Holland v. Peck

• Decision Date: 30 June 1842
• Citation: 2 Ired.Eq. 255,37 N.C. 255
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE HOLLAND & others v. WILLIAM PECK, Ex'or .

2 Ired.Eq. 255

37 N.C. 255

GEORGE HOLLAND & others

v.WILLIAM PECK, Ex'or .

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1842.

A. by will, dated in 1807, devised as follows, after directing the sale of certain bank stock upon the death of his wife: The executors “shall pay over and deliver the money arising from the sale for the benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in America, whereof Francis Asbury is the presiding bishop; this sum to be disposed of by conference or the different members composing the same, as they shall, in their godly wisdom, judge will be most expedient or beneficial for the increase and prosperity of the gospel.” Held, that this bequest being made to a multitude of persons in their aggregate capacity, which persons have not been incorporated by any act or charter of incorporation, and the object of the bequest being of so indefinite a nature that the court cannot determine how it should be applied, the same is void, and that the testator therefore died intestate as to the subject matter of this bequest.

Held also that the doctrine of the English Courts of Chancery in relation to charities, by which, in certain cases, they direct such bequests to be executed cy pres, is unsound in principle, and cannot be adopted by the Courts of Equity of this State.

The case of McAuley v Wilson, 1 Dev. Eq. Rep. 276, cited and approved.

This cause was removed by consent from the Court of Equity of Wake county, at Spring Term, 1842, to the Supreme Court, to be heard upon bill and answer.

The bill alleged in substance that William Holland, late of the county of Wake, departed this life on the 4th of December, 1809--that, by his last will and testament, which was duly proved, he directed that the executors therein named should invest the sum of $5,000 in stock of the Bank of the United States--that the interest on the dividends thereof should be paid in certain proportions to his mother-in-law Frances Rhodes and his wife Nancy Holland during their natural lives, and then directed and bequeathed as follows, viz: “I further will, that upon the death of my beloved wife Nancy Holland, my executors sell to the best advantage the bank stock, the product whereof is hereinbefore given to my beloved wife and mother-in-law, and the sum raised by the sale thereof it is my will and desire that my executors pay over and deliver for the benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in America, whereof Francis Asbury is at present the presiding bishop; this sum to be disposed of by conference or the different members composing the same, as they shall, in their godly wisdom, judge will be most expedient or beneficial for the increase or prosperity of the gospel”--that William Peck alone, of the executors named in the said will, and all of whom qualified as such, now survives--that in pursuance of the directions of the testator the said executors made the investment of the sum of $5,000 in stock of the Bank of the United States, and afterwards, on the expiration of the charter of that bank, the proceeds of the said stock were invested in stock of the State Bank of North Carolina, and subsequently in stock of the Bank of the State of North Carolina, where it now stands in the name of the said Peck as surviving executor--that the said Frances Rhodes and Nancy Holland are both dead, the latter who was the survivor having died in the year 1839. The bill then alleged that the said William Holland left no children, and that the plaintiff William Holland and the intestates of the other plaintiff Henry W. Miller, were his next of kin, and entitled to distribution of his personal estate. And the bill then insisted that the bequest above cited to the Methodist Episcopal Church, as there described, was void, both from the want of capacity in the legatees to take, and from the uncertainty as to the objects to which the legacy was to be applied--and that therefore the said Bank stock belonged to the next of kin and distributees of the said William Holland, there being no residuary clause in the will. And an account and decree for the amount was prayed against the said William Peck, surviving executor &c. The defendant, in his answer, admitted all the facts stated in the bill, and submitted to any decree the court might think proper to make.

Badger for the plaintiffs .

Iredell for the defendant .

GASTON, J.

The testator has directed that, upon the death of his wife, his executors shall sell the bank stock into which he had in a former part of the will directed a portion of his estate to be converted, and “pay over and deliver the money arising from the sale for the benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in America, whereof Francis Asbury is at present” (was at the date of the will) “the presiding bishop; this sum to be disposed of by the conference or the different members composing the same, as they shall, in their godly wisdom, judge will be most expedient or beneficial for the increase and prosperity of the gospel.”?? If this bequest of the proceeds of the stock is to be considered made to the body therein described, for their own benefit, as the former part of the clause would seem to declare, it is not to be questioned but that the bequest must fail for want of capacity in the legatees to take and enjoy what is so given. The Methodist Episcopal Church, in America, comprise a great multitude of individuals, of whom some are hourly passing out of existence and others coming into being, and, as an aggregate body, is incompetent to hold property of any kind, unless, by virtue of some charter or act of incorporation, it be invested with that privilege as an artificial person. But it is manifest from the subsequent part of the clause that the bequest was made to this body as a mere instrument for carrying into effect an ulterior and higher purpose of the testator--that the money, the subject of this bequest, might be disposed of by the governing minister of the church, to such objects, and in such manner, as they should determine to be most conducive to the diffusion of the doctrines and precepts and influence of the holy gospel. It is therefore a bequest upon trust; and if the trust be one, over which the constituted authorities of the country can exercise jurisdiction, they will not permit it to be defeated because of incapacity in the designated trustees to take the property, but will fasten the trust upon the property and make or imply trustees, or take other effectual means to cause it to be executed. But if the trust be one over which they cannot...