Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung
| Decision Date | 15 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 413-A,413-A |
| Citation | 105 R.I. 370,252 A.2d 335 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL NATIONAL BANK OF RHODE ISLAND, Executor u/w of Hezekiah C. Wardwell v. The ALEXANDER von HUMBOLDT STIFTUNG et al. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This civil action for construction of a will and instructions pertaining thereto was brought by the plaintiff bank in its capacity as executor of the estate of Hezekiah C. Wardwell, late of Bristol, Rhode Island, who died January 8, 1964. All persons and organizations having an interest therein were made parties defendant. Testimony was taken in the superior court and when the case was ready for final judgment, it was certified to us for our determination pursuant to G.L.1956, § 9-24-28, as amended.
Hezekiah C. Wardwell executed his will on April 18, 1952. This litigation arises out of the language found in the following portion of paragraph Tenth of that instrument:
'Tenth: All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real and personal, of which I shall be seized and possessed or to which I may be in any way entitled at my decease, including all estate, real and personal, over which I may then have power of appointment, I give, devise and bequeath as follows:
The remainder of the residuary clause is divided equally between three other legatees.
The complaint states that plaintiff is uncertain as to the meaning and effect of the testator's language as it pertains to the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung of Berlin, Germany. The defendant making claim to the questioned portion of the Wardwell will is the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung of Bad Godesberg, West Germany. The English equivalent of the word 'Stiftung' is 'foundation' meaning an organization formed for a charitable, educational or like purpose. Hereafter, we shall refer to defendant claimant as the 'Humboldt Foundation' or 'the foundation.'
The plaintiff's complaint contains six questions. The first of these, the answer to which is dispositive of all issues in the case, reads as follows:
1
The first witness in superior court was Dr. Heinrich Pfeiffer, the chief executive officer of defendant foundation. He outlined the history of his organization which may be summarized as follows: The Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung of Berlin, Germany was established by the Weimar Republic in 1925. It has existed as a legal entity since that time. Its purpose, as set forth in its charter, was to grant research scholarships to highly qualified 'students and researchers' of foreign nationality enabling them to carry out a program of study within the Federal Republic of Germany. During World War II, when the Third Reich governed Germany, the foundation operated on a small scale, using mostly private funds. The Humboldt Foundation retained its legal identity throughout the years of Allied occupation and its charter remained in effect after the Federal Republic of Germany was reestablished in 1949. In 1953, the foundation submitted a proposed new charter to both federal and state governments. It was approved by Chancellor Adenauer and thereafter by the state of North Rheine-Westphalia. The 1925 charter was changed in two ways. First, it transferred the domicile of the foundation from Berlin to Bad Godesberg, a sister city to Bonn, the new seat of West German government. In addition, the purpose clause of the previous charter was changed slightly. The new version refers to 'post-graduate researchers' whereas the former designated 'students and researchers.' Absent these modifications, the new charter is 'completely the same' as its forerunner.
Doctor Pfeiffer then described the foundation' present operation. He said that approximately 95 per cent of its funds are derived from the West German government. The remainder is received from contributions made by third parties. Most of these gifts are given, as in this case, for specific charitable purposes. In his opinion the foundation would meet with no obstacles in applying the Wardwell gift in precise accordance with the testator's intention. He told of the manner in which other grants for specific purposes were being used and envisioned that the bequest herein 2 could be directed toward establishing a significant program for the musical education of Spanish students. The witness said that the foundation would be required to invest the principal amount in 'safe' securities. He declared that in Europe the Humboldt Foundation ranks second only to the Rhodes Scholarship Fund in the number of fellowships made available to qualified students. The witness revealed that the testator had been a scholar of the foundation in the years 1926 and 1927 and that in 1940 he had made a substantial contribution to the organization.
Mr. Ernest C. Steefel, the only other witness heard, qualified as an expert on German law. He said that the foundation was an independent legal entity which complied with all the requirements of the German Civil Code. In his opinion, there was nothing in the foundation's charter nor in the Civil Code which would interfere with the administration of the testator's bequest in accordance with Mr. Wardwell's wishes. He stated that the foundation's charter authorized receipt of gifts from third parties, and obligated it to administer any such contribution in precise compliance with the directions of the donor. He noted that German law prohibits governmental interference with the foundation's administration of any such gift. In response to a question eliciting the remedies available under German law to residuary legatees to insure that the bequest was being administered in accordance with the testator's desires, Mr. Steefel indicated that in addition to having the right to institute a private action, the residuary legatees might also call upon German government at both state and federal levels to exercise supervisory powers to insure that the testator's intention is complied with. He likened this last remedy to the provisions of G.L.1956, § 18-9-9, which charges the attorney general with the responsibility of supervising the administration of all charitable trusts. Finally, the witness told of provisions in the German law dealing with the situation where the purpose of the testator might in the future become illegal or impossible to fulfill. He stated that under German law a doctrine very similar to our own cy pres doctrine exists and would become applicable should this occur.
Essentially, there are two legal arguments advanced herein by parties in opposition to the foundation's claim. First, it is argued that the gift to the foundation is invalid because the present claimant is not the intended beneficiary of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Industrial Nat. Bank of R. I. v. Glocester Manton Free Public Library of Glocester
...in the will, aided by extrinsic evidence, clearly identifies Sarar as the intended legatee. See Industrial National Bank v. Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, R.I., 252 A.2d 335; First Baptist Church v. Soban, 77 R.I. 115, 73 A.2d 772; Warwick Central Baptist Soc'y v. Hohler, 72 R.I. 445, 53 ......
-
Israel v. National Bd. of Young Men's Christian Ass'n
...courts of the foreign jurisdiction the matter of seeing to the proper administration of the trust. Industrial Nal'l Bank v. Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, 105 R.I. 370, 252 A.2d 335 (1969). 'With respect to the share of the residuary clause under consideration, we exercise a limited form ......