Teele v. Bishop of Derry

• Decision Date: 21 May 1897
• Citation: 47 N.E. 422,168 Mass. 341
• Parties: TEELE v. BISHOP OF DERRY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

168 Mass. 341

47 N.E. 422

TEELE v. BISHOP OF DERRY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 21, 1897

COUNSEL

C.R. Darling and W.S. Slocum, for Bishop of Derry.

W.M Noble, for residuary legatee. J.O. Teele, pro se.

OPINION

MORTON J.

We think that the bequest to trustees for the purpose of purchasing a lot and building a chapel in Carndrine, "to be forever used for purposes of public worship under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church," was a gift for a public charitable use. Attorney General v. Briggs, 164 Mass. 561, 567, 42 N.E. 118; In re Bartlett, 163 Mass. 509, 514, 40 N.E. 899; McAlister v. Burgess, 161 Mass. 269, 37 N.E. 173; Sears v. Chapman, 158 Mass. 400, 33 N.E. 604. The fact that the charity would be administered in a foreign country does not, of itself, render the gift void, and there is nothing to show that it would not be a good public charity by the law of Ireland. Fellows v. Miner, 119 Mass. 541, 546; Washburn v. Sewall, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 280; Burbank v. Whitney, 24 Pick 146, 154; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N.Y. 424 432. Neither does the fact that the bequest is in the nature of a public charity require of itself that the court should frame a scheme to carry it out as near as may be to the purpose of the testatrix, if for any reason that has become impossible of performance in the manner which she has provided. "Assuming that the object is a charity, still there is no universal principle that the testator's particular intention must be sacrificed by reason of that general object." Bullard v. Inhabitants of Shirley, 153 Mass. 559, 560, 27 N.E. 766, 767. The difficulty in this case, and generally in cases like it, is one of construction,--to find out the intention of the testatrix. When that is arrived at, the rules of law which apply seem to be well settled. If it appears from the will that the intention of the testatrix was that her property should be applied to a charitable purpose whose general nature is described so that a general charitable intent can be inferred, then, if by a change of circumstances or in the law it becomes impracticable to administer the trust in the precise manner provided by the testatrix, the doctrine of cy pres will be applied, in order that the general charitable intent which the court regards as the dominant one may not be altogether defeated. There are numerous cases in which this rule has been applied. Attorney General v. Briggs, supra; Sears v. Chapman, supra; Weeks v. Hobson, 150 Mass. 377, 23 N.E. 215; Society for Promoting Theological Education v. Attorney General, 135 Mass. 285; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539; American Academy of Arts & Sciences v. President, etc., of Harvard College, 12 Gray, 582; Late Corporation of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. U.S., 136 U.S. 1, 10 Sup.Ct. 792; Mayor of Lyons v. Advocate General of Bengal, 1 App.Cas. 91; In re Maguire, L.R. 9 Eq. 632; In re Prison Charities, L.R. 16 Eq. 140, note; Biscoe v. Jackson, 35 Ch.Div. 460; In re Campden Charities, 18 Ch.Div. 310; In re Slevin [1891] 2 Ch. 236. But, if the charitable purpose is limited to a particular object, or to a particular institution, and there is no general intent, then, if it becomes impossible to carry out the object, or the institution ceases to exist before the gift has taken effect, and possibly in more cases after it has taken effect, the doctrine of cy pres does not apply, and, in the absence of any limitation over or other provision, the legacy lapses. There are many cases which, it has been held, fall within this rule. Bullard v. Inhabitants of Shirley, 153 Mass. 559, 27 N.E. 766; Stratton v. Physio-Medical College, 149 Mass. 505, 21 N.E. 874; Easterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 5 Gray, 17; Clark v. Taylor, 1 Drew, 642; Corbyn v. French, 4 Ves. 418; Russell v. Kellett, 3 Smale & G. 264; Fisk v. Attorney General, L.R. 4 Eq. 521; In re Ovey, 29 Ch.Div. 260; In re White's Trusts, 33 Ch.Div. 449; In re Rymer [1895] 1 Ch. 19; Carbery v. Cox, 3 Ir.Ch.R. 231; Attorney General v. Bishop of Chester, 1 Brown, Ch. 444; Cherry v. Mott, 1 Mylne & C. 123. The latest case in this commonwealth in which the doctrine of cy pres has been applied is Attorney General v. Briggs, supra, in which it was held that there was manifest on the part of the testator a general intent to promote education in the neighborhood, and a purpose that the whole town should have the benefit of his bounty, if it could not otherwise be made available to the district which he had designated. In the present case the bequest is not for general religious purposes, nor is there anything to indicate that the object of the testatrix was to benefit the parish as a whole. Her object evidently was to provide a place in the village of Carndrine where the inhabitants could attend religious services, and have the rites of their church administered, without being obliged to go several miles to the parish church at Aughayarron, or to Castlederg, in the neighboring parish. Her purpose was that a lot should be purchased and a chapel built at Carndrine for the benefit of the inhabitants...