Hayden v. Conn. Hosp. for the Insane

• Decision Date: 16 May 1894
• Citation: 30 A. 50,64 Conn. 320
• Parties: HAYDEN v. CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

30 A. 50

64 Conn. 320

HAYDEN

v. CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 16, 1894.

Case reserved from superior court, Hartford county; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Action by H. Sidney Hayden, executor, against the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane, and others, for the construction of a will. Case reserved.

Charles R. Ingersoll and Edward H. Rogers, for executor.

Henry E. Burton, for Connecticut Hospital for the Insane and its trustees.

Charles E. Perkins, for heirs at law.

FENN, J. This case reserves for our advice the question as to the validity and proper construction of the residuary clause in the last will of Mary L. Townsend, late of New Haven, deceased. The language is as follows: "All the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate I give and bequeath to my executor for the following purposes: All the furnlture and wearing apparel is to be disposed of by him agreeable to a memorandum to be furnished him. Money and real estate is for the purpose of establishing free bed or beds at the Hospital for Insane at Middletown, for female patients, to be known as the 'Mary L. Townsend Fund;' the rents and income in each year to be used under the direction of the executor and his successor in office, appointed by the court of probate of New Haven." The question relates to the aforesaid "money and real estate." Counsel for the executor say that the clear purpose of the testatrix was to establish a free bed or beds at the Hospital for Insane at Middletown, for female patients, and "that this purpose contemplates or requires some promise or undertaking by the trustees of the hospital. In effect a trust is thereby imposed upon the hospital accepting the benefit of the devise to provide in some manner for the free maintenance of such female patients in the future as may be entitled to the bounty of the testatrix." The executor further says that before bringing this suit he was unable to ascertain whether such trustees would undertake any such trust or obligation, and was advised that it was doubtful whether, if they were so disposed, they possessed the requisite power. No argument was made by counsel for the executor in support of the validity of the devise. Counsel for the heirs of Mary L. Townsend claim that the devise is void. It is said that the hospital for the insane is purely a state institution, established by the state for its own purposes; that the powers and duties of its trustees are prescribed by statute, and well defined; that it has power to receive devises and gifts, but that no question arises here as to a devise to it, and hence this is immaterial. It is denied that the trustees have power to make any agreement to establish free beds. It is further said to be doubtful who should occupy such beds, if it were possible to establish them; that is, whether under the will the trustees or the executor is to say; and, finally, that the doctrine of cypres cannot be invoked to aid the devise, since, it is asserted, such devise is solely and specifically for the establishment of free beds, which cannot be effected, and no other purpose is suggested in any way. Counsel for the hospital agree with those for the executor and for the heirs that the intent of the testatrix was to establish at least one free bed at the hospital, and insist that it is within the power of the trustees to receive gifts for the use of the hospital, to be employed for such purpose. The claim in their behalf is this: "The executor cannot require of these trustees, as a condition of their receiving at his hands the gift of the testatrix, any contract or agreement which he may...