Majority
p. 602Juan Luis Dammert et al., Ancillary Ex’rs, Resp’ts, v. William Henry Osborn et al., App’lts.(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,Headnote
Will—Foreign—Invalid bequests.A resident of Peru, who died in that country, provided hy his will that, a portion of his estate should he devoted to founding in this state a home for children. No direct bequest of the fund was made to any person or corporation, hut it was provided that it should he managed hy a hoard of managers to he appointed from a list of persons named. The will also-provided that the founding of the institution should not take place until, two years after the hoard received the fund, so that the purchase of land- and erection of buildings.should he done with the income accumulated during that time. The will also provided that a certain society in Lima, Peru, should receive all legacies of public interest. The executors having collected the personal assets in this state and set apart sufficient for saúí fund, asked for a construction of the will.- Held, that the bequest for said
p. 603home was invalid under our statute against perpetuities as well as because at the time of testator’s death the persons upon whom the trust was to devolve were unascertained, and the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to deterihine the title to the fund and in remitting it to the courts of the testator’s domicil.
Appeal from judgment entered at special term, construing will.
The following is the opinion at special term:Lawrence, J.—This action is brought by the plaintiffs as ancillary executors of the last will and testament of Jose Sevilla," •deceased, late of Lima, Peru, to obtain a construction of the clauses in said will providing for the founding and maintaining of an establishment in the city of New York devoted to the education of poor female children, which institution the will directs shall be called the Sevilla- Home for Children, and shall, be managed and administered by the board of executors and philanthropic managers jointly, with the persons to be designated in clause thirty-six of the will. °In clause third of the will the testator declares that in the year 1884 he executed, in the city of New York, a will by which he left the larger part of his fortune to fopnd an institution under the name of the Sevilla Home for Children, and in regard to which; “ I formulated in a detailed manner the principal- bases. Persisting in my philanthropic idea I desire that said institution be established in the manner hereinafter set forth; but in view of the unfortunate situation of my relatives and various persons dear to me, I deem it indispensable to reconcile my special predilection for the United States of North America with my duties to my family and other persons and those which bind me to Peru.”In subdivision (A) of the fotirth clause of his will the testator states that: “ It is my desire that a prudent economy be observed in all matters relating to the institution. The land is to be bought and the building erected at moderate prices. The building shall be adequate to the end to which the establishment is devoted, and it shall be constituted to receive from fifty to one hundred, female scholars with accommodations for the female teachers and the employees that may be required.”By subdivision (B) of the fourth clause o°f his will it is provided : “ That the board of executors and philanthropic managers and the other members shall make rules for the establishment in the best manner without forgetting the following conditions.” 'Then follow various conditions which the testator desires the board to observe.By subdivision (E) of the fourth clause of the will it is provided that the board of philanthropic managers shall be •composed of seven prominent citizens of New York, and shall be formed from the list of names .therein particularly set forth.This subdivision of "the will, goes on to provide that: “ Having been summoned by the surrogate of the city of New York, the appointment of said seven philanthropic managers shall be proceeded with, beginning with the first on the list, that is to say, from top to bottom; it being my will that at no time shall any person having business or other connection with each
p. 604other, or related to each other to the third degree, act at the same time. If any person or persons of the first seven named shall not accept the trust, the board shall elect another on others from those following in the order in the list. The number of the seven philanthropic managers having been completed,' the other gentlemen in said list are hereby appointed substitutes ; which substitutes shall not number more than fourteen, nor less. than six. In case of the unforeseen or occasional ab-sence of any manager from a meeting, the substitute next in order shall be summoned; but five of the seven managers may decide on all matters. At any time when they cannot come together, or when there are not at least six registered substitutes,, the substitutes then existing shall be summoned, so that they jointly with the aforesaid managers may appoint the respective-substitutes; such" appointment of substitutes or managers may be made from persons outside of the board, provided they be honorable and philanthropic. It is proper here° to state that the diplomatic officer accredited by Peru to the United States-of North America, under whatever title or denomination, or the Peruvian consul genera] in New York, if there be one, or any other functionary who, by any title, financial or otherwise, may represent the Peruvian Nation in the United States of North America, shall be consulted .whenever the board is called upon to-deliberate with regard to the Peruvian scholars admitted or applying for admission to the institution.”By the fifth clause of the will it is provided that: “For the-purpose of establishing and carrying on the institution to which the previous clause refers, and the management of which is to be in- charge of the board already mentioned, I devote a principal of five hundred thousand dollars in shares of that nominal value out of the securities or shares which make up my fortune ; the same to be delivered to said board by my testamentary executors and heirs to the satisfaction of the last named, that is to say, the-persons ‘whom I name as such in the last clause of this will: upon such delivery all action of the board at New "York in relation to-my will shall cease.”-By subdivision A-of the fifth clause of the will it is provided :.“ That the board shall do all in its power to preserve the said capital of five hundred thousand dollars, limiting itself to the collection of the dividends or interest of the same, to be applied to the objects for which they are designated. And in order that said income shall not be insufficient, the founding of the institution shall not talce place until two years after the hoard has received said capital, so that the purchase of the land and the erection of buildings-on the same, or the purchase of the building, shall not be cárried out until it can be done with the' interest accumulated during-said period of two years. To be more clear, the income accumulated in said period shall serve for the purchase of the locality and the school plant of the institution, without applying the principal for that purpose.”By the sixth clause of the will, the testator prays and charges “The honorable municipality» of New York to watch over and
p. 605care for the exact fulfillment of the foregoing dispositions as far •as regards the erection of the building and all relating to the institution ; in order that for no reason shall such institution fail to-be organized and carried on foivthe benefit of poor female children, in order that the municipality may be able to exercise the-vigilance which I recommend to its" philanthropy and patriotism; the testamentary executors and heirs, to whom I entrust the execution of all of this will, shall take care to remit to the said municipality of New York a copy of the clauses of this my°said Will relating to the institution, ‘ The Sevilla Home for Children.’ ”The thirty-sixth clause of the will, referred to in the fourth clause, appoints the executors of the will, who, by the provisions-of the fourth clause, are to constitute a part of the board of executors and philanthropic managers.By additional clauses to the will, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the testator directed that the Sociedad de Beneficencia of the city of Lima, a, benevolent and eleemosynary corporation of said city, should receive from his executors and appointed heirs various sufns of money set apart for legacies of public interest under certain, clauses of his will, including the legacy for the establishment of the Sevilla Home for Children, provided for in the fourth clause-of his will; in order that the Sociedad de Beneficencia shall be the only agent with which my executors shall have to treat for the entire delivery of all those legacies of public interest. The-testator by said additional clauses further directed that the said Sociedad de Beneficencia 'should make deliveries of .the various legacies of public interest to the respective institutions in the will named, or to the persons designated by the testator to represent-Such institutions; and further directed that if any of the institutions should decline to accept the legacies for them, that the same should pass to the Sociedad de Beneficencia, to be employed as it may deem proper for the good of the poor, or if the sums provided by the will for specific objects should, in the judgment of the persons charged with the execution of such specific object, be inadequate to carry out the same, then that the sum so allotted should also pass to the said Sociedad de Beneficencia.The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have assets in the city of New York consisting of certain certificates of capital stock of railroad and other corporations of" the nominal par value of five hundred thousand' dollars, which stocks are worth in the market-the sum of three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, more or less—the saíne corresponding to the average market value of the securities left by the testator in the. state of New York; and that the plaintiffs have retained said capital within the jurisdiction of this court, and desire to pay and transfer the same pursuant to-the directions of this court to the person or persons who may be entitled thereto under the will of the deceased. It is alleged also-that the plaintiffs have been advised that serious doubts exist as-to who are entitled to claim the said fund, and that the plaintiffs have also been advised that it is doubtful whether the board of philanthropic managers provided by said will can ever be legally constituted, or whether any corporation or association of any kind,
p. 606or person or persons, can be appointed to whom the plaintiffs can properly and safely pay and deliver the -fund by them mentioned. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have been advised .that the intention of the testator as set forth in said will is uncertain and vague, and that it is doubtful ••whether the purpose of the testator- has been stated in such form that it is capable of being carried out under and in ¿accordance with the laws of the state of New York; and plaintiffs «desire to be advised and directed by this court what they shall do in the premises. Jose Sevilla died on the 9th of December, 1886, ■at the city of Lima, Peru. His will was executed according to the laws of the Republic of Peru, and was duly recognized and established as such in the courts of Peru. Subsequently the surrogate of the county of New York, upon the 'application of the .plaintiffs issued, „to them letters testamentary upon the estate as ancillary executors, and the plaintiffs thereupon entered upon the ■«dischaige of their duties. The seven persons designated by the «testator to secure the establishment of the home obtained an act «of the legislature, creating them and such persons as they should associate with themselves in accordance with the provisions of the Taw a body corporate and politic under the name and title of The Sevilla Home for Children. Laws of 1889, chap. 17, p. 14.As is known to counsel, the disposition of this case has been ¿delayed because some of the questions arising under the will are similar to those which were discussed in the case of -Tilden v.» Green and others, and I have waited until the final decision -of that case by the court of appeals before announcing mine , herein. . °It is contended that the bequest to the Sevilla Home for Children is invalid, because at the time of the death of the testator the persons upon whom the trust was to devolve were unascertained. This objection, 1 think, is well founded. The seven philanthropic managers referred to in subdivision E. of the fourth clause of the •will could only be determined after the persons named in that subdivision had been summoned by the surrogate and the appointment proceeded with as therein provided. There was, therefore, ¿at the death of the testator, no one qualified to take the bequest. Owens v. The Missionary Society of the M. E. Church, 14 N. Y., 880 ; Levy v. Levy, 33 id., 97; Prichard v. Thompson, 95 id., 76; Read v. Williams, 125 id., 560; 35 St. Rep., 909 .The subsequent act of incorporation does not' cure this fatal ¿defect. White v. Howard, 46 N. Y., 144 ; Tilden v. Green, 40 St. Rep., 512 .This objection would alone be fatal to the will; but there are ■«others which are equally°so. The trust created by the will is, obnoxious to the statutes of this state against perpetuities ; inasmuch as it is not limited upon two lives in being, nor made directly to an inporporated society. 2 R. S., 6th ed., 1167.By subdivision A of the fifth clause of the will, it is provided: ■^‘The board shall do all in its power to preserve the said capital of .five hundred thousand dollars, limiting itself to the collection of the «dividends or interest of the same, to be applied to the objects for
p. 607which they are designated. And in order that said income shall not be insufficient, the founding of the institution shall not take place until two years ‘after the board has received said capital, so-that the purchase of the land and the erection of buildings on the-same, or the purchase of the building shall not be carried out until it can be done with the interest accumulated during said period of two years.” It is apparent from this provision that the-testator did not intend that the founding of the institution should take place until two years after the receipt of the $500,000, and. for that period of time the absolute ownership of the fund is suspended. This is in conflict with the Revised Statutes, and renders the bequest void. Schettler v. Smith, 41 N. Y., 328 ; Hone's Ex'rs v. Van Schaick, 20 Wend., 564 ; Converse v. Kellogg, 7 Barb., 590 .It is, however, urged by the counsel for the philanthropic trustees of the Sevilla Home that as the testator was a resident of: Peru, and as the evidence in the case shows that the will was valid according to the laws of that country, that this court is bound to construe the will according to the.Peruvian la¡w. All the authorities hold that the last domicil of the testator is to be resorted to as giving the law by which the interpretation of a will, so far as concerns personalty, is to be determined See Wharton on the Conflict of Laws, § 592, p. 577.To this rule, however, there is an exception, which is thus stated by Dr. Wharton: “ From the rule that as to personalty the law of the testator’s last domicile binds, those cases are to be excepted where aid is asked from a court to enforce a provision which by the law binding on such court is forbidden by rules based on distinctive public policy. Thus provisions for disinheritance will be? restricted in those countries where only a restricted disinheritance-is permitted, and the saíne limitation applies to provisions creating trusts and entails, and endowing ecclesiastical corporations in mortmain. A court in giving effect to such provisions will be governed by the law of the land Thus laws prohibiting perpetual entail, and. perpetual accumulations, remainders of personalty and substitutions will be enforced by the state in which they exist, although no such laws obtain in the place of the testator’s domicil.”As already stated, the provisions of the will in question, by the laws of this state, would be invalid because at the death of the testator there" was no one qualified to take the bequest, and also-because those provisions are obnoxious to the statutes of this state as not limited upon two lives in being, nor made to an incorporated society. This case, therefore, falls within the exception stated by the learned author above referred to, inasmuch as the rules of law forbidding in this state such a bequest as the testator has at* tempted to make are based on distinctive public policy.Having arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of the will in relation to the Sevilla Home for Children are void under the laws of this state, even although valid under the laws of Pern, I am of the opinion that this court should not aid in enforcing the trust It appears, however, that the fund is in this state, and the next question which arises is, whether the court should make any
p. 608determination as to its disposition. The executors and all the parties have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of this court, and have asked for its instruction and judgment, and under those sircumstances I think it is within the power and duty of this spurt to direct the executors as to the disposition to be made of ■the fund.In the case of Despard v. Churchill, 53 N. Y., 192 , the question •was discussed as to whether the courts of this state will decree distribution of the assets collected in it, under auxiliary letters tes tain entary _ granted by them, or remit the disposition thereof to -the courts of the testator’s domicil; and it was held that the question was not one of jurisdiction, but of. judicial discretion under the circumstances of the particular case. It was further •held that while it is no part of the policy of this state to interdict •perpetuities or accumulations in any other state, and while courts will not declare void a bequest valid by the laws of the state gov•erning the disposition of the property, they will not give direct aid to sustain or enforce an administration here of a deeise or bequest made by a citizen of another state which is in contravention of our statute in relation to such perpetuities and accumulations.In that case -a resident of California died seized of certain leasehold estates for years in lands situated in this state, leaving a last will and testament void in its „ material provisions under the ■statute of this state,„but valid by the laws of California. A portion of the executors named in the will were residents of this ■state, and were charged with the care and administration of the. ■property in this state. It was held that the leasehold estates were to be treated as personalty and to be governed by the law of the testator’s domicil, but that the courts of this state would not aid in carrying out here bequests contrary to its statute law ; and it was ■ordered that the assets here, after paying therefrom certain legacies valid under the laws of this state and directed to be paid by the executors here, be remitted to California, to be there distributed.The principles enunciated in that case seem to me to be controlling here.The case of Cross v. The United States Trust Company, recently •decided by the general term of this court, is not in conflict with these views. 16 N. Y. Supp., 137 ; 40 St. Rep., 744 . In that •case a resident of Rhode Island left a will by which certain property was bequeathed in trust; such trust being void under the law's of New York as contravening the statute of perpetuities. The estate was wound up and the executors duly discharged by the courts in Rhode Island, the trust fund having been delivered to the United States Trust Company in this state. Several years •afterwards an action was brought by the executors and certain individual plaintiffs who were children of the testatrix ; the children ■claiming that the trust' was void, and that they were entitled to take under the residuary clause of the will. The judgment of the court below was affirmed by the general term, upon the. distinct ground that it could not by an affirmative decree nullify^ a trust Request which is valid by the law of the testatrix’ domicil. The court distinguished that case from Despard v. Churchill, stating
p. 609■“ that if the subject of the present trust had never been reduced to possession by the executors or administered, the disposition made in Despard v. Churchill might have served as a guide. The assets which in that case were remitted to the California executor were so remitted expressly for administration.” In the case at bar, although the assets have been reduced to possession, they have not been administered, and if the views above expressed are correct they cannot without contravening-the laws of this stale be administered here. The ancillary executors representing the executors resident in Peru having applied to the court for its aid and the court having decided that the trust cannot be executed in this state, it seems to me, instead of determining that the Sociedad de Beneficencia as the ultimate residuary legatee under the will is entitled to the fund, the decree of this court should direct the ancillary executors to remit the fund to Peru, in order that the courts of that republic may determine in what manner and to whom it shall be distributed.C. C. Marshall ( William G. Choate, of counsel), for app’lts Osborn et al., and The Sevilla Home; David Milliken, Jr., for Sociedad de Beneficencia ; Frederic R. Coudert, for resp’ts.
Jose Sevilla, a resident of Peru, died at Lima, in that country, in December, 1886, leaving a will, whereby, among -other things, he gave $500,000, or securities of that value at par, to found a home in the city of New York for orphan girls, to be known as the Sevilla Home for Children. The testator left an estate consisting largely of personal property, much of which, at the time of his death, was in the city of New York. The will of the testator was "duly proved at Lima, Peru, and was subsequently recorded in the office of the surrogate of New York county under the order of said surrogate, and under the same order the executors were appointed ancillary executors of said will. They retained out of the personal estate, collected by them in New York, securities sufficient to cover the bequest in favor of the home, and then brought this action for a construction of the will and for the decree of the court as to who was entitled to said fund or securities, and to whom they should make payment of the same.
The learned judge below correctly held that the provisions of the will relating to the establishment of the Sevilla Home contravene our statute against perpetuities, and was invalid for the further reason that, at the time of the death of the testator, the persons upon whom the trust was to devolve were ■unascertained. He also correctly held that the provisions of the will relating to the Home were valid under the laws of Peru. The question, therefore, presented was as to whether or not the courts of this state would determine the title to the fund primarily intended by the testator to be devoted to the establishment of the Home. His conclusion was that this court should not aid in enforcing the trust, but decreed that the ancillary executors remit the fund to Peru, in order that the courts of that republic may 'determine in what manner and to whom it shall be distributed.
p. 610In this determination he was controlled by the case of
Despard v.
Churchill, 53 N. Y., 198 , to which he referred and from which he quoted, which to him, and to us, seems to be a binding and controlling authority. A reference to the facts in that case will show how nearly it approaches to the question here presented. There, a resident of California died seized of certain leasehold estates for years in lands situate in this state, and leaving a last will and testament, void in its material provisions under the statutes of this state, but valid by the laws of California. A portion of the executors named in the will were residents of this state, and these were charged with the care and administration of the property in this state.
The learned judge writing the opinion in that case said: “The testator had his domicil in the state of California. He made his will there. Ro question is made but that it is, in all of its provisons, valid by the law of that state. It, however, by its terms, disposes of certain property in this state, and by provisions which are invalid here, inasmuch as they run counter to our statute law. 1 R. S., 723, § 15; id., 773, § 1. The statute law here referred to embodies the policy of this state in relation to perpetuites and accumulations. As this sovereignty will not uphold a devise or a bequest by one of its citizens in contravention of that policy, it will not give its direct aid to sustain, enforce or administer here such a devise or bequest made by a citizen of another sovereignty. See Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y., 424 . Yet it is no part of the policy of this state to interdict perpetuities or accumulations in another state, id., 434 . * * *
“Personal property is subject to the law which governs the person of its owner as to its transmission by last will and testament; and this principle, though arising in the exercise of international comity, has become obligatory as a rule of decision by the courts. Parsons v. Lyman, 20 N. Y., 103 . And, as a general rule, the distribution of personal property, wherever made, must be according to the law of the place of the testator’s domicil. Harvey v. Richards, 1 Mason, 381-407.
“ The cases are not uncommon in which a testamentary disposition made in a foreign jurisdiction has (Controlled the transmis. sion of personal property in this. Usually the administration of the estate has been committed by the will to citizens of that jurisdiction. They have occupied the possession and control of the property through voluntary payment or surrender, or, by making probate of the will here, have obtained auxiliary letters testamentary, and under these have enforced collection or surrender. In such case, those charged with the administration are liable to account here for the assets collected by the authority granted here. It seems to have been generally held that where there are domestic creditors of the estate, payment of the debts may be decreed out of the assets. Dawes v. Boylston, 9 Mass., 337 ; Richards v. Dutch, 8 id., 506; Harvey v. Richards, supra. For other purposes, such as the payment of legacies and the distribution of the surplus to the next of kin, the courts in Massachusetts have held that the assets must be remitted to the place of
p. 611the domicil. See cases above cited. But this has been questioned, with great force and reason. See
Harvey v.
Richards, supra. And the better rule is, that whether the .courts of one state are to decree distribution of the assets collected in it under auxiliary letters granted by them, or to remit the disposition thereof to the courts of the testator’s domicil, is not a question of jurisdiction, but of judicial discretion under the circumstances of the particular case.
Harvey v.
Richards, supra; Parsons v.
Lyman, supra. Nor does the fact that, by the will in this case, the testator appointed citizens of this state as executors, as well as citizens of the state of his domicil, and charged those here with the care and administration of the property here, alter the rule. In
Harvey v.
Richards, above cited, the defendant was appointed, in this country, administrator with the will annexed of a testator domiciled in the Bast Indies, where the executors resided.
“ The question then arises, under the particular circumstances of this case, whether the assets in this state should not be remitted to the executors in the state of California to be administered, as they may be, in accordance with the directions of the will, under the laws of that state. As has been stated, the courts of this state may not directly aid in carrying out here a bequest which is in violation of its statute law and contrary to a policy of which it is tenacious. And yet they may not hold the bequest void, when it is valid by the laws of the state by which the disposition of the property is to be governed. The one would be to transgress the written law of this state; the other would be to disregard an unwritten rule of law, well settled and of extensive and frequent application.”
It being, therefore, “ not a question of jurisdiction, but of judicial discretion,” as to whether, under the circumstances of a particular case, the courts of one state will decree distribution of the assets or remit the disposition thereof to the court of the testator’s domicil, it remains to be determined whether such discretion was wisely exercised in the present case.
We think, taking the various provisions of the will, that it was within the contemplation of the testator that his property, outside of Peru, should be remitted to that place for the purpose of administration. Thus, it was provided that the Sociedad de Beneficencia de Lima should receive all the legacies of public interest, including the legacy for the establishment of the Sevilla Home, in order that the executors, in making payment of such public legacies, should not be called to deal with any other person or corporation than the said Sociedad. This latter society, however, is located in Peru; and whether we regard this provision as being inserted merely for the convenience of Peruvian executors, or as a direction as to the course to be pursued only in event of all the assets being found in Peru at the time of the testator’s death, it shows that he himself contemplated the scheme or plan of having the property administered in Peru through this association. In another part provision is made for the payment of the expenses and a commission to such person as it should be necessary to send to the United States to make delivery of the gift to the Sevilla
p. 612Home. This provision, to say the least, furnishes an argument in support of the view that it was the intention of the testator that his property should be administered upon and the validity of the provisions of the will determined by the law and courts of Peru.
The reluctance, moreover, of the courts to administer upon the assets of a testator who, at his death, was a resident of a foreign domicil, particularly in a case where the carrying out of the intention of the testator would be to administer' a trust invalid by the laws of our state, furnishes another reason why, in cases of doubt, the property should be transmitted to the foreign state. Ordinarily it is no part of the duty of the courts of this state to construe wills of foreign states except as to provisions to be carried out in this state.' And it will avoid confusion and conflict of jurisdiction under such circumstances to remit the property to the jurisdiction of the courts located in the domicile of the testator. This furnishes a reason why this court should not, as urged upon their attention by one of the appellants, proceed to determine the title to the fund intended for the Home, and is a sufficient answer to the suggestion, even though we assumed another appellant’s position to be right, that the effect of so transmitting the fund will be to have the same sent back again and delivered to the corporation which it is claimed now has the legal right to receive the fund under the laws of this state.
It is urged that the case of Cross v. U. S. Trust Co., 181 N. Y., 880 ; 43 St. Rep., 254 , favors the contrary view, and appelants claim that that went to the extent of holding that, as to foreign wills creating trusts of personalty, there is no public policy of this state which -forbids the administration of such properly here, though the trusts would be invalid by statute in a New York will as violating the rule against perpetuities. In that case, however, Despartí v. Churchill, supra, was analyzed and referred to with approval. Apart from this, the distinction between Cross v. U. S. Trust Co. and this case is a marked one. In that case it was sought to have a trust relating to personal property in this state, which was valid by the laws of the testator’s domicil, declared void because a like trust, if created here by a citizen of our own state, would have been invalid This action seeks tq have our courts decree that a trust, because valid under the laws bf the testator’s domicil, is equally valid here and should be carried out. though contravening our statutes.
The reason for remitting the subject to the testator’s domicil is thus stated by the learned judge writing the opinion in Cross v. U. S. Trust Co.: “ This course was adopted, not on the ground of policy, but because it was always the law in such cases to re init personal estate to the domicil of the owner in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion.”
We do not think that more need be added to what has been said in the opinion of the learned judge at special term ; nor have we attempted to do more than to examine the record, and, in effect, adopt the reasons given by him to justify his conclusion,
p. 613and. which we think should result in the affirmance of his decree by this court
Judgment affirmed accordingly, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., and Patterson, J., concur.