Destitute of Bennington County by VanSantvoord v. Henry W. Putnam Memorial Hospital
Decision Date | 05 October 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 218,218 |
Citation | 215 A.2d 134,125 Vt. 289 |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parties | DESTITUTE OF BENNINGTON COUNTY by their agents, R. S. VAN SANTVOORD, C. H. Bryant, J. W. Browne. v. HENRY W. PUTNAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. |
Black & Plante, White River Junction, for plaintiffs.
Clifton Parker, Morrisville, for defendant.
Before SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ. and O'BRIEN, Superior J KEYSER, Justice.
This action for a declaratory judgment is brought in equity by the plaintiffs acting as the agents of the destitute of Bennington County under an appointment of the governor by authority of 14 V.S.A. § 2401. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of the rights of said destitute under a deed of gift or trust, to the Village of Bennington from one Henry W. Putnam and the Bennington Water Company and under the statute which chartered the defendant hospital.
The plaintiffs also seek to have the defendant required to make reasonable rules and regulations relative to the admission and treatment of the destitute. And they further pray that a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendant from charging or attempting to charge anyone or any municipal corporation for any charges for said destitute.
Decree below was in favor of the plaintiffs. The injunction prayed for was issued. The defendant has appealed from the decree and judgment order.
On December 10, 1912, Henry W. Putnam, the principal stockholder of the Bennington Water Company, joined by said water company, conveyed and donated to the Village of Bennington, its system of water works. It was the desire of the said Henry W. Putnam, as expressed in the deed, of donating the water system to the village 'for the beneficial use of said Village and the inhabitants thereof, and others who may now or hereafter be supplied from said system and that from the income derived therefrom a Public Hospital be established and maintained in said Village.'
Paragraph VIII of said deed of gift provides as follows:
* * *'
The Henry W. Putnam Memorial Hospital was chartered by legislative act, No. 401 of the Act of 1912. Section 2 of the act reads as follows:
The Henry W. Putnam Memorial Hospital was established in the Village of Bennington in 1918 and has been in continuous operation since that time. The net income from the water system has been paid to the hospital by the Village and used for the construction, management and operation of the hospital. The hospital has received additional gifts and donations which have been made a part of the assets of the hospital.
Since the establishment of the hospital until recently, the hospital has never charged the towns for indigent patients. In June 1959, it gave notice to the several town officials in Bennington County that On October 30, 1961, the hospital administrator again notified the towns of Bennington County that effective January 1, 1962, the towns would be required to pay 'the full cost of the ward rate to the hospital.'
Defendant first excepts to Paragraph 2 of the decree which reads:
(Emphasis added.)
The defendant argues that the chancellor erred in predicating its decree on the determination and premise that every indigent person is a destitute person entitled to hospital care by the defendant free of charge without regard to the intent of the donor, and without evidence or findings of any such intent. On the contrary, the petitioners claim the above provisions are valid.
The trust deed expressed two fundamental and primary purposes for its execution to the Village of Bennington, (1) to donate the system of water works for the beneficial use of the village and its inhabitants, and (2) from the income derived therefrom and other available funds to establish, maintain and equip a public hospital in said village.
The deed clearly demonstrates by its language that it was the prime motive and intent of the donor to establish a public hospital and thereby make available the facilities for hospital treatment, first, for all residents residing in the Village or County of Bennington and, secondly, for other persons not such residents, if the hospital is of sufficient capacity. The deed specifies that all such persons 'are to be admitted and received treatment at reasonable charges, and the destitute free of charge, under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be adopted by said Hospital Corporation for the government, management and operation of said Hospital.'
A trust deed takes effect when it is made and the construction that would be given to it at that time holds true throughout the life of the instrument. 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 161a, p. 16; Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Brown, 153 Me. 360, 131 A.2d 191.
The trust instrument must be construed to give effect to the grantor's intent as manifested by the language used, and if words are unambiguous there is no necessity for judicial interpretation. State v Bankers' Trust Co., 105 Vt. 220, 164 A. 377. See also Porter v. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt. 410; 14 C.J.S. Charities § 11, p. 437.
The controlling fact in the interpretation of trusts is the expressed intent of the settlor as disclosed by the language of the trust instrument. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Bedford, 125 Conn. 349, 5 A.2d 852, 122 A.L.R. 654. And words in a deed of trust are to be accorded their usual and generally accepted meaning in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary. Schellentrager v. Tradesmens National Bank & Trust Co., 370 Pa. 501, 88 A.2d 773.
The court may not arbitrarily attempt, under the guise of construction, to make a new trust agreement for the parties, and may not read into the trust instrument a provision contrary to the settlor's wishes, or provisions which do not expressly appear or which do not arise from the plain meaning of the words used. Ibid, 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 161, at p. 17. See Avery v. Bender, 119 Vt. 313, 126 A.2d 99.
The court has included in its decree indigent persons (paupers) as well as 'the destitute' residing in the County of Bennington as being entitled to free care by the defendant hospital.
There is no question that 'the destitute' are named as a beneficiary under the trust and 'are to be admitted and receive treatment * * * free of charge.'
Destitute is not possessing the necessaries of life and in a condition of extreme want. St. John v. State, 22 Ala.App. 115, 113 So. 321, 323; Polk County v. Owen, 187 Iowa 220, 174 N.W. 99, 107. Webster's Third International Dictionary defines destitute as bereft or lacking possessions and resources.
Indigent, in a general sense, ordinarily indicates one who lacks property or means of a comfortable subsistence, and for that reason is needy or in want. 42 C.J.S. p. 1363. Webster's Third International Dictionary defines indigent as poor, without being destitute.
Under P.S. 3665, the statute in effect in 1912, an overseer was required to have the care 'of poor and indigent persons' residing or found therein, and a 'poor person in need of assistance' was, and still is, an indigent person or pauper. P.S. 3667; Town of Randolph v. Montgomery, 109 Vt. 130, 194 A. 481; Town...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aiken v. Malloy
...able for some unavoidable cause to provide for himself and his family, or a person dependent upon charity. In Destitute v. Putnam Hospital, 125 Vt. 289, 294, 215 A.2d 134 (1965), we held that a poor person in need of assistance was an indigent person or pauper and that the term assistance i......
-
Mathews v. Mathews
...persons are those who do not have sufficient means to pay for their own care and maintenance'"); Destitute v. Putman Hospital, 125 Vt. 289, 294, 215 A.2d 134, 138 (1965) ("[i]ndigent, in a general sense, ordinarily indicates one who lacks property or means of a comfortable subsistence, and ......
-
State v. Wilt
...Etc., 149 Mont. 206, 425 P.2d 316 (1967); Verna v. Verna, 288 Pa.Super. 511, 432 A.2d 630 (1981); Destitute of Bennington Co. v. Henry W. Putnam M.H., 125 Vt. 289, 215 A.2d 134 (1965). ...
-
In re Hughes & Associates Ins. Agency, Inc., Bankruptcy No. IP85-0996B
...(1950); Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. City of Waukegan, 333 Ill. 577, 165 N.E. 348, 350 (1929); Destitute of Bennington Co. v. Henry W. Putnam M.H., 125 Vt. 289, 215 A.2d 134, 137-138 (1965). The trustee's preference action therefore fails as a matter of Pursuant to Rule 7052 and F.R.Civ.P. ......
-
FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES AND THE PROTEAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST.
...(Tex. Ct. App. 2010); In re Estate of Poppleton, 97 P. 138, 140 (Utah 1908); Destitute of Bennington Cnty. v. Henry W. Putnam Mem'l Hosp., 215 A.2d 134, 137-38 (Vt. 1965) (citing State v. Bankers' Tr. Co., 164 A. 377. 379 (Vt. 1933)); Harbour v. SunTrust Bank, 685 S.E.2d 838, 842 (Va. 2009)......