Loomis Institute v. Healy
Decision Date | 27 November 1922 |
Citation | 119 A. 31,98 Conn. 102 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | LOOMIS INSTITUTE v. HEALY, Atty. Gen. |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Case Reserved from Superior Court, Hartford County; George E Hinman, Judge.
Action by the Loomis Institute against Frank E. Healy, Attorney General, for instruction regarding execution of a certain trust. Case reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Judgment advised.
Various members of the Loomis family, being four brothers and one sister, had entered into a family compact for the establishment of the institute, namely, James C. Loomis Hezekiah B. Loomis, Osbert B. Loomis, Abby Loomis Hayden, and John Mason Loomis, all of whom made the institute residuary legatee under their several wills. Subsequently, by the will of William H. Loomis, who was not a party to the family compact, the institute received a gift of the residue of his estate, expressing in his will " a desire that if the sum is sufficient, the same be used to construct a building to be known as the William H. Loomis Building, seventh generation, grandson of Joseph Loomis."
James C. Loomis died September 16, 1877; Hezekiah B. Loomis died June 19, 1878; Osbert B. Loomis died April 30, 1886; Abby L. Hayden died June 10, 1898; and said John Mason Loomis died August 2, 1900. The property received from the estate of John Mason Loomis was of the book value when received of $1,442,469.12. Said property was received by the plaintiff at different times commencing December 31, 1911. The properties received from time to time from the other donors, members of said family compact and William H. Loomis, were respectively valued when received at the amounts and received in the years stated as follows:
Name. | Date. | Amount. |
James C. Loomis. | April 19, 1901, and subsequently. | $207,994.55 |
Hezekiah B. Loomis. | May 27, 1901, and subsequently. | 217,626.30 |
Abby L. Hayden. | June 10, 1901, and subsequently. | 23,267.64 |
Osbert B. Loomis. | Jan. 14, 1902, and subsequently. | 30,197.50 |
William H. Loomis. | Dec. 31, 1915, and subsequently. | 313,364.00 |
A part of the real estate received from the estate of James C. Loomis and a part of the real estate received from the estate of Hezekiah B. Loomis is used by the institute for its school site, the aggregate value of such real estate from said two last-named estates amounting to about $6,200.
The plaintiff's trustees, in the year 1913, adopted a plan for the school, including a number of buildings, and the development of its grounds. It is provided in the charter of the corporation that such a plan should be made and recorded in the Windsor land records, which has been done. This plan is incomplete, and power is given in the plaintiff's charter to complete this plan.
The plaintiff's trustees held and invested the property received by them from the donors above named, excepting William H. Loomis and from time to time acquired additional land for use as a site for the school, on which it is proposed to erect school buildings and plant.
From April, 1901, when funds were first received, until September, 1914, when the institute was opened, the income from property received amounted to about $600,000. During that time the trustees expended about $650,000 in constructing buildings, buying land, improving and developing the grounds, purchasing equipment and outfit, and for taxes and expenses of administration. Since the opening of the school, further amounts have been expended bringing the aggregate expenditure up to about $1,000,000. Included in the last-named amount is approximately $109,000 spent in constructing a refectory and charged to the fund derived from the estate of William H. Loomis. Two dormitories erected and the refectory are designed primarily for students not lodging or boarding in the village of Windsor. These last-named buildings and the laundry and power plant yield revenue constituting a material part of the income available for the main support of the institute. Existing accommodations are inadequate to accommodate all the students applying for admission. The trustees believe that the erection of additional dormitories contemplated in the plan before referred to will not only further the corporate purposes of the institution but will yield additional revenue and be a good investment without any large increase of operating expenses, and will cause but a slightly increased burden upon its endowment funds.
On the books of the corporation, the grounds, buildings, and outfit were, on January 1, 1921, carried at approximately $925,000, and the invested funds at approximately $1,547,000. The accounts of the treasurer show no substantial change on January 1, 1922.
The will of John Mason Loomis gives all of his estate to three trustees named therein, in trust to pay the testator's debts, and expenses of administration, and further to pay certain legacies after the death of his wife, and to pay under certain conditions an annuity of $5,000 to his sister, Abby L. Hayden, during her life. The use of the entirety of his estate is given to his wife, subject to the aforesaid annuity, and finally " to pay and turn over the entire residue " of my estate, including my personal effects, watches, ornaments, decorations, arms, uniforms, horse equipments, carriages, harness and stable outfit to the trustees of the Loomis Institute for its sole use forever." The will continues as follows:
This will was executed November 28, 1892, and on January 6, 1893, a codicil thereto was executed, containing the following provision:
The original trustees of the corporation were the four Loomis brothers above mentioned, their sister Abby L. Hayden, and her husband H. Sidney Hayden.
The first section of the incorporating act was amended by resolution approved May, 1893, and the portion of the same so amended reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colonial Trust Co. v. Brown
... ... other instructions, can only be regarded as precatory ( ... Loomis Institute v. Healy, 98 Conn. 102, 114, 119 A ... 31; Hughes v. Fitzgerald, 78 Conn. 4, 7, 60 ... ...
-
Peyton v. Wehrhane
... ... upon mere words of recommendation and confidence." ... Loomis Institute v. Healy, 98 Conn. 102, 114, 119 A ... 31, 35; Hughes v. Fitzgerald, 78 Conn. 4, 7, ... ...
-
Gilman v. Gilman
..." the general purpose and scope of the instrument." Colton v. Colton, 127 U.S. 300, 8 Sup.Ct. 1164, 32 L.Ed. 138. In Loomis Institute v. Healy, 98 Conn. 102, 119 A. 31, recently stated the rule as to a trust created by precatory words that-- In order that a trust may arise, " ‘ the court mu......
-
City Trust Co. v. Bulkley
...See Seymour v. Attorney General, 124 Conn. 490, 500, 200 A. 815; Lloyd v. Weir, 116 Conn. 201, 205, 164 A. 386; Loomis Institute v. Healy, 98 Conn. 102, 129, 119 A. 31; Russell v. Hartley, 83 Conn. 654, 664, 78 A. 320. The heirs at law of a testator in whose estate there may be an intestate......