Greenman v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 05 January 1928
• Docket Number: No. 105.,105.
• Citation: 241 Mich. 464,217 N.W. 1
• Parties: GREENMAN et al. v. PHILLIPS et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

241 Mich. 464

217 N.W. 1

GREENMAN et al.

v.PHILLIPS et al.

No. 105.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 5, 1928.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cass County, in Chancery; Glenn E. Warner, Judge.

Suit by Mintie Jones Greenman and others against George W. Phillips, as administrator of the estate of Mary Andrews, deceased, and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Court.

Walter C. Jones, of Dowagiac, for appellants.

James H. Kinnane, of Dowagiac, for appellees.

BIRD, J.

Mary Andrews was a spinster and a long-time resident of Dowagiac. She passed away in 1924 and left a will, one provision of which is in controversy here. The fourth paragraph provides:

‘All the balance of my estate, whether the same be real or personal, I hereby give, devise and bequeath to the city of Dowagiac, a municipal corporation, the same to be used by the said city for the purpose of providing a suitable playground for children, and I hereby direct that the sum of money or other property received by the said city under this bequest or devise shall be used for no other purpose.'

The plaintiffs are cousins of the deceased, and they raise the question that this provision of the will creates a perpetuity, is uncertain as to its object, and uncertain as to the parties sought to be benefited. We do not share plaintiffs' views. Why we do not can be readily explained by quoting the statute:

‘No gift, grant, bequest or devise, whether in trust or otherwise to religious, educational, charitable or benevolent uses, or for the purpose of providing for the care or maintenance of any part of any cemetery, public or private, or anything therein contained which shall in other respects by valid under the laws of this state, shall be invalid by reason of the indefiniteness or uncertainty of the object of such trust or of the persons designated as the beneficiaries thereunder in the instrument creating the same, nor by reason of the same contravening any statute or rule against perpetuities. If in the instrument creating such a gift, grant, bequest or devise, there is a trustee named to execute the same, the legal title to the lands or property given, granted, devised or bequeathed for such purposes, shall vest in such trustee. If no such trustee shall be named in said instrument or if a vacancy occurs in the trusteeship, then the trust shall vest in the court of chancery for the proper county, and shall be executed by some trustee appointed for that purpose by or under the direction of the court; and said court may make such orders or decrees as may be necessary to vest the title to said lands or property in the trustee so appointed.’ Act 280, Laws of 1915.

This bequest clearly comes within the word ‘educational.’ School sites are now selected with a view of having playgrounds for the children. The opportunity for play and exercise is now considered a part of the child's education, and no school site is regarded as complete unless this facility is afforded. The deceased had, in earlier life, been a teacher in the Dowagiac schools. Her other bequest shows she was much interested in school children, and she supplied by this bequest what she thought...