City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Carpenter

• Decision Date: 12 January 1946
• Citation: 319 Mass. 78,64 N.E.2d 636
• Parties: CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. v. CARPENTER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

319 Mass. 78

64 N.E.2d 636

CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO.

v.CARPENTER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Jan. 12, 1946.

Petition by the City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as trustee under the will of Grace E. Winslow, for instructions to who should be paid a bequest which a codicil of the will provided should be paid to the Town of Shirley as a fund, the income thereof to be used for maintenance of a home for the proof. From a decree stating that bequest had lapsed and ordering payment thereof to Marjorie Carpenter as surviving individual residuary legatee, the Town of Shirley appeals.

Modified, and as modified affirmed.Appeal and Report from Probate Court, Middlesex County; Leggat, judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.

R. T. Lilly, of Fitchburg, for Town of Shirley.

Thomas E. Jansen, Jr., of Boston, for respondent Marjorie Carpenter.

A. Wolfe, of Boston, for petitioner.

RONAN, Justice.

This is a petition by the trustee under the will of Grace E. Winslow for instructions as to who should be paid a bequest of $500 and a share in the residue, which a codicil of the will provided should be paid ‘to the Town of Shirley aforesaid to be held by them as a fund the income thereof to be used for the maintenance of a Home for the Poor.’ The town appealed from a final decree stating that this bequest had lapsed and ordering payment thereof to the respondent Marjorie Carpenter. The latter is the surviving individual residuary legatee.

The testatrix died May 25, 1915, leaving a daughter as her only heir and next of kin for whose benefit her will established a trust out of residue and provided for the termination of the trust and the distribu tion of the trust property upon the happening of certain events which have now occurred. The daughter died on June 15, 1943. The case was heard in the Probate Court upon a statement of agreed facts from which it appeared that the town, at a special meeting on August 7, 1944, voted to accept the bequest. It also appeared that the town does not have a permanent home for the poor or funds for the establishment of such a home.

The appellee contends that the gift has failed because it is impossible for the town to execute the trust and because the will does not show any general charitable intent that the gift should be used for some other charitable purpose, and that the fund should be paid to her. It is well settled that, if it appears from the will that the testatrix intended that her charitable purpose should be limited to a specific object or to a designated institution and it becomes impossible to effectuate that object or the institution has ceased to exist, and there is no general charitable intent that her property should be used for a charitable purpose similar to the general nature of that described in the will, then the gift fails in the absence of any limitations over or other provision and the heirs or next of kin of the testatrix take by way of resulting trust. Teele v. Bishop of Derry, 168 Mass. 341, 343, 47 N.E. 422,38 L.R.A. 629, 60 Am.St.Rep. 401;Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106, 109, 110, 49 N.E.2d 461, 157 A.L.R. 896.

A gift for the relief of poverty is a valid public charity, and a city or town has the power to accept a trust for the benefit of the poor and to act as trustee and to execute the trust. Higginson v. Turner, 171 Mass. 586, 51 N.E. 172;Attorney General v. Lowell, 246 Mass. 312, 141 N.E. 45;Boston v. Curby, 276 Mass. 549, 177 N.E. 557;Boston v. Dolan, 298 Mass. 346, 10 N.E.2d 275. The town has decided to become the trustee by a vote which shows that it was familiar with the terms of the...