Mcalister v. Burgess
| Decision Date | 15 May 1894 |
| Parties | McALISTER et al. v. BURGESS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert M. Morse and Charles E. Hellier, for complainants.
D.C Linscott, for defendants.
By the residuary clause of her will, the testatrix gives property which is said to be about $20,000 in value, "to the Evangelical Baptist Benevolent and Missionary Society, for the benefit of poor churches of the city of Boston and vicinity." The respondent corporation of that name was chartered by St.1857, c. 154, "for the purpose of securing the constant maintenance in said Boston of evangelical preaching for the young and the destitute, with free seats; for the employment of colporteur and missionary laborers in Boston and elsewhere; for the purpose of providing suitable central apartments to other and kindred benevolent and missionary societies; and for the general purpose of ministering to the spiritual wants of the needy and destitute." The bill is brought by the next of kin of the testatrix, who contend that the residuary clause is void because creating a trust contrary to the rule against perpetuities, and because the clause is so indefinite and uncertain that its provisions cannot be carried out; and they ask that the executor be directed to pay the residuary fund to the next of kin of the testatrix, in accordance with the laws of distribution. The attorney general has been made a party, and, by his answer, claims that a valid public charity was created by the clause quoted. The Evangelical Baptist Benevolent & Missionary Society contends that the clause gives it the residue of the estate as an absolute gift adding that if it shall be decided that the gift was not absolute, but in trust for the benefit of poor churches in Boston and vicinity, it will accept and administer the trust, and contends that on either construction of the clause the bequest is valid. The executor takes no position upon the question whether the gift is absolute or in trust, but demurs on the ground that the bequest is a valid one, and that the next of kin have no right to claim the fund as undevised property.
A gift of property, to be lawfully applied for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of religion, is a charity, in the legal sense, within the terms of the definition given in Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, 556. As held in Baker v. Fales, 16 Mass. 488, 495: "The very term 'church' imports an organization for religious purposes, and property given to it eo nomine, in the absence of all declaration of trust or use, must, by necessary implication, be intended to be given to promote the purposes for which a church is instituted, the most prominent of which is the public worship of God." It follows that the legitimate use by a church of property so given must result in its application for the benefit of those who attend upon, or are within the sphere of the influence of, the services of the church, by bringing them under the influence of religion. It is a matter of common knowledge that the individuals who attend the services of any particular church are not limited to the members of that church, but are an indefinite and varying number of persons; and there can be no question that an indefinite number of persons is constantly benefited by having their minds and hearts brought under the influence of religion by poor churches of the city of Boston and vicinity. Grants and donations both of real and personal estate may, consistently with existing laws, be made to churches, and provision is made by the statute law for the manner in which such grants and donations shall be held. Pub.St. c. 39, §§ 1-3. There seems to be no reason, therefore, why a gift of property to one or more churches should not be held a charitable gift, and none why, if it is given in trust, the trust should not be held a trust for a public charity, and not subject to the rule of law against perpetuities.
The plaintiffs contend, however, that it is settled by a course of decisions that in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial