Organized Charities v. Mansfield

• Decision Date: 17 December 1909
• Citation: 82 Conn. 504,74 A. 781
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ORGANIZED CHARITIES v. MANSFIELD et al.

74 A. 781

82 Conn. 504

ORGANIZED CHARITIES

v. MANSFIELD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 17, 1909.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.

Action by the Organized Charities against Burton Mansfield and another, executors of Mrs. Lucy H. Boardman, deceased, to enforce a claim of $10,000 against the estate of deceased. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The testatrix was a woman of large means. The defendant Fields was up to her decease, and for 15 years before had been, her confidential business adviser. He made and changed her investments, drew on her bank account (as did she, also), which was kept at the National Tradesmen's Bank in New Haven, of which he was the president, and kept her securities in its vaults in her box, of which he had the only key. In 1904 she made a will, leaving $10,000 to the plaintiff. On March 22, 1906, she signed and handed to Mr. Fields her note for $10,000, drawn payable to his order, on demand after date, at the National Tradesmen's Bank for value received, and also a letter of even date addressed to him, reading thus: "I hand you herewith my note for ten thousand dollars ($10,000.) to your order, the proceeds of which can be invested by you for the benefit of the Organized Charities Association of No. 200 Orange street, New Haven, Conn. This gift is not intended to be in place of the bequest of ten thousand dollars in my will for general purposes of said Association, but in addition to that bequest my wish being to give by will the ten thousand dollars for general purposes and in addition this sum as an endowment." He had previously drawn both these papers at her request. In handing them to him she expressed herself as pleased to have made this additional gift. He received them for the purposes set forth in the letter, putting them in his own box in said bank, where they remained until her death, which occurred seven days later. During the same period he had in his possession other notes signed by her, and given to him by her in connection with charitable gifts, the aggregate amount of these being not over $65,060, and also had in his possession and custody cash and personal securities of which he could have made immediate sale and delivery, without further net on her part, of a value exceeding $125,000. These securities were kept in her box at said bank. She also left at her death other property worth nearly $800,000. Fields did not set aside any securities or apply any cash in payment of the note of March 22d. Soon after her death, he gave the note and letter to his coexecutor, with whom they remained until the trial, and also notified the plaintiff of their existence. Previously the plaintiff had no knowledge that there were any such papers, unless it is to be inferred from the fact that Fields was one of its board of about 80 directors in 1905 and 1906. He never attended any meetings of the board and performed no duties by virtue of his being a director. There was no consideration for the note or letter, and the plaintiff in no way changed its position because of them. The plaintiff exhibited its claim against the estate for $10,000, which was disallowed. The defendants were sued as executors of Mrs. Boardman's will, and Fields was also sued "both individually and as trustee of an express trust created and declared by the said Lucy H. Boardman for the benefit of the plaintiff." The claims were both for equitable and legal relief.

Henry C. White and Leonard M. Daggett, for appellant.

Burton Mansfield and James E. Wheeler, for appellees.

BALDWIN, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). It is apparent from the letter of March 22d that Mrs. Boardman delivered her note of that date to Mr. Fields with a view of making a gift, by way of endowment, of $10,000 for the use of the plaintiff. She made the note payable to his order, and provided for the investment of its "proceeds" by him for the plaintiff's benefit. He drew up the two papers as her agent, and it is not found that he received them after they were executed in any other capacity. The fact that he was a director of the plaintiff is standing alone not sufficient as matter of law to establish its representation in this transaction by him, and so a delivery to it. It had not made him its agent for any such purpose, and he did nothing to indicate that he considered such an agency to exist. Parrel Foundry v. Dart, 26 Conn. 376, 382. His deposit of the papers in his own box at the bank, rather than in Mrs. Boardman's, was not inconsistent with a purpose to keep them within his own control in order to carry out her directions for constituting an endowment fund.

The finding of facts by the superior court does not show that the note was of a testamentary character. It states that while Mrs. Boardman was ill at the time in question she was not so ill as to indicate to Mr. Fields that her death would occur within a short time. Had he during her life (his authority from her remaining unrevoked) replaced the note by $10,000 in cash or securities, and notified the plaintiff of the facts, he would have become its trustee with respect to the fund so coming into existence. But he would have become such by virtue of acts done in the course of a continuing agency for Mrs. Boardman. She had not given him a power coupled with a trust, but only a power to establish a trust. Her death before he had executed this power revoked it. A power coupled with an interest may survive, but only if coupled with an interest or estate in the thing itself which is the subject of the power....