Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Spencer v. De Witt C. Hay Library Ass'n 36 Misc. 393

← Cases

Spencer v. De Witt C. Hay Library Ass'n

36 Misc. 393 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by McAdam, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 393
Harold E. Spencer, as Administrator with, the Will Annexed of Marietta P. Hay, Plaintiff, v. The De Witt C. Hay Library Association of the Town of Caldwell et al., Defendants.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
November, 1901.)

Headnote

Corporation — Restrictions on power of religious and educational to take — L. 1893, ch. 701 —Legacy, when general — Residuary estate.
Corporations organized under L.' 1848, ch. 319, and 1875, ch. 343, cannot take a devise or bequest from a testatrix who dies within two months after executing the will containing the devise or bequest.
An unlimited bequest to a corporation, incorporated “ to cremate the human dead in the quickest, best and most economical manner,” and authorized to that end to take by devise or bequest “ land, tracts, buildings, machinery, rights or chattels,” may be sustained as a gift for its corporate purposes.
A trust to purchase, with the income, books and works of art for the “ Pickering and White Library and Chime Tower,” for the care and repair of the same and to aid in playing the bells of the tower, the tower being a part of a church, may be susained, under L. 1893, ch. 701, as gifts to objects educational and religious, but a direct bequest, to the library, tower and bells, cannot be sustained as there are no such persons, natural or artificial, in existence.
The restriction of L. 1848, ch. 319, § 6, does not affect corporations organized under L. 1895, ch. 559.
A legacy, in so far as it consists of securities, is general and not specific.
Under a general residuary clause illegal bequests fall into the residuum and void bequests of the residuum pass to the next of kin.
Action for the construction of the will of Marietta P. Hay.
Weil & Weil, for plaintiff.
Robert Imrie, for De Witt C. Hay Library Association.
Redding, Kiddle & Greeley, for H S. Cremation Co., Limited.
C. S. & C. C. Lester, for Saratoga Hospital.
De Forest Brothers, for N. Y. Infirmary for Women and Children.
p. 394
Rogers, Atwell & Rogers, for Camp, Trustee, and Presbyterian Society of Sachet Harbor, N. Y.
W. J. Townsend, for Tarry town Historical Society.
O. F. & P. P. Davis (Oscar Englander, of counsel), for Mary G. Ames.
W. De Graff, for Amy Beach Ewers.
Robert Imrie, guardian ad litem for Daniel Ferguson Imrie, an infant.

The plaintiff asks for a construction of the will of Marietta P. Hay. The will is dated December 27, 1900, and the testatrix died February 13, 1901. The defendants, De Witt C. Hay Library Association, the Saratoga Hospital and the Hew York Infirmary for Women and Children, are among the beneficiaries named by the testatrix. As these corporations were organized under statutes (Laws of 1848, chap. 319, § 6; Laws of 1875, chap. 343, § 5) prohibiting 'them from taking devises or bequests made in wills executed less than two months before the death of the testator, the bequests made to them-must fail. See Stephenson v. Short, 92 N. Y. 433 ; Hollis v. Drew Theological Seminary, 95 id. 166. The charter of defendant united States Cremation Company, Limited, provides that the company may take by devise or bequest “ land, tracts, buildings, machinery, rights or chattels ” for the purposes of incorporation or any of them; and the purpose of incorporation is “ to cremate the human dead in the quickest, best and most economical manner.” Although the testatrix, in making the bequest to said corporation, did not in any manner limit the gift, it would seem a fair implication that the gift was made for corporate purposes. If this conclusion is correct, the legacy to said corporation is valid. The testatrix .gave certain property in trust forever, the income to be used for the purchase of new books and works of art “ for the Pickering and White Library and Chime Tower, and care of the same and for no other purpose whatever ”; and also gave other property in trust, the income each year to be used “ to keep chime tower and bells in good condition and aid in playing said bells

p. 395
at Sacket Harbor, N. Y.” It appears that the tower referred to is part of the church of the Sachet’s Harbor Presbyterian Society. Prior to the enactment of chapter 701 of the Laws of 1893, there is no doubt that these trusts designed by the testatrix would be invalid. The Court of Appeals has held (Allen v. Stevens, 161 N. Y. 122 ) that the act named has restored the ancient law touching charitable uses for indefinite beneficiaries, and under such liberal construction the trusts made by the testatrix are valid. The objects of the trusts are educational and religious within the meaning of the statute of 1893. The bequests to the Tarrytown Historical Society are also valid. This new society was organized for the express purpose of receiving the bounty of the testatrix, and there is not the slightest doubt that the testamentary dispositions were made for its benefit. The question raised as to the existence of the old corporation ought not to defeat the gift. The restriction of the act of 1848 (chap. 319, § 6) does not affect corporations organized under chapter 559 of the Laws of 1895. Matter of Lampson, 161 N. Y. 511 ; Pritchard v. Kirsch, 58 App. Div. 332 . The testatrix bequeathed a part of her residuary estate directly to “ Pickering White Library and Chime Tower and Bells at Sachet’s Harbor, Hew York.” There is no such person or persons, either natural or artificial, as the said library and tower and bells. Even under the liberal construction given by the Court of Appeals to the act of 1893 before referred to, it does not seem that this disposition can be upheld, and it must be declared invalid. The gifts to Amy Beach Ewers, Mary G. Ames, Daniel Ferguson Lome and Rosetta Beaman are valid. The legacies to United States Cremation Company, Limited, Tarrytown Historical Society, Allen C. Beach and Walter B. Camp, trustees; Mary G. Ames, Rosetta Beaman, and to Amy Beach Ewers, in so far as the same consist of securities, are general legacies. Tifft v. Porter, 8 N. Y. 518 ; Holt v. Jex, 48 Hun, 528 ; Newton v. Stanley, 28 N. Y. 61 : Brundage v. Brundage, 60 id. 544; Matter of Van Vliet, 5 Misc. Rep. 169 . Under the general residuary clause of the will, the illegal bequests fall into the residuary estate (Booth v. Baptist Church, 126 N. Y. 215 ; Matter of Benson, 96 id. 499; Riker v. Cornwell, 113 id. 115), and the void bequests to residuary legatees go to the next of kin. Settle decree on notice.

Judgment accordingly.

Cases cited