Green v. Blackwell

• Decision Date: 13 August 1896
• Citation: 35 A. 375
• Parties: GREEN et al. v. BLACKWELL et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

35 A. 375

GREEN et al.

v. BLACKWELL et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Aug. 13, 1896.

Bill by William A. Green and others against Charles B. Blackwell and others to recover as next of kin, on an alleged failure of the trust, the principal of the trust fund. Dismissed.

Edwin Robert Walker and G. D. W. Vroom, for complainants.

William M. Lanning, for demurrants.

STEVENS, V. C. The bill, to which a demurrer has been interposed by the board of education of Hopewell township, alleges that Abigail Moore died in March, 1833, and that by her last will, in which she describes herself as "Abigail Moore, of Pennington, in the township of Hopewell, county of Hunterdon," she made (inter alia) the following bequest: "To that incorporated body 'The Pennington Academy,' and their successors, I give and bequeath five thousand dollars, to make a fund and establishment for the education of all the poor children in that district forever. 1 will and direct that institution and their successors to put the said sum out on interest, secured by mortgage on landed estate worth double the sum loaned, without buildings, and the interest arising to be appropriated with economy toward the instruction of the poor children pf the district, in reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar, and geography; and, if there are any savings, the same is to be put out in like manner, and for the above purpose, forever." The bill then goes on to state that Mrs. Moore's executor paid to the trustees of Pennington Academy the sum of $5,000; and that subsequent to this payment there was opened in that certain district of the township of Hopewell wherein the village of Pennington was situated a certain school, under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New Jersey, which school was always thereafter supported by the public moneys raised for that purpose; and that, upon its organization, the Pennington Academy was, in the words of the bill, "abandoned, neglected, and ceased to have any existence in fact." The bill then alleges that the fund so left by Mrs. Moore was diverted from the objects and purposes mentioned in her will, a part of it having been loaned to the trustees of the public school of Pennington, and a part to one Fitzpatrick; and that, upon the "abandonment" of the Pennington Academy and "the diversion of the fund," the complainants became entitled thereto as next of kin.

It appears to me plain that, assuming that the academy was abandoned and the fund diverted in the manner mentioned, it does not follow that it became the property of the complainants. That the bequest constituted a good charitable trust at the time of the death of testatrix is not denied. Indeed, it would be hard to frame a gift to charity less open to question. The purpose of the trust was charitable, and there was a trustee competent to execute it. Analogous trusts have been upheld by this court. Mason's Ex'rs v. Trustees, 27 N. J. Eq. 47; Stevens v. Shippen, 28 N. J. Eq. 532; Goodell v. Association, 29 N. J. Eq. 33. Did, then, the so-called "abandonment" of the Pennington Academy, and the loan of the money in the manner above stated, put an end to the trust? I know of no principle of law on which it could be so declared. On the contrary, it is well settled that a trust valid in its inception will not fail for want of a trustee. The court itself will appoint one. The case was argued as if the doctrine of cypres had some application to the facts. It was urged that because the public authorities had provided, at the...