Girard Trust Co. v. Schmitz
Decision Date | 06 May 1941 |
Docket Number | 122/632. |
Parties | GIRARD TRUST CO. v. SCHMITZ et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
[Copyrighted material omitted.]
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Any individual, of full age and mentally competent, may make a will disposing of his property as he sees fit, unless in contravention of law, or of public policy, which is the foundation of all law.
2. The right to dispose of one's property by will is neither a natural nor a constitutional right. It is a purely statutory right, but it has been recognized in New Jersey from the earliest Colonial times.
3. The power to dispose of property by will includes the right to attach to testamentary gifts such terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions as the testator pleases, provided they are not contrary to public policy or forbidden by law.
4. A testamentary bequest or devise upon condition precedent does not vest until the condition is performed.
5. Such a bequest or devise upon condition subsequent vests immediately upon the death of the testator, subject to being defeated upon a breach of the condition.
6. The acceptance of a legacy to which a legal condition is annexed makes that condition binding.
7. A forfeiture clause in a will is to be strictly construed against a forfeiture and reasonably construed in favor of the beneficiary.
8. Forfeiture will not result from the violation of a void condition.
9. Any testamentary disposition of property contra bonos mores is void as against public policy.
10. Whatever is bad as a covenant, or a contract, is also bad as a condition.
11. The term "public policy" admits of no exact definition; it changes as the law changes and now applications of old principles are required; but the principles upon which it is based are definite and unchangeable. In general "whatever tends to injustice or oppression, restraint of liberty, restraint of legal right; whatever tends to the obstruction of justice, a violation of the statute, or the obstruction or perversion of the administration of the law" (Brooks v. Cooper, 50 N.J.Eq. 761, 26 A. 978, 21 L.R.A. 617, 35 Am.St.Rep. 793); whatever contravenes any established interest of society, or conflicts with the morals of the time, when embodied in and made the subject of a contract, renders such contract void as against public policy.
12. The sources of the public policy of New Jersey are the constitutions, federal and state, the common law and equity rules of England as adopted by us and as modified by the Legislature, our statutes, and judicial decisions.
13. A condition attached to a testamentary gift in trust to certain named brothers and sisters of the testator, that they abstain from social and family intercourse with a brother and sister expressly disinherited by the will, and their respective spouses and children, is void as against public policy. The condition here involved held void for uncertainty also.
14. Where the testator provides for alternative gifts "in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction shall declare invalid" a condition attached to a legacy, the question touching the validity of the condition must first be determined. If the condition is held void the alternative gifts become effective.
Suit by the Girard Trust Company, executor and trustee under the will of Robert Schmitz, deceased, against Walter A. Schmitz and others for construction of certain provisions of the will and for instructions thereon.
Decree advised in accordance with opinion.
Boyle & Archer, of Camden, for complainant.
Joseph J. Summerill, Jr., of Camden, amicus curiae.
BERRY, Vice Chancellor.
This suit concerns a will of hate which was executed by Robert Schmitz, late of Camden County, who died on or about December 26, 1935. The will was executed in 1916 and a codicil thereto in 1924. It was probated on December 9, 1937, in the Camden County Surrogate's Office, and the complainant, as the executor and trustee thereof, presently seeks the construction of certain of its provisions, and instructions thereon.
The testator had six brothers and sisters at the date of the execution of his will, and for two of them, his brother Otto Schmitz and his sister Emilie Schmitz Blizzard, he appears to have had an abiding hate. What his feelings towards the others were is a matter of conjecture, but he made them conditional beneficiaries of his will. Whether because he loved these latter more, or because he desired to use them as instruments to perpetuate his hatred for the other two, may best be judged from a reading of his will. Only a portion of the Third Clause, and the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Clauses of the will, and the Second, Third and Fourth Clauses of the codicil are necessarily pertinent to the present inquiry, and they are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jersey City v. Hague
...A.1893); Cameron v. International, &c., Union No. 384, 118 N.J.Eq. 11, 176 A. 692, 97 A.L.R. 594 (E. & A.1935); Girard Trust Co. v. Schmitz, 129 N.J.Eq. 444, 20 A.2d 21 (Ch.1941); Allen v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Co., 131 N.J.L. 475, 477--478, 37 A.2d 37, 154 A.L.R. 834 (E. & A.1944);......
-
Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co.
...1893); Cameron v. International, & c., Union No. 384, 118 N.J.Eq. 11, 176 A. 692, 97 A.L.R. 594 (E. & A.1935); Girard Trust Co. v. Schmitz, 129 N.J.Eq. 444, 20 A.2d 21 (Ch.1941); Allen v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Co., 131 N.J.L. 475, 477--478, 37 A.2d 37, 154 A.L.R. 834 (E. § A.1944); ......
-
Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
...meaning of "public policy" is variable for there is no fixed rule to determine which acts are repugnant to it. (Girard Trust Co. v. Schmitz (1941), 129 N.J.Eq. 444, 20 A.2d 21.) Public policy has been defined as "[T]hat principle of the law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that w......
-
Whalen v. Schoor, DePalma & Canger Group, Inc.
...to] the public good...." Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 10 N.J.Super. at 574, 77 A.2d 255 (quoting Girard Trust Co. v. Schmitz, 129 N.J.Eq. 444, 20 A.2d 21 (Ch.1941)); compare Young v. Prudential Ins. Co., 297 N.J.Super. 605, 620-21, 688 A.2d 1069 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 149......