Cromie's Heirs v. Louisville Orphans' Home Soc.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1867 |
| Parties | Cromie's heirs v. Louisville Orphans' Home Society, & c. Cromie's heirs v. The Institution of Mercy, New York. The House of Mercy, New York, v. The Institution of Mercy, New York. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
1. " I give, devise, and bequeath all the rest and residue of my estate, real, personal, and mixed, in as nearly equal amounts or parts as may be--say one half to The Presbyterian Orphan Asylum of Louisville, and the remaining one half to The House of Mercy, of the City of New York, to be divided equally within two years, or sold within five years, and the proceeds arising to be divided as previously set forth." Held by the court --That, although the corporate names are not precisely recited in the will, yet true description and extraneous facts conclusively identify the Louisville Orphans' Home Society as the object of the gift to the Presbyterian Orphan Asylum of Louisville; --the devise to the House of Mercy, in the City of New York, is unambiguous,--the words, interpreted in their primary sense mean The House of Mercy, New York. Such is inevitably their construction and legal effect, without the aid of any extrinsic fact.
2. The continued operations of " The Louisville Orphans' Home Society," in Louisville, from 1849, under the constitution and charter, sufficiently implied the adoption of the one and the acceptance of the other; consequently, The Louisville Orphans' Home Society was, at the time of the death of Isaac Cromie, in 1865, a legal corporation, and as such, was a qualified recipient of his testamentary bounty.
3. Without any statutory incorporation, a gift to the society being essentially a beneficial gift to poor orphans, would be available, and not void, as it might have been by the common law unmodified by any statute of charitable uses; and such charities may be upheld and applied by the chancellor under the laws of Kentucky.
4. The words of the will, unmodified as they are by the context must be construed according to their own primary and popular import. This, when clear, is the highest and only admissible evidence of the testator's intention. If the words thus interpreted apply with reasonable certainty to a particular object or thing, satisfactorily identified either by description or name, extraneous testimony is inadmissible to prove a testamentary intent essentially different. It is only when unambiguous words apply, with equal certainty, to different objects or things, that extraneous testimony may relieve the latent ambiguity resulting from only the same kind of evidence. When the words clearly apply to a particular person or object, no latent ambiguity can be established by proof aliunde of any other person or object of a different descriptio n or name. (Mitchell vs. Walker, 17 B Mon., 66; Timberlake vs. Parrish, 1 Met., 265; Wigram, secs. 6, 9, 215; Redfield, vol. 1, pp. 568, 613.)
5. By the law of its creation as a corporate institution, " The House of Mercy, New York, " is limited to and prohibited from, holding over fifty thousand dollars in value of real estate, and seventy-five thousand dollars in personalty; therefore, as it is shown in the record that the real estate of said institution, at the time of the death of the testator, exceeding in value fifty thousand dollars, it cannot take any part of the real estate devised to it by him, and it can only take so much of the personal bequest as will, when added to the personalty held and owned by said institution at the time of testator's death, make up the seventy-five thousand dollars; and, consequently, the real estate so devised, and the remainder of the personal bequest, relapse as undevised estate to testator's heirs and distributees.
APPEALS FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.
I. & J. CALDWELL and W. R. THOMPSON, For Appellants,
CITED--
Civil Code, secs. 153, 340; 1 Rev. Stat., 117.
3 Leigh, 450; Gallego vs. Atty. Genl.
4 Dana, 354; Moore vs. Moore.
23 New York, 298; Beekman vs. Bonsor.
2 Redfield on Wills, 812.
Session Acts, 1849, 354.
Angell & Ames on Corpo., secs. 80, 83, p. 77.
17 Maine, 440; Coffin vs. Collins.
1 Sand. Ch. R., 179; Valk vs. Crandall.
2 Met. (Ky. ), 324; Fry vs. Lex. and Big S. R. R.
23 N. Y. Rep., 356; Downing vs. Marshall.
4 Wheaton, 1; Bap. Asso. vs. Hart.
4 Leigh, 327; Janey vs. Janette.
5 Humph. (Tenn. ), 197; Green vs. Allen.
14 New York, 380; Owens vs. Missionary So.
1 B. Mon., 215; Chambers vs. Bap. Ed. So.
8 Dana, 38; Curling vs. Curling.
14 Johns., 243; Dutchess Cot. Manf. Co. vs. Davis.
5 Wendell, 482; Bank vs. Williams.
9 Cowen, 437; McCartee vs. Orph. Asy. So.
3 Sandf., 351; Ayres vs. M. E. Church.
8 Dana, 118; Lathrop vs. Coml. Bk.
24 Wendell, 630; Humbert vs. Trinity Ch.
1 Phill., 290, in 19 Eng. Chy. Rep.; Walsh vs. Gladstone.
7 Met. (Mass. ) 203; Tucker vs. Seaman's Aid So.
19 Eng. Chy. Rep., 270; Blundell vs. Gladstone.
Wigram on Extrinsic Ev., 94, 106, 115, 137, et seq.
33 Barb., 537; Hallett vs. Harrower.
28 Barb., 59; Kennedy vs. Colton.
22 Conn. Rep., 32; White vs. Fisk.
15 Wendell, 314; U. S. Bank vs. Stearns.
THOS. W. GIBSON, On same side,
CITED--
32 Miss., 218; Bank of Commerce vs. Mudd.
33 Barb., 537; Hallett vs. Harrower.
23 Vermont, 336; Button vs. American Tract Society.
1 Redfield on Wills, 572 to 691.
Revised Stat., chap. 21, sec. 25, 1 Stant., 264.
Act incorporating Louisville Orphans' Home Society, Feby. 26, 1849.
BULLOCK & ANDERSON and BODLEY & SIMRALL, For House of Mercy, New York,
CITED--
1 Redfield on Wills, pp. 594, 574, 565, 568.
1 Jarman on Wills, p. 329, chap. 12, sec. 8.
2 DeG. M. & S., 708; Harwood vs. Griffith.
1 Vesey, jr., 412; Delman vs. Robells.
1 Cox, 425; Andrews vs. Dodson.
12 Ves., 219; Holmes vs. Constance.
1 Y. & C. C. C., 654; Wilson vs. Squire; 20 Eng. Chy., 654.
7 Metc., 209 and 416; Tucker vs. Seaman's Aid So.
Angell & Ames on Corps., secs. 99, 102.
Wilcox on Corps., secs. 50, 36, 37, 39.
10 Coke's Rep., 267; Dalison, 78; 2 Marsh, 174.
1 Phillips (19 Eng. Chy. ), 270, 285, 286, 289.
4 Barb. (N. Y. ), 81; Banks vs. Phelan.
15 Connecticut, 292, 274; 23 Vermont, 346, 348, 349.
5 J. J. M., 351; Noland vs. Johnson.
7 Mon., 428; Webb vs. Webb.
2 Dana, 47; Tudor vs. Terrell.
5 Dana, 345; Timberlake vs. Parrish.
1 B. Mon., 111; Haydon vs. Ewing.
6 B. M., 219; Long vs. Duvall.
8 B. M., 600; Stephen vs. Walker.
3 B. M., 291; Wheeler vs. Dunlap.
17 B. M., 61; Mitchell vs. Walker.
1 Met., 265; Allen vs. Vanmeter.
10 Co., 306; 15 Vin. Ab., 491.
3 Randolph's Rep., 141-4; Sandford's Chy. Rep., 758.
24 Wendell, 629, 630; Humbert vs. Trinity Church.
7 Sergt. & Rawle, 320-23; 7 Barr, 233.
HAMILTON POPE, E. S. WORTHINGTON, and BULLOCK & ANDERSON, For Lou. Orphans' Home Society,
CITED--
1 Jar. on Wills, pp. 363-4, 359-60.
7 Met. (Mass. ), 416; Minot vs. Boston Asylum.
1 B. Mon., 220; Chambers vs. Baptist Ed. Society.
8 Dana, 38; Curling vs. Curling.
7 B. M., 11; Attorney Genl. vs. Wallace.
Revised Statutes, chap. 14, secs. 1, 2.
2 Dana, 177; Gass & Bonta vs. White, & c.
2 Kent, 292; 4 Shep., 224; 11 N. H., 102.
2 Fairf., 227; 12 Wheat., 71.
Angell & Ames on Corp., sec. 83; 1 Hall, 191.
MARTIN BIJUR, JAMES S. PIRTLE, and LEWIS N. DEMBITZ, For Institution of Mercy,
CITED--
Civil Code, sections 117, 896.
17 B. Mon., 13; Sanders vs. Sanders.
2 Met., 210; Schwein vs. Sims.
7 Sergt. & Rawle, 320-23; Leazure vs. Hillyas.
4 Sandford's Chy. Rep., 758; Borgardus vs. Trinity Church.
24 Wend., 587, 604, 629; Humbert vs. Trinity Church.
6 Cowen, 23; Vernon Society vs. Hills.
16 Peters, 492-3; Harpending vs. The Dutch Church.
11 Sergeant & Rawle, 418; Baird vs. Bank of Washington.
3 Randolph's R., 136; The Bank vs. Poitiaux.
2 Met., 277; Allen vs. Vanmeter.
12 Ad. & El., 92; Allen vs. Allen.
5 Rep., 68; Cheny's Case.
2 M. & W., 129; Gord vs. Needs.
19 Eng. Chy., 270; Blundell vs. Gladstone.
2 Kay & Joh., 740; Bennett vs. Marshall.
20 Eng. Chy.; Wilson vs. Squire.
15 Conn., 274; Brewster vs. McCall's devisees.
16 Conn., 302; Ayres vs. Weed.
23 Vermont, 336; Button's ex'rs vs. Am. Tract Society.
4 Bradf. Sur. Rep., 162; Hart vs. Marks.
5 Mar., 506; Breckinridge vs. Duncan.
8 Dana, 38; Curling's adm'r vs. Curling's heirs.
2 Meeson & Welsby, 129; Doe and d, Gord vs. Needs.
4 Vesey, jr., 630; Price vs. Page.
8 Bingh., 244; Miller vs. Travers; Wigram, 160, note.
16 L. J. N. S. Chy., 434; Reynolds vs. Wheelan.
1 Met., 264; Allen and wife vs. Vanmeter's devisees.
13 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blitz v. Belvedere Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc.
...think that it should be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary or popular meaning (Himmel v. Hendler, supra; Cromie's Heirs v. Louisville Orphans' Home Society, 66 Ky. 365), and that this is a retreat, shelter or institution for the protection or relief of the unfortunate, destitute or......