IN RE SEARIGHT'S ESTATE 37 Ohio App. 417, 95 N.E.2d 779 (1950)


Procedure: Proceeding in the matter of the estate of George P. Searight, deceased. The Probate Court determined that inheritance taxes were payable in certain manner under provisions in will of deceased that deceased's dog was bequeathed to certain person and that executor should deposit $1000 to be used by him to pay person to whom dog was bequeathed, at rate of 75 cents a day for keep and care of dog as long as it should live, and the Department of Taxation of Ohio appealed, and was opposed by one Miller, executor, under the will of the deceased.

Facts: Testator bequeathed his dog to Hand He directed his executor to deposit 1,000 in a bank account, and to pay Hand for the upkeep of the dog from the account If the dog dies before the money was used up, the unused portion was to be distributed to several named individuals in equal shares At the time of Testator's death. Hand, the alternate beneficiaries, and the dog were all living Hand took the dog, and the executor began paying her for its upkeep

Issue: Is the creation of a trust for the benefit of a specific animal the proper subject of honorary trust?

Rule: A bequest for the care of a specific animal is an "honorary trusl," thai is, one binding the conscience of the trustee, since there is no beneficiary capable of enforcing the trust. The modern authorities uphold the validity of such gifts where the person to whom the power is given is willing lo carry out the testator's wishes.

Holding: The Court of Appeals, Hunsicker, J., held that the bequest created an honorary trust that was valid and that was not subject to inheritance taxes.

Analysis: It is also important to note that the bequest does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities. It is to be noted that unless a trust established for specific animals limits the duration of the trust—that is, the time during which the power is to be exercised—to human lives, we will have honorary trusts established for animals of great longevity that possibly could continue longer than the maximum period allowed by the Rule Against Perpetuities. Here, however, the rule is not violated since the money given for the purpose of caring for the animal is limited lo $1,000 at 75e per day. This sum of money will be fully exhausted in three years and 238 1/3 days. It is thus apparent that the testator provided a lime limit for (he exercise of the power given to the executor and that such time limit is less than the maximum period allowed under the Rule Against Perpetuities.