London v. . Pelchenan

OoNNon, J. Joseph Arlicb died 15 September, 1925. A paper-writing was thereafter probated in common form as bis last will and testament by tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina. By bis said last will and testament tbe said Joseph Arlicb devised and bequeathed all bis property, real and personal, to the trustee named therein, to be held and disposed of by said trustee in accordance witb tbe terms and provisions of tbe trust created By tbe said Josepb Arlicb in bis said last will and testament. No part of bis property was devised or bequeathed in said last will and testament to persons who are bis beirs at law or distributees. Tbe executors named in said last will and testament have qualified for tbe performance of tbeir duties and are now engaged in tbe administration of tbe estate of tbeir testator. Serious questions have been raised by persons who claim to be tbe beirs at law and distributees of tbe estate of Joseph Arlicb, deceased, touching tbe validity of said last will and testament, and also affecting its construction. Tbe executors and tbe testamentary trustee have entered into negotiations witb such persons, and have agreed, subject to tbe approval of tbe court, upon a settlement of these questions. Tbis settlement bas been reduced to writing and in tbis action is submitted to tbe court for its approval. Tbe defendants in tbis action are all tbe beneficiaries of tbe trust created by tbe will, and all the beirs at law and distributees of tbe testator. Tbe court upon consideration of tbe facts found By it, rendered judgment approving tbe settlement made By tbe executors witb tbe beirs at law, and distributees of tbeir testator, and also approving tbe administration of tbe estate by tbe executors involved in said settlement. Tbe only question presented on tbe appeal of plaintiffs to this-'Court is whether tbe court bas jurisdiction of tbe action. Tbis question is *227 answered in the affirmative upon tbe authority of our decision in Trust Co. v. Lentz, 196 N. C., 398, 143 S. E., 776. In that case it is said: “Tbe right of the plaintiff to bring this action and to seek the advice of the court on an existing state of facts, upon which a decree or some directions in the nature of a decree may be founded, is supported by a number of decisions, notably Balsley v. Balsley, 116 N. C., 472, 21 S. E., 594; Tyson v. Tyson, 100 N. C., 360, 6 S. E., 707; Little v. Thorne, 93 N. C., 69, and Tayloe v. Bond, 45 N. C., 5. We have read the judgment rendered in this action. It is well considered, and is in all respects Affirmed.