Vill. of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Soc.

Decision Date16 December 1940
Docket NumberNo. 25942.,25942.
Citation375 Ill. 220,30 N.E.2d 657
PartiesVILLAGE OF HINSDALE et al. v. CHICAGO CITY MISSIONARY SOC. et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by the Village of Hinsdale and others against the Chicago City Missionary Society and others for the construction of a deed, wherein defendants filed counterclaim. From the decree, the named defendant appeals.

Decree modified and as modified affirmed.Appeal from the Circuit Court, DuPage County; William J. Fulton, judge.

Wheelock, Newey & Mackenzie, of Chicago, for appellant Chicago Congregational Union.

Harry P. Pearsons, of Evanston (Charles M. Haft, of Chicago, of counsel), for other appellants.

Charles L. Cobb, of Chicago, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

A decree of the circuit court of DuPage county construed a deed of Daniel K. Pearsons, conveying six lots in the village of Hinsdale to the village for the purpose of creating a charitable trust. The decree granted relief substantially as sought by the plaintiffs, the village of Hinsdale and the board of library directors of the village, and denied the relief asked by the Chicago Congregational Union, a defendant and also a counter-claimant, and Harry P. Pearsons, a grand-nephew and other heirs-at-law and next of kin of Daniel K. Pearsons, deceased, likewise defendants and counter-claimants.

From the stipulated facts it appears that for many years prior to September 7, 1911, Daniel K. Pearsons, a resident of Hinsdale, owned and occupied as his residence property which may be sufficiently described as lots 17 to 22, inclusive. Pearsons, then a widower with no living children, was considered a wealthy man, was interested in and had made substantial contributions to educational and charitable activities. Nearly a quarter of a century before, in 1887, he had been one of the incorporators of the Hinsdale Library Association, a corporation not for profit. The library was located in a residence, thereafter in a stationery store and, in 1892, at a village election it was voted to establish a public library. The next year, Pearsons was elected one of the initial directors but declined the election. Upon the establishment of the Hinsdale Public Library, the Hinsdale Library Association turned over its assets to the public library and ceased to function. In 1911, the library was occupying modest quarters under its third lease. Prior to September 7, 1911, Pearsons had expressed to the trustees of the village his desire to give his residential property to the community for library uses and purposes. A committee of ten, including certain village trustees and members of the board of library directors, conferred with him about the proposed gift and as a result of the discussions Pearsons, on the day last named, executed and delivered to the village of Hinsdale his warranty deed conveying to it the property previously described. The deed reads as follows:

‘This Indenture Witnesseth, that the Grantor, Daniel K. Pearsons, Widower, of the Village of Hinsdale, in the County of DuPage, and State of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sum of One (1) Dollar, in hand paid, Conveys and Warrants to the Village of Hinsdale, of the Village of Hinsdale, County of DuPage and State of Illinois, the following described Real Estate, to-wit: Lots Seventeen (17), Eighteen (18), Nineteen (19), Twenty (20), Twenty-one (21), Twenty-two (22) of Block Seven (7) of the Re Subdivision of Lots Five (5) and Six (6) of O. J. Stough's addition to Hinsdale, being the block bounded in the North by Walnut Street, on the East by Grant Street, on the South by Maple Street and on the West by Vine Street, situated in the Village of Hinsdale, in the County of DuPage, in the State of Illinois, hereby releasing and waiving all rights under and by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of this State of Illinois: Provided that as to that part of the above described realty, described as follows: Lot Nineteen (19), the same shall be held in trust to be used as a site for a Public Library Building, to be known as the Pearsons Library, and provided further that the proceeds of any sales, or other dispositions of the whole or any part or parts of the remainder of said tract shall constitute a trust fund, for the construction, and maintenance of said library. It is made an express condition of this conveyance, that, if at any time hereafter, the said Lot Nineteen (19) shall cease to be held and used for library purposes, the title of the said grantee thereto shall thereupon cease and determine, and the remainder shall pass to and the title be vested in the Chicago City Missionary Society, of the City of Chicago, Illinois.

‘Dated this seventh day of September, A. D. 1911.

Daniel K. Pearsons (Seal)

The village accepted the deed on the day of its execution and delivery and caused it to be recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of DuPage county. The minutes of the meeting of the village board on the same day recite: ‘The terms under which the property is deeded to the village, are a gift of the entire five acres to be used for library purposes in the following manner. The building and all the ground except a lot in the Southeast corner, 198 feet on Maple Street and 165 feet on Grand Street can be sold, the proceeds to be used for the erection and maintenance of a suitable building for library purposes. The lot that is exempt from the power to sell is to be perpetually used for the purpose outlined in the trust gift, and in case it is not so used it is to revert to the Chicago Missionary Society of the City of Chicago.’ At this meeting the president appointed a committee of three persons, namely, a trustee and two members of the library board, to determine the best means of disposing of the property conveyed to the village by Dr. Pearsons and to fix the prices, subject to the approval of the board, and to manage, lease and control the property pending its sale. The committee entered upon the performance of its duties and made reports from time to time. October 2, 1911, the libraryboard authorized the trustee member of the committee to obtain the books which had been donated by Pearsons to the village library. At a regular meeting of the library board in November, 1911, it was ordered that the picture of Pearsons donated to the library be placed in the village clubroom for safekeeping until completion of the library. January 8, 1912, the library board authorized its president to attend to the refurbishing of the paintings given to the library by Pearsons.

April 27, 1912, Pearsons died intestate, leaving four nephews, Helene Pearsons, the wife of a deceased nephew, one niece, and two grand-nephews, as his only heirs-at-law.

As early as June 3, 1912, an offer of $6,500 for the property was received and the library board recommended its acceptance by the village trustees. This offer was, however, rejected. The records of the village board disclose that the control and disposition of the property given to the village for library purposes by Dr. Pearsons was frequently considered and, further, that the trustees were aided by advice given by the library directors. In 1913, upon recommendation of the library board, the trustees accepted an offer of $4,750 for lot 18, together with the house and fixtures thereon. Subsequently, in 1917, lot 20 was sold for $2,812. In 1920, 82.5 feet of lot 17 was sold for $2,392.50. The next year the north one-half of lot 17, was sold for $2,640, and in 1925 lots 21 and 22 were sold for the aggregate sum of $10,233. Lot 19 has not been sold. The total sale price of the five lots sold from time to time amounted to $22,827.50.

During the interim, the library board on April 11, 1921, discussed the matter of the Pearsons library fund and decided that it was not large enough and conditions for building were not then sufficiently favorable to warrant any attempt to erect a library building. March 6, 1922, a committee consisting of the president and members of the building and grounds committee was requested to present to the library board a sketch of a building suitable to the Pearsons property. Tentative plans ans a sketch made by one Barfield were presented at an estimated cost of $17,500. The estimate, when made, was considerably in excess of the sum which had been realized from the sale of the property. Subsequently, in December, 1924, suggestions were made and considered to the end of joining with the Hinsdale post of the American Legion in the erection of a building on lot 19, to be used by both the public library and the legion post. This suggestion was, in due course, rejected. The library board, in at least six meetings in 1925, considered plans for the permanent site for the library. Early in 1926, a citizens committee was appointed to consider the question and to raise funds. This committee in April, 1926, reported to the library board that it was unwise to launch a campaign for the purchase of a new site, recommended waiting a year and inquiring into the matter of placing the library on a different site, reported that the library needed additional funds, and stated that the members of the committee would attempt to raise $3,000 annually for three years, this sum to meet the added expenses.

The invested proceeds from the sale of the property in the latter part of 1926 and 1927 amounted to approximately $25,000. At this time a plan was initiated and successfully carried to completion to provide funds for the Hinsdale Memorial Building. The public library availed itself of the offer of occupying space in the new building and shortly after its completion moved into its present quarters in 1929. Its lease in this building is subject to vacation by the library upon notice to the trustees of the village and is subject to a rental of $75 per month. The memorial building, it appears, also accommodates the village offices and official board room, the Hinsdale post of the American Legion, the American Legion Auxiliary, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Hardy v. Davis
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 21, 1958
    ...625, 34 N.E. 467, 21 L.R.A. 454). Moreover, gifts to charity are looked upon with favor by the courts (Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Society, 375 Ill. 220, 30 N.E.2d 657; Skinner v. Northern Trust Co., 288 Ill. 229, 123 N.E. 289; First National Bank of Chicago v. King Edwar......
  • Eychaner v. Gross
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 3, 2002
    ...possess original and inherent power to recognize, execute and control trusts and trust funds." Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Society, 375 Ill. 220, 233, 30 N.E.2d 657 (1940). Equity considers the general charitable purpose of a settlor as the substance of the gift and the m......
  • Northern Illinois Medical Center v. Home State Bank of Crystal Lake
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 30, 1985
    ...that an alternative distribution is provided for in the event the primary objective fails. See Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Society (1940), 375 Ill. 220, 234, 30 N.E.2d 657; Burr v. Brooks (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 80, 86, 30 Ill.Dec. 744, 393 N.E.2d 1091, aff'd (1981), 83 Ill......
  • First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. King Edward's Hospital Fund for London
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 11, 1954
    ...construction which will sustain it. Stubblefield v. Peoples Bank, 406 Ill. 374, 384, 94 N.E.2d 127; Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Society, 375 Ill. 220, 231, 30 N.E.2d 657; Webb v. Webb, 340 Ill. 407, 420, 172 N.E. 730, 71 A.L.R. 404; Skinner v. Northern Trust Co., 288 Ill.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Enforcing Conservation Easements: The Through Line
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 34-2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...note 47 and accompanying text. 262. Thomas v. Bryant, 40 S.E.2d 487, 490 (Va. 1946) (quoting Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Soc’y, 30 N.E.2d 657, 663 (Ill, 1940)). See also Smith v. Moore, 343 F.2d 594, 604 (4th Cir. 1965). 263. 264. See supra note 49 and accompanying text, discussing ......

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