St. John v. Andrews Institute for Girls

This is an action by the executor of and trustee under the last will and testament of Wallace C. Andrews, deceased, for a construction of the will of their testator. The will was executed on the 12th day of November, 1891, and the testator died in the city of New York on the 7th day of April, 1899, leaving real property in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, and certain personal property. At the time he executed the will he had a wife living, and he designated her as an executrix of his will, but she perished with him in the destruction of her house, No. 2 East Sixty-Seventh street, New York, where they resided, by fire; and the trial court was unable to decide on the evidence whether she predeceased or survived him. The will was duly admitted to probate, as one competent to pass both real and personal property, by the surrogate of the county of New York on the 22d day of May, 1899. Letters testamentary were issued to the plaintiff as sole surviving executor on the 23d day of May, 1899, and he qualified and has ever since acted as executor and trustee under the will. The legatees, heirs, next of kin, and the Attorney General—the

■ The testator left no child, grandchild, or parent him surviving. In the first clause of the will he provided for the payment of his debts, funeral expenses, and the cost of administration, and certain specific legacies, depending on the value of his estate, to two sisters; and in the second clause devised the rest, residue, and remainder of his estate to his executors, in trust to collect the rents and income and pay the same over to his wife for life. Upon her death he, by the third clause, devised $500,000, if the estate should exceed that sum, and, if not, all the residue, one-fourth to each of two sisters, an eighth to another sister, an eighth to a niece, an eighth to Gamaliel C. St. John, brother to his wife, whom he appointed his executor, and an eighth to the wife of St. John; and by the fifth clause, “upon the death” of his wife, he “devised and bequeathed to-the corporation hereinafter directed to be formed, all the excess and residue” of his estate over the sum of $500,000 thereinbefore devised, as already stated. He then, in the sixth clause, provided for the formation of a corporation under the laws of Ohio by?" his executors to take the bequest; and in the succeeding clause pf the will provided that, in the event that his wife should predecease him, the bequest to the Ohio corporation to be created “shall take effect upon my death.” The executors, in fulfillment of the directions of the testator contained in the will, procured the incorporation of the Andrews Institute for Girls under the laws of Ohio on the 13th day óf May, 1902,'and the corporation organized and accepted the gift on the 29th of the same month. The legacies to Mr. and Mrs. St. John have not been paid. The residuary estate has not been distributed. Its value is about $1,300,000, and it is more than one-half of his entire estate. The testator further provided in the will that, should the bequest ,to the corporation to be formed under the laws of Ohio “because ’ of" illegality fail, or become impossible of realization, I then devise and bequeath the sum intended for it to the Smithsonian Institution * * * to be devoted to the -purposes for which it was established.” Georgie Boy den St. John, the wife of Gamaliel C. St. John, ■was also in the fire, and, although rescued alive, died soon after in consequence thereof.

The appellants, who are heirs and next of kin, or represent heirs or next of kin of the testator, contend, in the first place, that Mrs. St. .John did not survive the testator; that, therefore, the legacy to her never vested, and consequently her husband, as administrator, is not entitled thereto; and, further, that as to this part of his estate the testator died intestate. The trial court decided that she survived the testator, and that the legacy which vested in her goes, to he'r administrator. The first question to be decided, therefore, is this important question of fact as to whether she survived the testator. . Most of the evidence in the récord was read from another record of evidence taken before a referee in .the year 1902—nearly three years before this trial—on a hearing on an application of one of the next of kin to be made a party to the. accounting in the Surrogate’s Court, which was before this, court on a former appeal. Matter of St. John, 104 App,

The undisputed evidence shows that the testator and his wife perished in the destruction of the house by fire in the early morning of the 7th day of April, 1899, and that Mrs. St. John died within a few minutes after being rescued from the fire in an unconscious condition, and without having regained consciousness. Proof of these facts,' in the absence of evidence that Mrs. St. John survived the testator, was sufficient to establish that the legacy never vested in her, and that, unless otherwise devised or bequeathed under the will, it went to the next of kin of the testator. Newell v. Nichols et al., 13 Hun, 604 , affirmed 75 N. Y. 78 , 31 Am. Rep. 424 . Under the civil law there was a presumption of survivorship between those who perished in a common disaster, based upon sex and age, and in some jurisdictions there is such a presumption based upon physical condition and strength; but in England and in this and other states of the Union, where the common law prevails, no such presumption exists, nor is there a presumption that in such case death occurred to all at the same instant; and yet through necessity in the administration of - the law the title to real property passes and personal property is distributed as if .they all perished at the same instant of time, in the absence of proof of facts or circumstances tending to show survivorship among them. Wing v. Augram, 8 H. & L. 183; Wing v. Underwood. 4 De Gex, M. & G. 633; Newell v. Nichols, supra; Young Women’s Christian Home v. French, 187 U. S. 401 , 23 Sup. Ct. 184 , 47 L. Ed. 233 ; Coye et al. v. Leach, Adm’r, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 371, 41 Am. Dec. 518 ; Johnson v. Merithew, 80 Me. 111 , 13 Atl. 132 , 6 Am. St. Rep. 163 ; -Will of Abram Ehle, Estate of James A. Ehle, 73 Wis. 445 , 41 N. W. 637 . When, therefore, evidence was adduced showing that they all met death in the same conflagration, it was incumbent upon the administrator of Mrs. St. John, in order to entitle him to receive the legacy given to her under the will, to prove facts or circumstances tending to show that she survived the testator.; and the burden of proof of establishing this fact, upon which his right to the legacy 'depended, was upon -him. Newell v. Nichols, supra. It is to be borne in mind, however, in considering the evidence offered for this purpose, that the fact that they died as a result of a common conflagration raised no presumption of death at the same time, which the evidence offered in behalf of the administrator of Mrs. St. John must overcome. Proof of death in the common disaster left the case without any proof or presumption on the subject of survivorship, and the burden was on the administrator of Mrs. St. John, not to overcome any presumption, but to prove the fact of survivorship, the same as any other fact is required to be proved in the administration of the law. Newell v. Nichols, supra; Will of Abram Ehle, Estate of James A. Ehle, supra. In the Wisconsin case cited, where neither party was rescued from a fire or seen alive during the fire, a finding of survivorship was sustained based upon circumstantial evidence as to the course and violence of the conflagration. The learned trial justice in the case at bar found that the evidence established the.fact that Mrs. St. John survived the testa

The residence of the testator, in which the fire occurred, was the first house on the southerly side of Sixty-Seventh street east of Fifth avenue. It was about 27 feet in width and 80 feet in depth, with a rear extension, in addition, which extended up to the level of the third floor. The main building contained four stories, and an attic above the basement. The principal entrance was at the front and east. The vestibule opened into a hall nine feet in width, which led to the main stairway situated at the easterly side, about midway between the front and rear of the building. The library was directly west of this stairway, and separated from it by a hall into which it opened at the foot of the stairway, and it also opened into the dining room in the rear. The front room referred to by the witnesses and used as the parlor—on the diagram it is the library—opened into the library and into the hall between the vestibule and stairway. The main stairway only led to the third floor. Directly above the main stairway was a rectangular open space 19 feet in length, north and south, and 9 feet in width, extending to the roof, where it was covered by a large skylight. On the fourth floor the open space above the main stairway was enclosed by the wall of the building on the east and by semifireproof partitions of scantling, lath, and mortar six inches in thickness, extending to the attic, with a window in the south and north end, each feet wide and 5feet high, to light' the fourth floor from the skylight. The lower part of the house was originally of fireproof or semifireproof construction, but throughout the house to a considerable extent lincrusta walton, a highly combustible material, had been used in decorating and particularly on the partitions on the fourth floor, and the furnishings of the house were highly inflammable. The testator was 65 years of age, his wife 53, and Mrs. St. John 38, all in fairly good health. Some time before the fire occurred all of the occupants of the house had retired for the night. The testator slept in the middle room on the second floor, over the library. His wife slept in the rear room on the same floor. Mrs. St. John and her six year old son, Wallace, slept in the rear room on the third floor, and two other children of Mrs. St. John and two nurses occupied the middle and front rooms on that floor. Six female servants occupied separate rooms on the fourth floor. Of the 14 occupants of the house on that fatal night only two survived. Jennie Beirne, the laundress, who occupied a room toward the southwesterly and rear part of the house on the fourth floor, overlooking an extension connecting the house with the third house on Fifth avenue southerly from Sixty-Seventh street, which was owned by the testator, escaped by jumping from the window upon the extension, from which she was taken into the Fifth avenue

“T was burnt. All my right arm and my ears and nose and hair was slightly burnt. My right arm was burnt all the way up and the left arm a little. My nightdress was scorched, the sleeve was burned, but the other side, the right side, was scorched.”

She heard no other noise and felt kind of suffocated when she got out of bed, and thinks her arm was burned while standing at the window, but whether by flames from within or without she could not say, but the only place she saw flames was in the hall. The evidence shows that the entrance to Jennie Beirne’s room was about 12 feet southwesterly from the head of the servants’ stairway, and that of Alice White was 22 feet southerly from the head of said stairwa)r. It is undisputed that the charred remains of the testator were found on the fourth floor, but there is some conflict in the evidence as to the precise spot. Mc-Manus, one of the firemen who found the body, testified on the former proceeding that it was found in the hallway “right near the stairway” leading down to the third floor, and the court has so found. This fireman, when called to the stand on this trial and shown a diagram, indicated thereon that the body was found in the hallway Opposite the opening over the main stairway, and his testimony indicates that he supposed that the main stairway led to the fourth floor. Although the servants’ stairway between the third and fourth floors was substantially ’ burned away, sufficient remained to indicate where it had been, and part' of it was standing, and was observed. by one at least of the firemen who testified that the body was found 'near the head of the stairway. Moreover, acting Chief Parrel describes the place where the body was found.as-.in the hall ón-the .fourth .floor, .“at the -landing from the

Significance is sought to be attached to the language in which the testator aroused the servants; and it is urged that it indicates that he was on his way to the scuttle hole in the roof and called to the maids to follow. Notwithstanding the language ascribed to him, it is more reasonable and probable to infer that he meant merely to call the servants out of their rooms to enable them to escape, or to aid in rescuing the other occupants of the house, among whom were young children, or in saving property, should there be time. It is not a reasonable inference that he would be more interested in rescuing the servants than his wife and sister-in-law and her helpless children, who, so far as the evidence shows, he had not even aroused at the time he alarmed the servants'; and it is highly probable that he intended to return downstairs. But, be that as it may, the conclusion is fairly warranted by the evidence that life could not have been long sustained in the hallway on the fourth floor or stairway leading up or down therefrom after the testator was last heard on that floor, for the evidence indicates that the flames soon broke through the skylight and raged with great fury above the main stairway and adjacent thereto on the fourth floor and along the line of the servants’ stairway and the attic stairway. The skylight and plaster and part of the floor and ceiling and the material from the attic and from the roof fell on the main stairway and fourth floor to the depth of about four feet, covering the body of the testator, which was burned to crisp. On the lower floors and on the third floor, where Mrs. St. John was, .the destruction by the fire was not so great, and

It is not material whether the findings as made, that the testator perished immediately after he was heard on the fourth floor and before Mrs. St. John was found, and that Mrs. St. John lived several minutes after she was found, are fully sustained by the evidence. The question is: Does the evidence fairly warrant the finding that she survived him ? The evidence tends to show that 10 minutes or more after the testator was last known to be alive she was found unconscious and prostrate on the floor of her room, with her feet extending over the sill of the door, which it was her custom.to close and lock at night, into the hall and with her face toward the floor, and her child folded in her arms, as if she had been overcome on attempting to leave the room; that she was carried from the room to the roof of the extension in the rear, and from there to the extension of the Rothschild house and into a rear room and placed on a bed, and that, although she did not rally or regain consciousness, she showed distinct signs of life, and that her heart was beating feebly and she was breathing indistinctly to the eye, and was alive a very short time after being placed on the bed. The learned counsel for the heirs and next of kin in effect concedes that the evidence shows that Mrs. SI. John was aliv.e 10 or 15 minutes after the testator was last known to be alive. Counsel for other parties claim, and the evidence bears out their contention, that she was alive for a period considerably longer than 10 or 15 minutes after the testator was heard on the fourth floor. The inference is fairly warranted by the evidence that the testator could not have remained alive 10 minutes where he was last heard on the fourth floor, and where his charred body was subsequently found, no matter at which of the two points it was found. When the heat and pressure broke the skylight and the flames went through the roof to a height of 20 feet, it is altogether probable that they broke the window in the partition on the fourth floor, which was not far from where he was, and that the entire hallway on that floor was enveloped in flame, including the stairways up and down. Alice White jumped from her window before the firemen came, and before she jumped all was silent on the fourth floor, indicating that the testator and the maids could not or dared not speak for fear of suffocation. The flames must have been then enveloping the hallway and stairway, for she was quite severely burned, and she had only been to her door, which was 22 feet toward the rear from the head of the servants’ stairway, and after that, and before Mrs. St. John was rescued, the flames enveloping the stairways and hallways and belching, out through the roof are described by one of the firemen as “a raging furnace inside all the way up the stairways.” No one, except those who escaped, reached a window. The finding, therefore, that Mrs. St. John survived the testator, is fairly sustained by the evidence.

The learned .counsel for the next of kin and heirs at law, while insisting that no finding of survivorship is warranted as between the tes

“No person having a husband, wife, child or parent, shall, by his or her last will and testament, devise or bequeath to any benevolent, charitable, literary, scientific, religious or missionary society, association or corporation, in trust or otherwise, more than one half part of his or her estate, after the payment of his or her debts (and such devise or bequest shall be valid to the extent of one half and no more).”

The preponderance of the evidence shows that the body of Mrs. Andrews, so burned that it fell apart, was found in the hallway on the second floor, a few feet from the door of her room, although there is evidence that it was found on the first floor at the foot of the main stairway. There is no other evidence shedding any light on the time of her death. On this point, under the rule already stated, for the purpose of determining property rights, it would have to be assumed that she and her husband died at the same time. If they died at the same time, then the testator could not be said to have left a wife him surviving. If, therefore, the statute only prohibits such gifts when the testator leaves a wife surviving him, then the burden was upon the next of kin to establish that fact, for upon it their right to participate, if they could participate in any event, depended. Garvey v. Union Trust Co., 29 App. Div. 513 , 52 N. Y. Supp. 260 ; Garvey v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 77 App. Div. 391 , 79 N. Y. Supp. 337 . See, also, Gallagher v. Crooks, 132 N. Y. 338 , 30 N. E. 746 ; City of Cohoes v. D. & H. Canal Co., 134 N. Y. 397 , 31 N. E. 887 . There being no evidence to justify a finding that the wife survived her husband, as to Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, ‘the case falls within the general rule applicable to deaths in a common disaster. It is contended, however, that the scope of the statute is not confined to cases where a husband leaves a wife surviving, but that the will is invalid as to such bequest if the testator have a wife living at the time he makes the will. It is now well settled that a bequest or devise in violation of this statute is void and may be taken advantage of by others than those enumerated in the act of 1860; and consequently the heirs or next of kin have a standing in court to be heard on the question. Robb v. Washington & Jefferson College, 103 App. Div. 327 , 93 N. Y. Supp. 92 , affirmed 185 N. Y. 485 , 78 N. E. 359 . It is claimed that there is no authoritative decision on the precise point now presented; but I think the courts have considered that the validity of such bequests depends on survivorship of one of those enumerated in the act. See Robb v. Washington & Jefferson College, supra; Amherst College v. Ritch, 151 N. Y. 282 -334, 45 N. E. 876 , 37 L. R. A. 305 ; Matter of Will of Walker, 136 N. Y. 22 -26, 32 N. E. 633 . A will takes effect not at the time of its execution, but on the death of the testator, and its validity and construction depend not upon the law at the time of its execution, but at the date of his death. Parker v. Bogardus, 5 N. Y. 309 ; Doubleday v. Newton, 27 Barb. 431 ; Moultrie v. Hunt, 23 N. Y. 394 . The purpose of the statute was not

In the view we take of the construction of the statute of 1860, it becomes unnecessary to decide the conflicting contentions of the next of kin arid the Smithsonian Institution, with respect to the ownership of that part of the residuary fund which could not be bequeathed to a charitable use, under the provisions of that statute, if applicable, and with respect to the claim of the Smithsonian Institution, that, if the Andrews Institute for Girls could not take all the residue, it could not take any.

The Smithsonian Institution further claims that the bequest to the' Ohio corporation to be formed failed because the testator intended the bequest to vest immediately upon the death of his wife, if at all, and that, since she did .not survive him, it became a gift in pnesenti at his death, and the corporation not being then in esse, the bequest failed and the property vested in, it, under the alternative clause of the will. -The trial court found -that the Andrews Institute for Girls takes all the residue, and that neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the heirs or next of kin take anything. Mrs. Andrews was much younger than her husband, and doubtless he contemplated her surviving him many years. He made bountiful provision .for her support during life, and then made liberal bequests to those of his relatives whom he regarded as worthy of his bounty, and intended that the residue of his property, no matter how much or how little, should be used “for the purpose of establishing an institution” in the town of Willoughby, Lake County, Ohio, upon a farm owned by his wife and formerly owned by him, and, if that should not be available, “then on other suitable premises” in said town .“for the free education of girls and for their support in proper cases during education, with a special view toward rendering them self-supporting.” He specified the subjects upon which instruction should be imparted to the girls, and gave directions with respect to the erection of a suitable building and maintenance of the institution, and then directed that the

“I direct my executor and executrix as soon as practicable after my decease and during the lives of my said wife and her said brother, or the life of the longest liver of them, to procure under the laws of the State of Ohio, an incorporation to be formed,” with the powers specified.

It is to be observed that it was only in the event that his primary desire to endow the Ohio corporation could not be lawfully accomplished that he intended that the bequest should go to the Smithsonian Institution. The policy of the law favors upholding charitable bequests, whether they are to be administered at home or abroad, and, if to be administered abroad, the right of the foreign legatee to take will be determined by our courts before directing the executors to turn over the fund, but under the law of the foreign jurisdiction and unaffected by our laws relating to accumulations and perpetuities. Matter of Huss, 126 N. Y. 537 , 27 N. E. 784 , 12 L. R. A. 620 ; Amherst College v. Ritch, 151 N. Y. 282 , 45 N. E. 876 , 37 L. R. A. 305 ; Hollis v. Drew Theolog. Sem., 95 N. Y. 166 ; Hope v. Brewer, 136 N. Y. 126 , 32 N. E. 558 , 18 L. R. A. 458 ; Cong. Unitarian Soc. v. Hale, 29 App. Div. 396 , 51 N. Y. Supp. 704 ; Matter of Sturgiss, 164 N. Y. 485 , 58 N. E. 646 ; Robb v. Wash. & Jef. Col., supra. The charity which the testator was desirous of establishing in Ohio was commendable, and the court should not be astute to discover legal objections to giving effect to his intention. The will does not, as claimed by the counsel for the Smithsonian Institution, show that the testator did not intend that the Ohio corporation should take if not formed before the death of his wife. He provided, in effect, that it might be formed by the other executor and trustee, should it not be formed before her death, and he expressly provided that it should take the bequest, even though she predeceased him. There is no force in the argument that this was merely a restriction or limitation as to the period within which the corporation must be formed, or that it does not carry with it, either expressly or by implication, permission to form it after the death of his wife. His intention thus clearly manifested and public policy demand that the Andrews Institute, which his executor caused to be incorporated pursuant to his command, and which fulfills in all respects his purpose, shall receive the bequest if consistent with the rules of law. Amherst College v. Ritch, 151 N. Y. 282 , 45 N. E. 876 , 37 L. R. A. 305 ; Dammert v. Osborn, 140 N. Y. 30 , 35 N. E. 407 . The will is susceptible of the construction that the bequest was to vest in the corporation, if in esse upon the death of his wife, but, if not then in esse, that it was to vest in .it when formed by the trustee who survived his wife; and in such a case a present bequest is not to be presumed, and, if a construc.tion that the bequest was to vest in the corporation when formed would render it valid, that construction should prevail. Burrill v. Boardman,

The learned counsel for the Smithsonian Institution also contends that the Andrews Institute for Girls was not legally incorporated, and therefore cannot take the bequest. It is not claimed that the regularity of the incorporation or organization can be questioned collaterally, as clearly it cannot; but it is insisted that the corporation may be shown to have no legal existence because incorporated in violation of the Constitution of that state. Owing to the provisions with respect to the management of the corporation by a board of five trustees, four of whom were to be officials, it was deemed advisable to apply to the Regislature for the enactment of a general law under which the corporation could be formed. The act was passed on the 19th day of March, 1902. Raws Ohio 1902, p. 61. It contains no specific reference to this will or to the bequest to the Ohio corporation to be formed. The title of the act, “An act to confer corporate powers upon individuals selected under certain specified conditions,” is general, and the act is general in terms and relates to devises and bequests for charitable uses, “or for the establishment and maintenance of any industrial or educational school or institution to be located at any place within this state, heretofore or thereafter made, and provides for the formation of a corporation by the executor and officials designated in the will, referring to wills providing for the management of the corporation by a board of trustees or directors consisting in part of the officials of the state, county, municipal corporation, and member of Congress for the District in which the charity is to be administered, or institution or school is to be located.” The Andrews Institute was thereafter incorporated by filing a certificate of incorporation, which does not specify, and was not required

The learned counsel for the heirs and next of kin claims that the testator died intestate as to the rents and income of the residuary estate, accruing between the time of his death and the date of incorporation of the Andrews Institute, and that the next of kin take such rents and income. This claim is founded upon section 51 of the real property law (Laws 1896, p. 568, c. 547) and section 4 of the personal property law (Laws 1897, p. 508, c. 417), which forbid the accumula

By the seventh clause of the will, the executor and executrix were' directed, “as soon as they may deem advisable but within two years after” the decease of the testator, to sell all of his real estate, and invest the proceeds in interest paying securities, and he therein gave' them and his trustees “power to invest and reinvest” all of his estate or any part thereof. The learned counsel for the heirs contends -that the sole purpose of this power of sale.was to enable the executor and executrix and trustees to execute the trust for the benefit of the widow, and that since she did not survive the testator that trust never came into existence, and therefore there was no equitable conversion of the real estate. He argues from this that the title to the real estate vested in the heirs, subject to be divested upon the incorporation of the educational institution as directed by the testator, and that consequently they would be entitled to the rents, issues, and profits until their title became divested. It is not essential that we should agree or disagree with the ultimate result that would flow from this process of reasoning, for we think there was an equitable conversion of the real estate; but it may be observed that the Smithsonian Institution would not be without argument to show that, if title did not vest in the personal representatives or trustees, it vested in that institution. The rule is that if it be essential to carry out the plan of the testator that his real estate be converted into personalty, then the real estate will be deemed converted into personalty as of the date of his death. Here the personal representatives were directed, not only to incorporate and organize the educational institution, but, in effect, to turn over to it the residuary estate in cash, to enable it to purchase a site and erect a building with one-tenth thereof, and to provide for the support and maintenance of the institution with the remaining nine-tenths. This intention is quite clear; for in the fifth •clause of the will, after giving directions with respect to the purchase of a site and the, erection of a building and the porportion of the amount received to be used for that purpose and the investment of the remainder, he, in providing for deferring the completion of the institution in the event that the one-tenth of the bequest should be insufficient, uses this significant language: “If when the said sum shall be received by the corporation.” It is, of course, possible that the corporation might be able to take the property as it stood at the time of the death "of the testator, subject to' the payment of his debts and other bequests' and devises; but-manifestly that was not what he intended, and'it would have been quite impracticable. On this point I

It is not contended but that the laws of Ohio authorize the execution of such a trust. The learned counsel for the heirs and next of kin, however, strenuously argues that, inasmuch as this income accumulated before the property vested or could vest in the Ohio corporation, its ownership depends on our laws; and- there is much force in that contention. However, even under our laws, we think that the Andrews Institute took this income. It is to be observed that the testator gave no direction, either valid or invalid, for the accumulation of rents or income. It is not, therefore, a case of a void legacy. The claim seems to be that, although all of the residuary estate was lawfully bequeathed and devised to the Andrews Institute for Girls, yet that as to the income and rents earned and accruing therefrom after the death of the testator —who, being dead, did not and could not own them—he died intestate. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the heirs and next of kin that, if the act of 1860 does not apply, the Andrews Institute for Girls took the entire residuary estate upon its incorporation as an executory bequest or devise; but he insists that the income and rents when they accrued vested in some one, as the statute prohibited their being accumulated and added to the principal, whether by the express or implied direction of the testator, or by his having failed to give any direction concerning them, and that they could not vest in the foreign corporation because it was not then in being. It cannot be denied that there is force in this contention, and that there are decisions, although not in point on the facts, tending to sustain it. See Vail v. Vail, 4 Paige, 317; Pray v. Hegeman, 92 N. Y. 508 ; Hascall v. King, 162 N. Y. 134 , 56 N. E. 515 , 76 Am. St. Rep. 302 ; Manice v. Manice, 43.N.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that the Smithsonian Institution is the party entitled to the next eventual estate, upon the theory that the statute has reference to the party thus presumptively entitled at the time the income accrues,, and that, inasmuch as the Andrews Institute for Girls had not been incorporated at the time the income in question was earned, it could not at that time have been presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate. The Court of Appeals did not take that view in U. S. Trust Co. v. Soher, supra, and the Smithsonian Institution makes no claim to income unless it is entitled to all or part of the principal. I am of opinion that the same liberal rule permitting such bequests to a corporation to be formed should be extended to authorize the holding of the income, to enable the corporation when formed to take both, upon one or the other of these theories, even though that be an exception to the general rule.

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed with separate bills of costs to all parties separately appearing to be paid out of the estate. All concur.