Hill v. Moors
| Decision Date | 19 May 1916 |
| Citation | 224 Mass. 163,112 N.E. 641 |
| Parties | HILL et al. v. MOORS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court; Edward P. Pierce, Judge.
Suit by Robert W. Hill and others against John F. Moors and others. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.
Carney & Gould, of Salem, for appellants.
Alden P. White, of Salem, for appellees.
This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs as trustees of the Salem Rebuilding Trust, against certain persons described as members of the Salem Fire Relief Committee, and the Attorney General of the commonwealth.
The matters to which this proceeding relates, arise on account of the great fire in Salem, which occurred in June, 1914. Immediately after the fire, committees were organized and large sums of money were promptly raised by voluntary subscription from a large number of people for the relief of the sufferers. The Legislature of the commonwealth appropriated $100,000 for the same purpose, and $200,000 were appropriated by Congress for emergencey relief. The total amount raised, including about $630,000 obtained by the voluntary subscriptions, amounted to approximately $1,000,000.
The case was referred to a master, who found that ‘two committees were formed by the Governor, one for the purpose of raising funds, and the other for the purpose of dispensing the same.’ The money, in most instances, was contributed without any limitation being imposed by the donors upon its expenditure. The defendant, John F. Moors, was chairman of the committee in charge of the disbursement of the funds. Several subcommittees were constituted, including a rebuilding committee which was organized for the purpose of aiding worthy individuals in the rebuilding of their homes, and the sum of $100,000 was appropriated by the Salem Relief Committee for that purpose. It was voted by the committee ‘that the rebuilding committee be authorized and requested to organize a voluntary real estate trust or corporation as they deemed best for the purpose of conducting the work for which they were appointed.’ In compliance with this vote the Salem Rebuilding Trust was organized. The plaintiffs were constituted the trustees thereof, and the sum of $100,000 was paid over to them by the relief committee. The trustees thereupon, executed a declaration of trust which was duly recorded in the registry of deeds and recited in detail the purposes for which the amount received and any other contributions were to be held and expended.
The bill alleges that the plaintiffs, as trustees of the Salem Rebuilding Trust, acting in conformity with the terms of the declaration of trust, have ‘administered the said trust fund of $100,000, first * * * encouraging the building of homes by persons burnt out in the fire, designed for wage-earners by loaning sums of money on second mortgages, in excess of amounts obtained from Savings Banks on first mortgages; and, second, by the purchase of land and the construction thereon of modern houses at minimum cost, either to rent at very reasonable rates, or to sell such houses to persons whose homes were destroyed by the fire.’ The prayer of the bill is:
‘In order that there may be no question as to validity of titles of real estate already conveyed to and by the plaintiffs as said trustees of the Salem Rebuilding Trust and of such other titles as may be hereafter conveyed to and by themselves and their successors as such trustees, the plaintiffs do now respectfully pray that this honorable court will ratify and confirm the same transfer of $100,000 from the Salem Fire Relief Committee to the plaintiffs, the said declaration of trust, and the acts of the plaintiffs under the terms thereof, and to declare the same to be hereafter in all respects as valid as if the same had been originally approved by this honorable court.’
This is not a suit in equity brought by trustees who seek instructions as to their duties, but having fully discharged the obligationsimposed upon them by the trust in the manner set forth in the bill and found by the master, they ask this court to ratify and confirm the transfer of the $100,000 from the Fire Relief Committee to them, and to declare valid the acts performed by them under the declaration of trust.
There can be no doubt of the general authority of a court of chancery to assume jurisdiction of cases in which trustees seek the instruction and desire the protection of the court in the performance of their duties. In cases of doubt as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotter v. City of Boston
...executors, administrators, and trustees are encouraged to petition the courts for instruction. See, e.g., Hill v. Moors, 224 Mass. 163, 165, 112 N.E. 641 (1916); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 259 (1959); 3A Austin Wakeman Scott & William Franklin Fratcher, The Law of Trusts § 259 (4th ed......
-
Nat'l Shawmut Bank of Boston v. Morey
...as to the nature of the remainder interests. See Bullard v. Attorney General, 153 Mass. 249, 250, 26 N.E. 691;Hill v. Moors, 224 Mass. 163, 165, 112 N.E. 641;North Adams National Bank v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation, 268 Mass. 42, 45, 46, 167 N.E. 294;Boyden v. Stevens, 285 Mas......
-
Whiteside v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Boston
...head of equity jurisprudence and the court would decline to decide it. Hanson v. Griswold, 221 Mass. 228, 108 N. E. 1035,Hill v. Moors, 224 Mass. 163, 112 N. E. 641. The facts in the case at bar show color of title to property in the plaintiffs. They hold an assignment of what purports to b......
-
Hull v. Adams
...property in his hands before he can come into court for instructions respecting it. Proctor v. Heyer, 122 Mass. 525, 528;Hill v. Moors, 224 Mass. 163, 165, 112 N. E. 641;Putnam v. Collamore, 109 Mass. 509;In re Nickerson Appellant, 181 Mass. 571, 64 N. E. 408;Austin v. Bailey, 163 Mass. 270......