In re Strong's Appeal

• Citation: 37 A. 395,68 Conn. 527
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 23 February 1897
• Parties: In re STRONG'S APPEAL.

37 A. 395

68 Conn. 527

In re STRONG'S APPEAL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 23, 1897.

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

Appeal by Frank M. Strong from an order and decree of the court of probate in the matter of an executor's account Reserved from the superior court Judgment of affirmance advised.

Frank L. Hungerford and John H. Kirkham, for appellant.

George G. Sill and Marcus H. Holcomb, for appellee.

FENN, J. The thirteenth clause or item of the will of the late Theodore P. Strong, of Plainville, in this state, disposing, as it appears, of about $75,000, is as follows: "All the rest residue, and remainder of all my estate of every kind and description, and wheresoever situated, I give, devise, and bequeath unto the Security Company, a corporation under the laws of Connecticut, and located and doing business in Hartford, Conn., in trust, however, and for the following uses and purposes, viz.: To hold, manage, invest, and reinvest the principal thereof, and collect and receive the interest and income thereof, and to pay over the net income of said trust fund to the pastors for the time being of the Congregational, Methodist, and Baptist churches located in said town of Plalnville, and to two men to be annually appointed for that purpose by the selectmen of said town of Plalnville, and selected by them from the principal and opposing political parties of said town, whose duty it shall be to receive said interest and income of said fund semiannually, and to use and appropriate so much thereof as may be necessary to keep and maintain in good and complete order and repair my monument and the grounds about the same; and the remainder of said income to pay out and appropriate from time to time for the benefit of the worthy poor people of said town of Plainville as may be in needy and necessitous circumstances, and in any misfortune; always, however, excluding from assistance or aid the criminal class, or the habitually intemperate, indolent, and lazy; but to all the worthy poor people of said town to render aid and such assistance in providing food and clothing, as in their best judgment and discretion said committee and trustees, pastors, and appointees of said selectmen, they may determine. It shall be the duty of said committees, trustees, or those who shall receive and disburse said income of said trust fund, to render annually to the judge of probate in whose district the said town of Plainville may be an account of the receipts and disbursements of the income from said fund. In the event that said selectmen of said town shall for any reason fail or neglect or refuse to appoint two men, residents of said town, to serve as aforesaid on said committee, the judge of probate for the district of Farmington shall appoint two men, residents of the town of Plainville, selected from the two principal and opposing political parties of said town, to act with the pastors of said churches; and, in the event that said pastors shall refuse to serve, and if for any reason said committee cannot be formed, it shall be the duty of said Security Company to carry out the provisions of this trust in the best way and method they can in order to execute my intentions as hereinbefore expressed." It is the claim of the appellant that the trust attempted to be created by the above language, except so far as relates to the monument and grounds referred to therein, is null and void. The correctness of this claim is the question presented to us by the reservation. The grounds advanced in behalf of the appellant's contention are: First, that the attempted trust is not for a charitable use, and is, therefore, contrary to the statute against perpetuities, which was in force at the time of the death of the testator; second, that it is void for lack of certainty in the beneficiaries.

In support of the claim that the use is not charitable, it is urged that the bequest adds nothing to what the poor are entitled to receive from the town, and which the town of Plainville is bound by law to supply to its poor; that it is thus merely the creation of "a perpetual fund for the temporary relief only of the taxpaying class." But, if this be conceded, the conclusion that such a gift is not charitable is unsupported by any authority in this state or elsewhere. The decisions are to the contrary. So are the best and most thoroughly recognized definitions, such as that in Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465, 506: "A gift to a general public use, which extends to the rich as well as the poor;" or in Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, 556, which includes what is given for the purpose of in any wise "lessening the burdens of government." See, also, Hamden v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350. "The relief of the poor" is expressly named as a charitable use in our sta...