Buchanan v. Kennard

• Decision Date: 11 April 1911
• Citation: 136 S.W. 415,234 Mo. 117
• Parties: ROBERT B. BUCHANAN et al., Appellants, v. SAMUEL M. KENNARD et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

136 S.W. 415

234 Mo. 117

ROBERT B. BUCHANAN et al., Appellants, v. SAMUEL M. KENNARD et al

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 11, 1911

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Eugene McQuillin Judge.

Affirmed.

A. R Russell, T. J. Rowe, A. M. Frumberg, H. N. Moore and E. J O'Brien for appellants.

(1) A trust violating the rule against perpetuities is void, unless the object and purpose of such trust is to create a valid public charity. 2 Perry on Trusts (5 Ed.), sec. 687; 2 Underhill on Wills, 1195; Johnson v. Holifield, 79 Ala. 423; Troutman v. Orphans' Home, 66 Kas. 1; Hilliard v. Miller, 10 Pa. St. 326; Duke of Norfolk's Case, 1 Vern. 164; Bank v. Longfellow, 96 Mo.App. 385; Mason v. Perry, 22 R. I. 475; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352; Detwiller v. Hartman, 37 N.J.Eq. 347. (2) A trust in which the objects and purposes are not specifically stated and the beneficiaries clearly designated is void, unless the object and purpose of the trust is charitable in a legal sense. Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 211; Schmucker's Estate v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; Taylor v. Keep, 2 Ill. 368; Fountain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 369; Pennoyer v. Wadhams, 20 Ore. 278; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. 399, 10 Ves. 541. (3) The trust created by the will so far as it relates to the founding of the hospital is not a legal and valid public charity, and is therefore void. Jones v. Williams, Amb. 651; Hinckley's Estate, 58 Cal. 457; Commonwealth v. Thomas, 119 Ky. 208; Troutman v. Orphans' Home, 66 Kas. 1; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; Crow ex rel. v. Clay County, 196 Mo. 234; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. sec. 1155; Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. 399; Taylor v. Keep, 2 Ill.App. 368; Commissioners v. Pemsel, (1891), A. C. 531; Century Dict., tit. "Hospital;" Murray's New English Dict., tit. "Hospital;" Gitzhoffen v. Hospital Assn., 32 Utah 46; Bridgman's Duke on Charitable Uses, 122; Attorney-General v. Northumberland, 47 L. J. (Ch.) 571; Coleman v. O'Leary, 114 Ky. 388; Kelly v. Nichols, 18 R. I. 62; In re Cullimore's Trust, 27 L. R. (Ir.) 18; In re Clark's Trust, L. R., 1 Ch. Div. 500; Buck v. Roper, 79 Ala. 138; In re Buck (1896), 2 Ch. 727; Petersburg v. Mechanics' Assn., 78 Va. 431; Tyree v. Bingham, 100 Mo. 451; Camp v. Crocker, 54 Conn. 21; Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 211; In re Macduff, 65 L. J. Ch. 703, 74 L. T. 706; Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 183; In re Gassiot, 70 L. J. Ch. 242; Grant v. Saunders, 121 Iowa 80; Kronshage v. Varrell, 120 Wis. 161; In re Good (1905), 2 Ch. 60; Attorney-General v. Haberdashers' Co., 1 Myl. & K. 428; Schmucker's Estate v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; In re Sidney (1908), 1 Ch. 488, C. A.; Kendall v. Granger, 5 Beav. 300; Barkley v. Donnelley, 112 Mo. 561; State ex rel. v. Powers, 10 Mo.App. 263, 74 Mo. 476; Adams v. Hospital, 122 Mo.App. 675; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432; Russell v. Atwater, 49 Minn. 60; Brigham v. Hospital, 126 F. 796, 134 F. 513; Woodruff v. Marsh, 63 Conn. 125; Ould v. Hospital, 95 U.S. 303; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U.S. 174; Elliott v. Mayor, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 170; Burbank v. Burbank, 152 Mass. 254; Corporation of Reading v. Lane, Duke 81; Attorney-General v. Kell, 2 Beav. 575; Pelham v. Anderson, 2 Eden, 296; Vaughn v. Farrar, 2 Ves. Sr. 182; Masters v. Masters, 1 P. Wms. 421. (4) The court cannot make a will for the testator, but must ascertain the intention from the language used in the will. Board of Trustees v. May, 201 Mo. 360; Reeves v. Reeves, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 653; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 323; Attorney-General v. Hunter, 68 L. J. Ch. 449; Holland v. Alcock, 108 N.Y. 312; Adye v. Smith, 44 Conn. 60; Taylor v. Keep, 2 Ill.App. 368; Mason v. Perry, 22 R. I. 475; Hadley v. Forsee, 203 Mo. 418; Wells v. Fuchs, 226 Mo. 97. (5) A trust is not charitable unless the testator has devoted the fund to some charitable purpose so definitely and exclusively that the trustees cannot apply any part of such fund to a non-charitable purpose without violating the express terms of the trust. Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. 399, 10 Ves. 541; Mason v. Perry, 22 R. I. 475; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 323; Attorney-General v. Soule, 28 Mich. 153; Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 212; Taylor v. Keep, 2 Ill.App. 368; Kinike's Estate, 155 Pa. St. 101; In re Shattuck's Will, 193 N.Y. 446; In re Sutro's Estate, 102 P. 923; Johnson v. Johnson, 92 Tenn. 559; Kendall v. Granger, 5 Beav. 300; Fifield v. Van Wyck (Freeman's note), 64 Am. St. 756; 2 Perry on Trusts (5 Ed.), sec. 732; James v. Allen, 3 Meriv. 19; Grimond v. Grimond (1905), A. C. 124; In re McCauley, 28 Ont. 610. (6) A charitable trust must be for the general public use, that is, the benefit must inure to the entire public. Jones v. Williams, Amb. 651; Bank v. Longfellow, 96 Mo.App. 385; Cocks v. Manners, L. R. 12 Eq. 574; Festorazzi v. Catholic Church, 104 Ala. 327; In re Lennon's Estate, 92 P. 870; Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 210; Coe v. Washington Mills, 149 Mass. 547; Drury v. Natick, 10 Allen, 180; Field v. Theological Seminary, 41 F. 371; Powers v. Powers, 29 N.Y.S. 950; Institute v. Delaware County, 94 Pa. St. 166; In re Nottage (1895), 2 Ch. 653; Pennoyer v. Wadhams, 20 Ore. 278; Troutman v. Orphans' Home, 66 Kas. 1; Tyssen's Charitable Bequests, 4. (7) There is no public benefit in the treatment of sickness or injury unless such treatment is restricted to the poor, whose support is a public duty. State ex rel. v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287; Deal v. Mississippi County, 107 Mo. 464; State ex rel. v. Pike County, 144 Mo. 275; Loan Assn. v. Topeka, 21 Wall. 655; R. S. 1899, secs. 8993-8994; State v. Osawkee Township, 14 Kas. 418; Deering v. Peterson, 75 Minn. 118; Thomas v. Edmonson County, 8 Ky. Law R. 265; McIntyre v. Pembroke, 53 N.H. 467; Hugging v. Carter County, 24 Ky. Law R. 1893; Dodge County v. Diers, 69 Neb. 331; Board of Health v. County Commissioners, 89 Minn. 402; Labrie v. Manchester, 59 N.H. 120; Clinton v. Clinton, 61 Iowa 207; Commissioners v. Fertich, 18 Ind.App. 1; Knightstown v. Horner, 36 Ind.App. 139; Vionet v. First Municipality, 4 La. Ann. 43; Tollefson v. Ottawa, 228 Ill. 134; In re Yturburru, 134 Cal. 507; Keeley Institute v. Milwaukee County, 95 Wis. 153; In re House, 23 Colo. 89; Webster v. Police Jury, 51 La. Ann. 1204; Baltimore v. Keeley Institute, 81 Md. 106; Leavitt v. Morris, 105 Minn. 170. (8) A hospital merely for sick and injured persons is not necessarily charitable in the sense of fulfilling a public purpose. People v. Fitch, 39 N.Y.S. 927; Adams v. University Hospital, 122 Mo.App. 675; Phillips v. Railroad, 211 Mo. 419; Washingtonian Home v. Chicago, 157 Ill. 414; State ex rel. v. Powers, 10 Mo.App. 263; County of Hennepin v. Brothers of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460; Board of Review v. Chicago Polyclinic, 233 Ill. 268; People v. Ravenswood Hospital, 238 Ill. 137; Gray Street Infirmary v. Louisville, 23 Ky. Law R. 1274; Wathen v. Louisville, 27 Ky. Law R. 635; Thiel College v. Mercer County, 101 Pa. St. 530; Webber Hospital Assn. v. McKenzie, 104 Me. 320; Gitzhoffen v. Hospital Assn., 32 Utah 46; Brown v. La Societe Francaise, 138 Cal. 475. (9) The care of a burial lot is a strictly private purpose. Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Sim. (N. S.) 255; Rickard v. Robson, 31 Beav. 244; Fowler v. Fowler, 33 Beav. 616; Hoare v. Osborne, L. R. 1 Eq. 585; Johnson v. Holifield, 79 Ala. 423; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352; Bates v. Bates, 134 Mass. 110; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 323; Knox v. Knox, 9 W.Va. 124; Hartson v. Elden, 500 N.J.Eq. 522; Corle's Case, 61 N.J.Eq. 409; Van Syckel v. Johnson, 70 A. (N. J. Eq.) 657. (10) Where an unapportioned and unascertainable portion of a trust fund is bestowed upon an invalid or unlawful purpose, the whole trust fails, regardless of the validity of the other portions. Attorney-General v. Hinxman, 2 Jac. & W. 270; Fowler v. Fowler, 33 Beav. 616, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 648; Cramp v. Playfoot, 4 Kay & J. 481; Chapman v. Brown, 6 Ves. 404; Beekman v. People, 27 Barb. 280; Limbrey v. Gurr, 6 Madd. 151; Attorney-General v. Hunter, 68 L. J. Ch. 449; Mason v. Perry, 22 R. I. 475; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 306; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352; Van Syckel v. Johnson, 70 A. (N. J. Eq.) 657; Tilden v. Green, 130 N.Y. 29; Robards v. Brown, 167 Mo. 456; Stevens v. De La Vaulx, 166 Mo. 20; Lockridge v. Mace, 109 Mo. 162; Sheppard v. Fisher, 206 Mo. 208. (11) In a suit between the heirs and the trustees to determine whether there is a proper bequest to a charitable use, costs should be allowed to all parties out of the fund or estate. 2 Perry on Trusts, sec. 747; 22 Ency. Pl. and Pr. 1210; Currie v. Pye, 17 Ves. 462; Bliss v. American Bible Soc., 2 Allen 334; Attorney-General v. Moore, 19 N.J.Eq. 509; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 450; Lombard v. Witbeck, 173 Ill. 396; Arnold v. Alden, 173 Ill. 229; Tracey v. Murray, 44 Mich. 109; McClary v. Stull, 44 Neb. 175; Enders v. Enders, 49 Minn. 182; Straw v. East Maine Conference, 67 Me. 493; Drew v. Wakefield, 54 Me. 291; Moore v. Alden, 80 Me. 301; Dane v. Home for Women, 111 Mass. 132.

Thomas F. Galt and A. & J. F. Lee for respondents.

(1) Upon point 1 and 2 as made by appellants there is no issue. (2) The will of Robert A. Barnes created a public charitable trust in these defendant trustees, because: (a) It was devised in trust for the benefit of an unlimited number of undesignated persons; (b) For the purpose of healing the sick and injured generally -- a charity; (c) No person engaged in the management of the charity could derive any profit from it. Jackson v. Philips, 14 Allen, 356; Cawse v Nottingham, (1891) 1 Q. B. 585; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U.S. 310; 6 Ency. Law and Pro. 897, 902; Vidal v. Philadelphia, 2 How. (U.S.) 127; Mo. Hist. Society v. Acad. of Science, 94 Mo. 459; Hinckley Estate, 58 Cal. 457; Troutman v. Orphans' Home, 66 Kas. 1; Tyssen,...