Merch.s Bank & Trust Vo. v. New Canaan Historical Soc.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1947
• Citation: 133 Conn. 706,54 A.2d 696
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST VO. v. NEW CANAAN HISTORICAL SOC. et al.

133 Conn. 706

54 A.2d 696

MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST VO.

v.NEW CANAAN HISTORICAL SOC. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 26, 1947.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Mellitz, Judge.

Action for the construction of the will of Amanda P. Weed, deceased, by the Merchants Bank & Trust Company, executor and trustee, against the New Canaan Historical Society and others, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. From an adverse judgment, the New Canaan Historical Society and the New Canaan Library appeal.

Error in part and case remanded with direction.

Frederick Miles, of Stamford, and S. Pearce Browning, Jr., of New York City, for appellant (named defendant).

David G. Marvin, of New Canaan, for appellant (defendant New Canaan Library).

William C. Ward and Eugene C. Venn, both of Stamford, for appellee (defendant Stamford Hospital).

Freeman Light and Leon K. Paris, both of Norwalk, for appellee (defendant Norwalk Hospital Ass'n).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

In this action to secure a construction of a will and codicil annexed to it executed by Amanda P. Weed, late of New Canaan, many questions were submitted to the trial court for its determination. Only two of the interested parties, The New Canaan Historical Society and The New Canaan Library, have appealed from the judgment.

The testatrix gave the residue of her estate to the plaintiff bank as trustee and directed it to permit the historical society to occupy for its own purposes the testatrix' ‘Homestead,’ with certain provisions as to the use to be made of it. One of the questions propounded to the trial court was as to the meaning of a requirement that the trustee ‘apply net income to maintain said buildings and fences on said real estate [the Homestead] and other incidental charges that may arise in the proper care of said real estate and building.’ The trial court concluded that this provision required the trustee to pay only the charges for necessary repairs and maintenance of the lands and buildings, taxes and premiums on insurance policies, and did not include the expenses of the operation of the premises by the society such as those for heat, light, water and cleaning, and of insurance of personal property in the buildings, the services of a curator, protection of valuable documents and records against fire, and the making of alterations or additions to adapt the property to the activities of the society. The society claims that it is entitled to have the trustee pay the charges eliminated by the court. It points to these stipulated facts: The testatrix had been a member of the society since 1913, held office in it and made voluntary contributions to it. Her sister was its president for nine years and had donated to it valuable antiques still owned by it. The income of the society is made up from membership dues of $1 a year and voluntary contributions. Its annual receipts and disbursements have been between about $600 and about $900. The monthly meetings of its board of governors and the quarterly meetings of its members have been held in a room in the New Canaan Library. It has a valuable collection of books, records and antiques, now kept in the library, a fireproof building. Its books and records are used in complying with many requests for information, and it gives periodic exhibitions of its collections.

In Hayward v. Hayward, 95 Conn. 122, 125, 111 A. 53, we were called upon to construe a provision in a will in which trustees were directed by the testator ‘to continue to maintain my home’ as long as his son wished to occupy it; and we held at page 134 of 95 Conn., at page 53 of 111 A., that, while they were bound to maintain it in substantially the same condition it was in when the testator died and to take any necessary steps to prevent deterioration and make replacements when necessary, the expenses incident to occupancy must be borne by the son. In Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Nesbit, 121 Conn. 682, 685, 186 A. 643, 645, the testator gave the use of certain premises to his brother and his wife for their lives and directed the trustee of his residuary estate ‘to pay the taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, and ordinary expenses for the general upkeep of said property while occupied’ by them. The life beneficiaries contended that it was the duty of the trustee to install new heating equipment and pay for the coal used by them. We held at page 689 of 121 Conn., at page 646 of 186 A., citing the Hayward case, that any installation of new equipment was limited to such replacements as were necessary to maintain the premises in suitable condition for occupancy, and that the trustee was not bound to furnish coal to heat the house. These cases established the rule that where a trustee is directed to maintain premises, the use of which is given by a testator to others, the trustee, in the absence of other controlling factors, is under no duty to pay expenses involved in making changes in the property for its better use by those entitled to occupy it or expenses ordinarily incident to the occupancy of the premises. See Hudson County National Bank v. Flora, 114 N.J.Eq. 135, 138, 168 A. 241. Indeed, the language of the will before us indicates that this rule accords with the intent of the testatrix, because she restricted the direction to the trustees to the maintenance of the buildings and fences and to other incidental charges that might arise in the proper care of said real estate and buildings.

The only other provision in the will to which the society calls attention in connection with this claim is one in which the testatrix directs the trustee to ‘intrust’ her collection of old fashioned clothing, furniture, furnishings, silverware and crockery to the society to be retained in the buildings, for such exhibition as the society, with the approval of the trustee, may deem proper. Any expenses necessary in connection with the retention of these articles and their exhibition would be incident to the occupancy of the building by the society. Nor can we find anything in the facts we have stated which would suffice to vary the ordinary meaning to be attached to the words used by the testatrix. The expenses the society claims the trustee should pay for the most part fall within the class of costs incident to occupancy. Furnishing fireproof protection for its books and records and making changes and additions to adapt the building to the uses of the society would be in the nature of betterments for which the trustee is not bound to pay. That the testatrix did not intend to impose the duty of furnishing fireproofing in the present building is indicated in the provision in the fifth article that, if the building is destroyed by fire, the trustee is to erect a building for the use of the society, with a recommendation that ‘a fire proof room be a part of such new building’; as she obviously had in mind the matter of fireproofing, she would naturally have directed the trustee to provide it in the existing building, had she intended that to be done.

The only expense which the trial court held the trustee was not bound to pay, outside of the classes just mentioned, is the cost of insuring the personal property. The testatrix gave her collection of clothing, furniture,...