Bridges v. Pleasants

• Decision Date: 31 December 1845
• Citation: 44 Am.Dec. 94,39 N.C. 26,4 Ired.Eq. 26
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM H. BRIDGES et al. v. STEPHEN PLEASANTS.

4 Ired.Eq. 26

39 N.C. 26

44 Am.Dec. 94

WILLIAM H. BRIDGES et al.

v.STEPHEN PLEASANTS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1845.

A bequest of $1000, “to be applied to foreign missions and to the poor saints: this to be disposed of and applied as my executor may think the proper objects according to the scriptures, the greater part, however, to be applied to missionary purposes, say $900. Item--It is my will, that if there be any thing over and above,” (after satisfying certain legacies and devises) “that it be applied to home missions,” is too indefinite and therefore void.

To sustain a gift in trust by a testator, the trust itself must be valid; and, to make it so, it must be in favor of such persons, natural or artificial, as can legally take.

In the case of devises to charitable purposes, the doctrine of cy. pres. does not obtain in this State.

A bequest for religious charity must, in this State, be to some definite purpose, and to some body or association of persons, having a legal existence and with capacity to take; or, at the least, it must be to some such body, on which the Legislature shall, within a reasonable time, confer a capacity to take.

There is no provision in our laws for donations, to be employed in any general system of diffusing the knowledge of christianity throughout the earth.

The cases of McAuley v. Wilson, 1 Dev. Eq. 276. Holland v. Peck, 2 Ired. Eq. 255, and State v. Gerard, 2 Ired. Eq. 210, cited and approved.

This cause, having been set for hearing upon the Bill and answer, was transmitted, by consent of the parties, from the Court of Equity of Orange County, at the Fall Term, 1845, to this Court.

The following case was presented by the pleadings:

Stephen Justice made his will and therein bequeathed sundry specific and pecuniary legacies; and then he directed as follows: “After my will is complied with, after the above directions, it is my will that $1000, if there be so much remaining, be applied to foreign missions, and to the poor saints: this to be disposed of and applied as my executor may think the proper objects according to the Scriptures; the greater part, however, to be applied to missionary purposes, say $900. Item: It is my will, that if there be any thing over and above, that it be applied to home missions.”

There is no other residuary clause in the will; and the present bill was filed by the testator's next of kin, against the executor, for an account and distribution of the surplus, and claiming the above sums, as not being effectually given away.

Respecting the other parts of the estate, there seems to be no dispute, but the whole controversy turns on the validity of the charitable bequests. The answer states, that the defendant is, and has long been, an officiating minister in the Baptist denomination of Christians, and the testator was a pious and zealous member of the same denomination, and manifested a deep solicitude for the spread of the Gospel, as expounded by that denomination, and was charitable and liberal to its poor professing members; that by the terms, ““poor saints,” the testator meant his Christian brethren, who might be in needy circumstances; and that “foreign mission” and “home mission,” apply to the efforts of the Baptist church to extend the knowledge of Christianity in foreign lands, and in our own country. The answer further states, that the defendant has accepted the trust conferred on him, and that he has formed a scheme for administering it, as follows: That he will pay the sum bequeathed for foreign missions, to the Treasurer of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention, (which is the highest assembly of that denomination in the State,) to be by them applied, with their other funds, in aid of the extension of Christianity in other countries, under the auspices of the General Baptist Convention of the United States. The bequest for home missions, he proposes to divide between the Beulah, Sandy Creek, and Flat River Associations; which, the answer states to be three inferior societies of the Baptist church, within the personal knowledge of the testator, in this State; to be applied by each association to the support of the Gospel ministry within its jurisdiction. The bequest to poor Christians, the defendant proposes to apply to the poor of Cane Creek congregation, in Orange County, (in which the testator habitually worshipped,) unless there should be objects of greater need elsewhere. The answer then refers to a pamphlet, published some years after the testator's death, as containing the proceedings and views of the Baptist State Convention, in relation to missions and charities to poor brethren. And the defendant states, that he is advised that he has, by the will, the right and trust to apply the funds according to his judgment, as the testator might himself have done; but he, nevertheless, submits to administer the charity as the Court may direct.

The answer further states, that two of the plaintiffs, William H. Bridges and William Duncan, executed to the defendant their releases by deed, of any further claim in the testator's estate; and it insists thereon as if the same matter were pleaded.

The two releases, referred to in the answer, are exhibited, and, in each of them, the receipt of the sum of $60 is acknowledged to be in full of the distributive share of the party in the estate of the late Stephen Justice, and the defendant is released from all further demands or claims on him, as executor of Justice, either at law or in equity.

The cause was set down for hearing without replying to the answer, and sent to this Court for hearing.

Badger, for the plaintiffs .

Norwood and J. H. Bryan, for the defendant .

RUFFIN, C. J.

It is always painful to a Judge, to disappoint the intentions he believes to have been entertained by a testator, though he has not sufficiently expressed them;...