Hays v. Harris
| Decision Date | 21 October 1913 |
| Citation | 73 W.Va. 17 |
| Parties | Hays, Ad'mr. et al. v. Harris, et al. Trustees. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Andrew G. Clark died in 1902, leaving a will, the residuary clause of which reads as follows, viz:
The estate was fully administered, and the residuum of funds turned over to the trustees who have not invested it in the purchase of a building or ground for a hospital, but have husbanded it and allowed it to accumulate, until it now amounts to about $40,000.00. The executors having died, an administrator c. t. a. was appointed, who united with the herrs at law and distributees of testator in bringing this suit against the trustees to have the trust declared void for indefiniteness as to the beneficiaries, and for an accounting to them of the funds. Held:
I. That said residuary clause created a benevolent or charitable trust, valid under section three of chapter fifty-seven of the Code.
II. That said statute is a restoration, pro tanto, of charitable trusts.
III. That the word oorweyanee, as used in said statute, comprehends a devise.
IV. That it is an essential element of a benevolent or charitable trust that the individual beneficiaries be indefinite.
V. That the purpose of the bounty and the class of persons to be benefited alone need be definite.
VI. That the words "sick poor" sufficiently define a class of persons intended as the object of testator's bounty.
VII. A trust may be created by precatory words clearly expressive of testator's desire. (p. 18).
Section ten of chapter fifty-seven by clear and necessary implication, authorizes the giving of personal property in trust for benevolent purposes. (p. 28).
Statutes relating to the same subject, whether passed at the same or different times, must be read and construed together. (p. 28).
The holding of title to land in trust for a benevolent purpose is not a prerequisite to the taking of title to personal property by trustees upon like trust. (p. 28).
A former adjudication, to work an estoppel on parties and privies, must be in relation to the same cause of action, (p. 29).
(Miller, Judge, absent).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wood County.
Bill by Abijah Hays, administrator, etc., and others, against Thomas A. Harris and others. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Reversed and Dismissed.
Smith D. Turner and H. P. Camden, for appellants. Chas. E. Hogg, and A. D. Preston, for appellees.
Andrew G. Clark died testate; and, after giving pecuniary legacies to a number of his friends and relatives, made the following bequest:
He appointed J. B. Neal and Kinnard Snodgrass his executors, and they qualified as such, and have fully administered the estate. After payment of funeral expenses, debts and legacies, they turned over to the trustees named in the will the sum of $26,308.56. They have expended no part of the fund in the purchase of ground, or building, for a hospital, but have allowed it to accumulate, until it amounted to $38,137.42, on the 6th of September, 1911, the date of the decree appealed from. Both executors having departed this life, Abijah Hays was appointed administrator c. t. a., and he and testator's heirs at law and distributees have joined in the present suit against the surviving trustees in their official capacity and as individuals, brought to annul the residuary clause of the will, and to compel the trustees to account to the distributees for the fund. The court decreed relief, according to the prayer of the bill, and the trustees have appealed.
Testator has created a benevolent or charitable trust, the validity of which depends upon the statutes of this state, found in chapter 57, Code (1906), and particularly upon sections 3 and 10 of that chapter. In the year 1792 the Legislature of Virginia repealed all English statutes, theretofore in operation in that state. 43 Elizabeth, ch. 4, relating to the administration of charitable trusts by courts of equity, was thereby repealed. The first case which thereafter arose, involving the Virginia law respecting charitable trusts, was Baptist Association v. Hart's Executors, which was brought in the Federal court for the district of Virginia, and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there decided in 1819, ( . It involved the validity of a bequest made to an unincorporated religious association, or society, "to be a perpetual fund for the education of youths of the Baptist denomination, who shall appear promising for the ministry." The court held, in an opinion prepared by Chief Justice Marshall, that, "Charitable bequests, where no legal interest is vested, and which are too vague to be claimed by those for whom the beneficial interest was intended, can not be established by a court of equity, either exercising its ordinary jurisdiction, or enforcing the prerogative of the king as parens patriae, independently of the Statute of 43 Elizabeth." That decision, however, seems to have been rendered upon an imperfect survey of the law; and, in the famous case of Vidol v. Girrard's Executors, decided in 1844, (2 How. 127, 11 Law Ed. 205), the court, after a more thorough examination into the state of the English law prior to 43 Elizabeth, and having access then to many English chancery decisions rendered anterior to 43 Elizabeth, but not published at the time Baptist Association v. Hart's Executors was decided, in a very able and exhaustive opinion written by Justice Story, distinguished it from the case in hand, and receded from the position taken by the distinguished Chief Justice in the former case, and expressly decided that equity jurisdiction over charities was not dependent upon the statute, but that it existed and had been exercised by courts of chancery in England prior to 43 Elizabeth, and that the only effect of the statute was to furnish an, ancillary remedy. That court has ever since consistently followed the principles declared in the Girrard case, except in cases arising in Virginia. The Oirrard case has also been accepted by the courts of most of the states, as a correct interpretation of the English law on the subject of charities. But, in Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 55, 13 Law Ed. 44, a case arising in Virginia, the court adhered to the principles announced in the Baptist Association case. But it seems to have done so, more out of respect to the decision, Oct. 1913.]
Hays v. Harris. rendered in 1832, by the court of appeals of Virginia in Gallego's Executors v. Attorney General, 3 Leigh 450, than on account of its own decision of the Baptist Association case. It regarded the Gallego case as settling the law of that state. And the courts of Virginia and of this state have consistently followed the principles of the Gallego case, as will be seen by an examination of the following cases: Carpenter v. Miller, 3 W. Va. 174; Brook v. Shacklett, 13 Gratt. 301; Weaver v. Spurr, 56 W. Va. 95; Seaburn v. Seaburn, 15 Gratt. 423; Bible Society v. Pendleton, Trustee, 7 W. Va. 79; Carskadon et al. v. Torryson et al, 17 W. Va. 43; Broun v. Caldwell, 23 W. Va. 187; Wilson v. Perry, 29 W. Va. 169; Pack v. Shanklin, 43 W. Va. 304. Hence, the principles of the Gallego case have become the settled law of this state, except in so far as they have been changed, or modified, by statute. It must be borne in mind, however, that at the time the Baptist Association case, and the Gallego case, were decided the state of Virginia had no statute whatever on the subject. It had not then re-enacted any statute to take the place of chapter 4, 43 Elizabeth; and, supposing equity to be powerless to administer charities, or indefinite trusts, independent of statute, the court applied to them the same strict rules of interpretation that were applicable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial