Murphy v. McBride

• Decision Date: 07 July 1925
• Citation: 130 A. 283,14 Del.Ch. 457
• Parties: MATTHEW D. MURPHY, personally, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Michael McCartney, deceased, and as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Adaline M. McCartney, deceased, SISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. PETER'S SCHOOL, INCORPORATED, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and JANE LORGAN, Defendants below, Appellants, v. MARY E. MCBRIDE, CATHERINE MCBRIDE, CATHERINE MORLEY JULIA O'CONNELL, MARGARET LIBBEY, ELIZABETH FERRIER and FRANK H. GILLEN, Complainants below, Appellees
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

130 A. 283

14 Del.Ch. 457

MATTHEW D. MURPHY, personally, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Michael McCartney, deceased, and as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Adaline M. McCartney, deceased, SISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. PETER'S SCHOOL, INCORPORATED, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and JANE LORGAN, Defendants below, Appellants, v. MARY E. MCBRIDE, CATHERINE MCBRIDE, CATHERINE MORLEY JULIA O'CONNELL, MARGARET LIBBEY, ELIZABETH FERRIER and FRANK H. GILLEN, Complainants below, Appellees

Supreme Court of Delaware

July 7, 1925

APPEAL FROM COURT OF CHANCERY. From the decree entered in the court below, in accordance with the opinion reported ante p. 242 the defendants took an appeal to the Supreme Court. The facts material to the decision of the cause, assignments of error and contentions of solicitors for the respective parties are set forth in the following opinion.

Decree of the Chancellor affirmed.

Charles F. Curley, of the firm of Saulsbury, Curley and Davis, for the apellants.

William S. Hilles, for the appellees.

PENNEWILL C. J., and RICE, HARRINGTON, RICHARDS and RODNEY, JJ. sitting.

OPINION

Appeal from the court of Chancery, No. 1, October term, 1924.

RICHARDS J.

The complainants filed a bill in equity in the Court of Chancery of this State, on July 2, 1923, against the defendants, praying that six separate and distinct things be decreed by the Chancellor, all of which depended upon a construction of the last will and testament of Michael McCartney, deceased.

Michael McCartney died in November, 1903; by his will he devised the residue of his estate as follows:

"I give, devise and bequeath all of said property, real and personal, of every nature and kind, and wheresoever situated at the time of the death of my said wife, Adaline T. McCartney, unto the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's School of Wilmington, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and to its successors and assigns forever, to be used by said corporation for the support and maintenance of the orphan girls under its care and charge."

At the time of the execution of the will of Michael McCartney "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's" was a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having been created by a special act of the Legislature, dated February 5, 1841 (9 Del. Laws, p. 331), for a period of twenty years; its corporate existence was renewed on February 12, 1861, for a further period of twenty years, and again on April 1, 1881, for a further period of twenty years, each of said renewals being by special act of the Legislature. Its corporate existence expired with the termination of the last twenty year extension of its charter on April 1, 1901, which was four years after the date of the will of Michael McCartney and a little less than three years prior to his death.

An entirely new corporation, known as "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's School, Incorporated," was incorporated on the second day of March, 1904.

The appellees are the heirs at law of Michael McCartney and alleged, in their bill filed before the Chancellor, that they were entitled to his real and personal property, subject to the life interest of his wife, Adaline M. T. McCartney, and were entitled to an accounting from Matthew D. Murphy, individually, as executor of the will of Michael McCartney and as executor of the will of Adaline M. T. McCartney.

The Chancellor's decree was in favor of the complainants, from which this appeal was taken.

The following assignments of error were filed:

(1) That the Chancellor erred in holding that the complainants, Mary E. McBride, Catherine McBride, Catherine Morley, Julia O'Connell, Margaret Libbey, Elizabeth Ferrier and Frank H. Gillen, as heirs at law of Michael McCartney, were entitled to the property, constituting the said McCartney's residuary estate

(2) That the Chancellor erred in holding that the above-named complainants were entitled to raise the question as to the right of the said corporation "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's," to take the residuary estate devised to it in and by the will of the said Michael McCartney.

(3) That the Chancellor erred in holding that the corporation, "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's," lacked power to take the residuary estate devised to it in and by the will of the said Michael McCartney.

(4) That the Chancellor erred, upon the evidence in the case, in holding that the persons intended to be benefited by the said residuary disposition in the will of the said Michael McCartney were alone the particular orphan girls who were in the care and charge of the said corporation at the time of the said Michael McCartney's death.

(5) That the Chancellor erred, upon the evidence in the case, in construing the will of Michael McCartney as intending to benefit certain individual orphan girls only, to the exclusion of all others of the class described as needy female Catholic orphans of the diocese of Wilmington.

(6) That the Chancellor erred, upon the evidence in the case, in refusing to hold that Michael McCartney by his said will intended to benefit the class of persons described as needy female Catholic orphans of the diocese of Wilmington.

(7) That the Chancellor erred in holding that on the evidence in the case, no enforceable charitable trust was created by the will of the said Michael McCartney.

(8) That the Chancellor erred in entering a decree requiring Matthew D. Murphy, personally, or in any capacity to file an account showing the property formerly of the said Michael McCartney and now belonging to the plaintiffs in the said case.

(9) That the Chancellor erred in entering a decree recognizing the plaintiffs in the said cause as the owners of the property constituting the residuary estate of the said Michael McCartney.

At the argument before this court the appellant relied upon assignments of error Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, under which it was contended that, from the language of that portion of the will in question, it appeared that the testator intended to create a trust for the benefit of a defined class of persons, the individuals composing the class being undefined, namely, "needy female orphans of the Catholic diocese of Wilmington."

It was admitted that the devise was intended for a corporation known as "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's," and not "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's School of Wilmington."

The sole question before this court is whether the testator intended to create a trust for the benefit of orphan girls generally, or orphan girls under the care and charge of "the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's."

Counsel for the appellants argued that the class of persons intended to be benefited was "needy female orphans of the Catholic diocese of Wilmington," but this court is unable to see how it is possible to place upon the words of the will such a construction as will lead one to that conclusion. Not only did the testator fail to mention the Catholic diocese of Wilmington, but failed to mention orphan girls of the Catholic denomination, or any other denomination.

The inherent power of a court of equity, under its general jurisdiction over trusts, to construe and enforce wills of both real and personal property, so far as the provisions thereof involve the creation of trusts, has long been recognized. Hart v. Darter, 107 Va. 310, 58 S.E. 590, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 599, 13 Ann. Cas. 1; Miller v. Drane, 100 Wis. 1 75 N.W. 413, ; Miles v. Strong, 62 Conn. 95, 25 A. 459; Minkler v. Simons, 172 Ill. 323, 50 N.E. 176; Andersen v. Andersen, 69 Neb. 565. 96 N.W. 276; Torrey v. Torrey, 55 N.J.Eq. 410, 36 A. 1084; Chipman v. Montgomery, 63 N.Y. 221.

A will being the method to which man resorts in order to dispose of his property after his death, the controlling motive of the courts in undertaking a construction thereof, should be to ascertain the real intention of the maker. Andrews v. Applegate, 223 Ill. 535, 79 N.E. 176, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 661, 7 Ann. Cas. 126; In re Paxson's Estate, 241 Pa. 452, 88 A. 673, L. R. A. 1915C, 1009; Appeal of Scully, 91 Conn. 45, 98 A. 350; Presbyterian Church v. Mize, 181 Ky. 567, 205 S.W. 674, 2 A. L. R. 1237; Doughten v. Vandever, 5 Del. Ch. 51; Sussex Trust Co. v. Polite, et al., 12 Del. Ch. 64, 106 A. 54.

Adopting this course in connection with the McCartney will, what conclusion do we reach?

It is admitted that the Sisters of Charity of St. Peter's was the corporation to which the property in question was devised after the death of the testator's wife and to quote the language of...