Hoyt v. Bliss

• Citation: 93 Conn. 344,105 A. 699
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 04 March 1919
• Parties: HOYT v. BLISS et al.

105 A. 699

93 Conn. 344

HOYT v. BLISS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 4, 1919

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Frank D Haines, Judge.

Suit by Harrie F. Hoyt, trustee, against Laura May Bliss and others brought to, and reserved by, the superior court upon an agreed statement of facts for the advice of the Supreme Court. Superior court advised to render judgment in accordance with opinion.

Starr Hoyt Nichols, born in and a resident of Danbury and a graduate of Yale University, died in 1909, leaving neither wife, child, or issue of children. His only heirs at law were a nephew, Philip N. Bliss, also of Danbury, and Grace K Harvey, of Grant's Pass, Or., a niece. At his death he was possessed of a considerable estate. His will, after making sundry bequests, disposed of the rest, residue, and remainder of his estate by the following two paragraphs numbered 8 and 9.

" 8th. All the rest and residue of my estate, both real and personal, I give, devise, and bequeath to my nephew, Philip N. Bliss, of Danbury, Conn., in trust for his own use and enjoyment during his life, to go to the lawful heirs of his body born in lawful wedlock after his death.

" But if he die leaving no heirs of his body, I give, devise, and bequeath said rest and residue of my estate held in said trust in trust to the president and first vice president of the Danbury Savings Bank (said trust always devolving to the actual incumbents of said offices), to be applied as a foundation, of which the interest shall go to support through a course at the Sheffield Scientific School at New Haven, Conn., the candidate passing the best examination preparatory to said course of study. Said candidate must be born or living in Danbury, Conn., to be eligible, and examinations shall be held for new competitors as often as the scholarship is vacated.

" 9th. If for any reason whatever this trust for a scholarship shall be deemed invalid, and said Philip N. Bliss shall leave no direct heirs of his body, I hereby order, devise, and bequeath said residuary estate to the three children aforesaid of my niece Grace K. Harvey, equal provisions to each, share and share alike, to be theirs and their heirs forever, subject, however, to a life interest of all its revenues to the said Grace K. Harvey so long as she lives."

Subsequent to the execution of the will he conveyed to his nephew, Philip N. Bliss, a piece of real estate in Danbury worth more than $30,000. At this time it was understood and agreed by and between the parties that the nephew should by his will give to Yale University a sufficient sum to make up any deficiency in his uncle's estate available for the trust created by the latter's will which should be occasioned by the conveyance. Philip died in 1916, leaving a wife, now surviving, but no issue or other heirs of his body. His only heir at law and next of kin related by blood to his uncle was the defendant Grace K. Harvey, a cousin. He left a will of which his widow is executrix. The second paragraph of his will reads as follows:

" Second. I give, devise, and bequeath, in the event that I die without leaving heirs of my body, whatever sum may be necessary to make the trust fund established under the eighth clause of the will of my uncle Starr Hoyt Nichols (which said will is recorded in Danbury Probate Records, vol. 66, page 313) to take effect upon my death, leaving no heirs of my body, amount to thirty thousand dollars, said sum to be held under the same terms and conditions, subject to the same trusts, and to be used for the same purposes, as specified and provided in said eighth clause of said will of Starr Hoyt Nichols, to wit, to be held in trust by the president and first vice president of the Savings Bank of Danbury (said trust always devolving to the actual incumbents of said offices), to be applied as a foundation of which the interest shall go to support through a course at the Sheffield Scientic School at New Haven, Conn., the candidate passing the best examination preparatory to said course of study; said candidate must be born or living in Danbury, Conn., to be eligible, and examinations shall be held for new competitors as often as the scholarship is vacated."

All the rest and residue of his estate was given to his wife.

Starr Nichols' estate was fully settled, and the rest and residue thereof, amounting to $13,977.39, paid over in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 8 of his will to the trustees designated therein. Thereafter those persons resigned as trustees, and the present plaintiff was duly appointed as trustee in their stead. He, as such trustee, now has in his hands said fund, and in like manner the sum of $15,246.57 which came to him through the provisions of paragraph 2 of Philip Bliss' will.

The questions here presented concern the will of Nichols and the fund which came into the plaintiff's hands from his estate. The widow of Bliss, personally and as executrix of her husband's will, unites with Yale University in claiming that the trust attempted to be created by Nichols is in all respects a valid and operative one. The defendants, representing interests arising from the gift over contained in paragraph 9 of the Nichols' will, claim that it is invalid and inoperative by reason of the indefiniteness and uncertainty of its provisions.

The questions propounded for advice relate to the main matter thus at issue, and certain other matters touching the trustee's duties in the administration of the trust, if it is determined to be a valid one. They are as follows:

(a) Whether the trust made, or which it was attempted to make in said eighth clause of said will, is valid, legal, and operative, and capable of being carried out in any legal manner; and, if so, how; and whether the trust estate thereby created, or which it was attempted to create, is now a valid and subsisting estate.

(b) Whether the trust which it was sought to create by said eighth clause of said will is or is not void for uncertainty and indefiniteness.

(c) In the event that a valid trust estate was created by the testator under the provisions of said eighth clause of said will, what was meant by the testator by the use of the following words, " to be applied as a foundation of which the interest shall go to support through a course at the Sheffield Scientific School, at New Haven, Connecticut" ?

(d) What are the duties of the trustee with reference to the expenditure of the interest from said trust fund?

(e) What are the duties of the trustee with reference to the notice to be given by them of the competitive examinations to be held pursuant to the provisions of said eighth clause of said will?

(f) Would said trustee be justified, in the event that the income from said trust fund shall be sufficient, in extending the benefit of the provisions of said clause to more than one beneficiary at the same time?

(g) Would the trustee be justified in expending from the income of said trust fund any more than would be absolutely necessary for the support of the recipient of said scholarship while a student at said Sheffield Scientific School?

(h) Would the trustee be justified in expending from the income of said trust fund any more than enough to pay for the tuition, board, lodging, clothing, books, and other actual necessities of the recipient of said scholarship?

(i) Would the trustee be justified in granting an allowance to the recipient of said scholarship to be used and expended by such beneficiary for other purposes than actual necessities?

Thomas A. Keating, of Danbury, for plaintiff.

Samuel A. Davis, of Danbury, for defendant Bliss.

William H. Cable, of Danbury, for defendants Harvey and others.

Frederick H. Wiggin, of New Haven, for defendant Yale University.

George E. Hinman, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENTICE, C.J.

Paragraph 8 of the Nichols will in its second portion...