Jones v. Watford

• Decision Date: 18 November 1902
• Citation: 64 N.J.E. 785,53 A. 397
• Parties: JONES et al. v. WATFORD et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

53 A. 397

64 N.J.E. 785

JONES et al.

v. WATFORD et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 18, 1902.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from court of chancery.

Bill by William H. Jones and others, as executors, against William Watford and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Modified.

Thomas B. Watford died testate October 27, 1899. His will was duly probated. After making certain bequests, he devised as follows: "All the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate, real or personal, whatsoever and wherever found, I give and bequeath unto my executors hereinafter named, and their successors, in trust for the purchase of books upon the philosophy of Spiritualism, not sectarian, or of any creed, church, or dogma, but of free, liberal bearing. Said books to be placed by my executors where they can be free to all who desire to think for themselves, and who are seeking for the truth from the true and living God, for I believe in one God, one church, and one country—First, the Great Unknown; second, the whole human race, as one family; third, the whole globe, the home of all nations. That is my trinity." The last clause of his will reads, in part, as follows: "I nominate, constitute, and appoint Francis J. Keffer, Esq., William H. Jones, and Joseph C. Shober the executors of this, my last will and testament. Should any of my executors die or refuse to act, it is my will that the survivor or survivors shall select an executor to fill the place of the one deceased or refusing to act, as it is my desire that there shall be at least two executors at all times." His executors doubted whether the trust bequeathed to them was a valid one, and the heirs at law claimed that it was invalid, because indefinite, and that the residuary estate passed to them, as if the testator had died intestate. The bill was filed by the executors, and, among other things, prayed that the court might declare whether the devise of the residue of the estate was legal and valid. The decree of the court of chancery was advised by Vice Chancellor Grey.

Robert S. Clymer, for appellants.

Joseph T. Sickler, for respondents.

FORT. J. (after stating the facts). In this case there are cross-appeals. The decree of the court of chancery sustains the validity of the residuary clause of the last will and testament of Thomas B. Watford, deceased, the provisions of whose will relating to the questions before us are set out at the head of this opinion, but decrees that the executors named in the will "are not capable to take upon themselves and discharge the duties created by the said clause." This court affirms the decree appealed from, wherein it sustains the residuary clause of the testator's will, for the reasons given by Vice Chancellor Grey in Jones v. Watford, 62 N. J. Eq. 339, 50 Atl. 180. So much of the decree, however, as adjudges that the executors named in the will are not capable of taking upon themselves and discharging the trust, we think is erroneous, and should be reversed.

So much of the residuary clause of the testator's will as need be...