Lawrence v. Prosser
| Decision Date | 19 August 1918 |
| Citation | 104 A. 772 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE v. PROSSER. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill by one Lawrence against Judson C. Prosser, executor of the will of Mrs. Emma H. Dean, deceased. Decree for complainant.
See, also, 101 Atl. 1040.
The will of Mrs. Emma H. Dean, after giving certain legacies, including a life interest, and directing the conversion of her property into cash for investment, provided as follows:
"After the death of said Luman Warren Lawrence I order and direct the said Judson C. Prosser to turn over to the town of Bucksport, Maine, the balance of said sum, including all interest, accumulations and additions thereto, less the amount paid during the lifetime of the said Luman Warren Lawrence and less the disbursements of the said Judson C. Prosser and his commissions for carrying out his duties as trustee and executor, as hereinafter mentioned; the said sum to be received by the town of Bucksport, Maine, aforesaid, to be used by it for the express purpose of erecting a monument to the memory of my brother Luman Warren; the site of said monument and the details thereof to be left to the judgment and discretion of the proper town authorities."
Scott German, Prank E. Bradner, and Robert H. McCarter, all of Newark, for complainant.
Theodore D. Gottlieb and Hugh B. Reed, both of Newark, for executor.
Edward Q. Keasbey, of Newark, for town of Bucksport.
This seems to be a very simple case. The only question is whether Mrs. Dean could lawfully give her residuary estate to the town of Bucksport, for the erection of a monument to the memory of her brother, a prominent citizen of that town.
First. Could she lawfully give it for that purpose? That she could is decided in Detwiller v. Hartman, 37 N. J. Eq. 347. The decisions are all one way, and the very cases relied upon by complainants' counsel (In re Ogden, 25 R. I. 373, 55 Atl. 933; In re Fancher, 156 Cal. 13, 103 Pac. 206, 23 L. R. A. [N. S.] 944, 19 Ann. Cas. 1157) assume that the right exists.
Second. Has the town of Bucksport capacity to receive the gift and apply it as directed? In the recent case of Guild v. Newark, 87 N. J. Eq. 38, 99 Atl. 120, I had occasion to consider the right of the city of Newark to accept a gift of land for a park. I came to the conclusion that a municipal corporation had, by the common law, without the aid of statute, power to take such a devise. "Not only," it was said, "may municipal corporations take and hold the property in their own right by direct gift, conveyance, or devise, but the cases firmly establish the principle that such corporations, at least in this country, are capable, unless specially restrained, of taking property, real or personal, in trust for purposes germane to the objects of the corporation."
When one considers that civilized communities have in all ages adorned their ways and parks with memorials of the illustrious dead, it is idle to assert that columns and statuary have no proper place in them. Whether, without legislative authority, a municipality may or may not spend, upon objects of this character, money raised by taxation, it is certain that it may take them by gift or bequest. Libby v. City of Portland, 105 Me. 374, 74 Atl. 805, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 141, 18 Ann. Cas. 547.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. Childs
... ... Blain, Owen Davenport, Mrs. Betty Knox, Mrs. Verna Hutchison Gudgell, George Daniel Smith, Mary E. Jordan, Lawrence E. Sanders, Martha E. Buckles, Elizabeth (Sanders) Hoffman, Eva M. Royalty, David Cunningham, Appellants, v. David B. Childs and Herbert V. Jones, ... Hospital Trust Co. v. Benedict, 103 A. 146, 41 R. I ... 143; Faunce v. People's Savings Bank, 46 R. I ... 75, 124 A. 731; Lawrence v. Prosser, 89 N.J.Eq. 248, ... 104 A. 772; Eliot v. Attwill, 232 Mass. 517, 122 ... N.E. 648; Owens v. Owens' Executor, 236 Ky. 118, ... 32 S.W.2d 731; ... ...
-
Grady v. City of Greenville
...is entirely competent to accept and administer a trust is not open to question. See Sargent v. Cornich, 54 N.H. 18; Lawrence v. Prosser, 89 N. J. Eq. 248, 104 A. 772; Smith's Estate, 181 Pa. 109, 37 A. 114. In that view it is apparent that, upon the City obligation, under its practically un......
-
In re Swayze's Estate
...the choice of the site and details of the work were not specified does not render the trust invalid for uncertainty. Lawrence v. Prosser, 89 N.J.Eq. 248, 104 A. 772. are cases supporting the view that a charitable gift of an unnamed amount of money is void for uncertainty if no means is fur......
- Watters v. Mayor & Common Council of Bayonne