Majority
Headnote
1. Gift — Causa mobtis.Under the release of May 15, 1891, the only parties having a- pecuniary interest in this litigation are St. Guild and the residuary deviseés and legatees, unless it should
“From the proceeds thereof, I desire that you do appropriate the sum of $100,000, in the name of Elizabeth Fogg, in sums of $5,000 each, to various charity organizations, of which a list is hereunto annexed.”
No list was ever annexed to this letter, and no list naming twenty corporations was ever made by or for Mrs. Fogg. Mr. Fosdick testified that this letter was devised by himself, and copied by his bookkeeper; that he (Fosdick) stopped at Mrs. Fogg’s on his way down town on the morning of December 20th, when the letter was signed. Therefore, he must have been informed December 19th ■of her purpose to divide $100,000 among twenty charitable corporations. Mrs. Fogg and Miss Norton spent the night of December 19 th and 20th in a vain attempt to name twenty charitable corporations which should receive the sum, but abandoned the attempt, and Mrs. Fogg concluded to divide the sum among ten corporations. In order to uphold the trust declared by the judgment of the special term, the letter of December 20th must be eliminated from the case, as it is entirely inconsistent with the trust adj udged to exist. The only evidence left of an intent to establish a trust
“During that night she was apprehensive of dying before morning. That is what she said, and so expressed herself to me, although I personally did not think there was any immediate danger of her death. She did, however, express a danger of dying before morning. She was then in bed, and she remained continuously in bed until the time of her death, on the 3d of January, 189Í. She had been in bed several days previously. Q. And she died during this same illness ? A. Yes. Q. Without ever recovering? A. Yes. Q. Attended by both night and day nurses right along ? A. Yes. Q- And continuously failing, to the end ? A. Yes.”
“Sound policy requires that the laws regulating gifts causa mortis should not be extended, and the range of such gifts should not be enlarged. Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572 , 581,. 35 St. Rep.
Concurrence
She declared in her codicil that the assignment of the shares to Mr. Fosdick was intended as a power to transfer them, and Fosdick testified that the codicil was read to him before it was executed, and he assented- to its terms. Under the evidence, we think, assuming that Mrs. Fogg intended on December 20th to make a gift to St. John’s Guild of $10,000, by means of a trust to take effect after her death, that it was effectually revoked on December 21, 1890. It does not seem necessary to discuss' the question whether a gift cama mortis may be made subject to a trust. Story, Eq. Jur. (13th ed.) § 607. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants, to abide the event.
I concur in the result. I do not think there is any sufficient execution of the trust declaration by the delivery of the list. I think that the evidence shows that the creation of the trust was never completed, and it was abandoned, and the codicil to the will took its place.
O’Brien, J., concurs.
Cases cited
- Ridden v. Thrall 125 N. Y. 572 at 581 p. 66
- Basket v. Hassell 107 U. S. 602 p. 67