policy of the law - as to be totally void, unless, indeed, which is not the case here, in the event of its being attempted to be aliened, or seized for debts, it is given over by the testator to some one else. This has been the settled doctrine of a court of chancery, at least since Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429; and in application to such a case as this, is so honest and just that we would not change it if we could. Certainly, no man should have an estate to live on, but not an estate to pay his debts with. Certainly, property available for the purposes of pleasure or profit, should be also amenable to the demands of justice.1

1 This case lays down the settled rule as to restraints (not involving forfeiture) upon the alienation of legal life estates. Of course there exists here, as in the case of fees, an exception in favor of married women having a separate estate, legal or equitable, subject to a restraint on alienation. See Fears v. Brooks, supra, p. 571. See Gray's "Restraints on Alienation," §§ 134, 140. The cases which follow are intended to indicate the conflict of authority as to the validity of such restraints in the case of trusts where the interest of the bene-ciary is in the nature of a life estate. - Ed.

Steib V. Whitehead

III Illinois, 247. - 1884.

Mulkey, J. - Asahel Gridley, by his last will and testament, devised to trustees certain valuable real estate, upon the following trusts, namely: "To keep said lands and tenements well rented; to make reasonable repairs upon the same; to pay promptly all taxes and assessments thereon; to keep the buildings thereon reasonably insured against damages by fire; to pay over all remaining rents and income in cash, into the hands of my said daughter, Juliet, in person, and not upon any written or verbal order, nor upon any assignment or transfer by the said Juliet. At the death of the said Juliet said trust estate shall cease and be determined, and the said lands shall vest in the heirs of the body of the said Juliet, and in default of such heirs, shall descend to the heirs of my body then living according to the laws of Illinois then in force regulating descents." After the death of Gridley, his will was duly probated, and no question is made as to its form, or the capacity of the testator to make a will. The trustees named in the will having refused to act, by a proper proceeding in chancery, William H. Whitehead the defendant in error, was duly appointed trustee in their stead, and thereupon took possession of the devised premises and otherwise assumed the duties of the trust. Certain moneys, being a part of the rents and profits of the estate, having come into his hands, as trustee, and which, under the provisions of the will, it was his duty to pay over to Juliet, the daughter, were attached in his hands by one of her creditors. The trustee appeared and filed an answer, as garnishee, setting up the trust and the special provisions of the will above cited, and the question presented for determination, is, whether the money thus held by him was subject to garnishment.

1 See also the early New York case of Bryan v. Knickerbacker 1 Barb. Ch. 409, decided on principles in force before the R. S. of 1828-30. North Carolina, Smith Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio and Kentucky also have decisions in accord with the case above. See Gray's Restraints, §§ 178-1901. This was also the English rule. For a summary statement of the English law, see Gray's Restraints, ;- 167J. - Ed.

The authorities are not in accord on this subject. Under the rule as laid down by the courts of England, and by the courts of final resort in a number of the States of the Union, the fund attached would clearly be subject, in equity, to the payment of the daughter's debts. Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R. I. 205; Smith v. Moore, 37 Ala. 330; Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. Eq. 46; Mcllvain v. Smith, 42 Mo. 45. A contrary rule prevails in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and perhaps other States, which seems to be supported by the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States in Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716. The question, so far as we are advised, is a new one in this court, and in view of the respectable authority to be found on either side of it, we feel at liberty to adopt that view which is nearest in accord with our convictions of right and a sound public policy.

That it was the intention of the testator to place the net income of the property beyond the control of his daughter and her creditors while in the hands of the trustee, is manifest, and we perceive no good reason, nor has any been suggested, why this intention should not be given effect. We fully recognize the general proposition that one cannot make an absolute gift or other disposition of property, particularly an estate in fee, and yet at the same time impose such restrictions and limitations upon its use and enjoyment as to defeat the object of the gift itself, for that would be, in effect, to give and not to give, in the same breath. Nor do we at all question the general principle that upon the absolute transfer of an estate, the grantor cannot, by any restrictions or limitations contained in the instrument of transfer, defeat or annul the legal consequences which the law annexes to the estate thus transferred. If, for instance, upon the transfer of an estate in fee, the conveyance should provide that the estate thereby conveyed should not be subject to dower or to curtesy, or that it should not descend to the heirs general of the grantee upon his dying intestate, or that the grantee should have no power of disposition over it, the provision, in either of these cases, would clearly be inoperative and void, because the act or thing forbidden is a right or incident which the law annexes to every estate in fee simple, and to give effect to such provisions would be simply permitting individuals to abrogate and annul the law of the State by mere private contract. This cannot be done. But while this unquestionably is true, it does not necessarily follow that a father may not, by will or otherwise, make such reasonable disposition of his property, when not required to meet any duty or obligation of his own, as will effectually secure to his child a competent support for life, and the most appropriate, if not the only, way of accomplishing such an object is through the medium of a trust. Yet a trust, however carefully guarded otherwise, would in many cases fall far short of the object of its creation, if the father, in such case has no power to provide against the schemes of designing persons, as well as the improvidence of the child itself. If the beneficiary may anticipate the income, or absolutely sell or otherwise dispose of the equitable interest, it is evident the whole object of the settlor is liable to be defeated. If, on the other hand, the author of the trust may say, as was done in this case, the net accumulations of the fund shall be paid only into the hands of the beneficiary, then it is clear the object of the trust can never be wholly defeated. Whatever the reverses of fortune may be, the child is provided for, and is effectually placed beyond the reach of unprincipled schemers and sharpers.