Sears v. Chapman

Decision Date04 March 1893
PartiesSEARS v. CHAPMAN.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

J.M. & T.C. Day, for plaintiffs.

George A. King, for defendants.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

This is a bill for instructions whether the following clause in the will of Jacob Sears constitutes a good gift to charity. "After the said Olive F. Sears is no longer my widow either by death or otherwise, I give and bequeath all that may then remain of my property for the benefit of the inhabitants of East Dennis and vicinity, for educational purposes; one third part of said property to be appropriated for a building and appurtenances which shall be located on Quivet Neck, in East Dennis, and the other two thirds is to be a fund for the support of said institution, the interest of said fund to be so appropriated; the whole to be under the exclusive control of the inhabtants of Quivet Neck."

There is no doubt that a trust for educational purposes is a good charitable trust. Hadley v. Academy, 14 Pick. 240 253; Society v. Harriman, 125 Mass. 321, 327; Davis v. Inhabitants, 154 Mass. 224, 28 N.E. 165; Whicker v. Hume, 7 H.L.Cas. 124; Russell v Allen, 107 U.S. 163, 172, 2 S.Ct. 327. It is good where there is no limit of space expressed, and it is none the less so when the benefit of the gift is confined in terms, as it must be in fact, to a particular locality. Lowell, Appellant, 22 Pick. 215; Clement v. Hyde, 50 Vt. 716. It is equally good when the limit, although real, is not mathematically exact, as, in this case, East Dennis and vicinity. Attorney General v. Gladstone, 13 Sim. 7, 11; Hill v. Burns, 2 Wils. & S. 80, 90, 91; Miller v. Rowan, 5 Clark & F. 99, 110; Wallace v. Attorney General, 33 Beav. 384; Saltonstall v. Sanders, 11 Allen, 446, 467. As the testator's plan is to carry out the purpose of his gift by means of a building, probably the convenience of those concerned will draw the line without the help of the court, unless the fund is insufficient for the testator's scheme.

It is argued on behalf of the heirs and next of kin that the provision, "the whole to be under the exclusive control of the inhabitants of Quivet Neck," is the consideration and condition of the gift, within the principle of Bullard v. Inhabitants, 153 Mass. 559, 27 N.E. 766. It is assumed that this must fail, and therefore, it is said, the gift fails. We do not think that we can make it plainer than it is upon the first reading of the clause that such control is not of the essence of the gift, but is only an administrative detail. Moreover, on the facts before us, although probably a scheme will have to be framed, we cannot assume that it is any more impossible for the inhabitants of Quivet Neck to control the administration of the fund than it would be if they were a town. Drury v. Natick, 10 Allen, 169, 182; Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364, 25 N.E. 92. In Baylis v. Attorney General, 2 Atk. 239, where money was left "to the ward of Bread street, according to Mr. B.,--his will," Lord Hardwick suggested a decree that the money, "from time to time, be disposed of in such charities as the aldermen, for the time being, and the principal inhabitants shall think the most beneficial to the ward."

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Sears v. Chapman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1893
    ...158 Mass. 40033 N.E. 604SEARSv.CHAPMAN.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable.March 4, Case reserved from supreme judicial court, Barnstable county; John Lathrop, Judge. Bill in equity by the administrators de bonis non, with the will annexed, of the estate of Jacob Sears, aski......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT