Parrington v. Putnam
Decision Date | 04 June 1897 |
Citation | 90 Me. 405,37 A. 652 |
Parties | PARRINGTON et al. v. PUTNAM et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Bill by Ira K. Parrington and others against William L. Putnam and Thomas H. Haskell, executors of the last will of Ira P. Farrington, deceased, and others. On exceptions and final decree in favor of respondents. Exceptions overruled, and decree affirmed.
Orville D. Baker and Clarence Hale, for plaintiffs.
Symonds, Snow & Cook, C. L. Hutchinson, Libby, Robinson & Turner, and Edward Woodman, for defendants.
PETERS, C. J. Ira P. Farrington, the testator, whose will is called in question by this bill in equity, died at his home in Portland, December 17, 1894, leaving a will dated July 9, 1891, and a codicil dated January 4, 1893. The will was probated in January, 1895, in the probate court below, and approved by this court in the next April afterwards. The will, after a most generous provision for his widow, and numerous bequests to his relatives, besides several large bequests to certain local charities other than those to be herein named, contains the following residuary clause:
The testator names Hon. William L. Putnam and Hon. Thomas H. Haskell as executors, and confers certain authority over his estate on them as such executors, as follows: "I give the executors full possession, management, and control of all my real estate, wherever situate, subject to the devise of my beloved wife; and I authorize them from time to time to lease, sell, or exchange the same, or any part thereof, and to receive the proceeds of such leases and sales, and all other incomes or other proceeds thereof, for the purpose of fully executing this will, reminding them, however, that their authority over my estate, whether real or personal, is given solely for the purpose of closing and distributing the same as heretofore mentioned directed, with a prudent regard for obtaining fair prices within a reasonable time to be taken therefor."
The codicil is as follows:
The Eye and Ear Infirmary is a charitable association, organized under the general statute which authorizes the formation of such corporations (Rev. St. c. 55, § 1). Numerous kinds and classes of persons and associations are permitted by this section to be organized into corporations, including all social, military, literary, scientific, temperance, moral, musical, agricultural, and many other societies and organizations. Section 4 of the chapter prescribes as follows: "Such corporations may take and hold by purchase, gift, devise or bequest, personal or real estate, in all not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars in value, owned at any one time, and may use and dispose thereof only for the purposes for which the corporation was organized." The constitution of the infirmary, a public record, declares the purpose of the institution as follows: "The object of the corporation shall be the establishment and maintenance of an infirmary in Portland, Maine, where a daily clinic may be held for the treatment, free of charge, of poor persons throughout the state, suffering from diseases of the eye and ear."
The bill alleges that the infirmary had, at the death of the testator, property to the full amount of $100,000 in value, and that any additional amounts to be received through this will would be in excess of the limit allowed by its charter, and in disregard of the statutes of the state; and so it further alleges "that the said Maine Eye and Ear infirmary is incompetent to receive and incapable of holding any property beyond the amount which it now possesses, and that the bequests and devises made to it under item 5th of the said will, and under the codicil to said will of said Ira P. Parrington, are invalid and void, and revert to the heirs of Ira P. Farrington." The bill includes the infirmary and the executors as respondents, the prayer of the same being that the parties be enjoined, the one against paying over, and the other against receiving, the devises and bequests in execution of the intention of the testator.
Both of these respondents, the executors and the corporation, filed general demurrers to the bill, which were sustained by the justice before whom the case was heard below, and the case comes to us on exceptions and a final decree in favor of the respondents. Mr. Justice Strout, of this court, by whom the issues were decided, filed a written judgment in the case, from which we reproduce that portion of the same which bears upon the questions we propose now to discuss, reading as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hubbard v. Worcester Art Museum
...J. Eq. 671-690, in an opinion by Beasley, C.J., which contains a dictum disapproving of the view of the chancellor. In Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 37 A. 652, 38 R. A. 339, the court, in a very elaborate opinion, in a case identical in its leading features with that now before us, held......
-
Hubbard v. Worcester Art Museum
...671-690, in an opinion by Beasley, C. J., which contains a dictum disapproving of the view of the chancellor. In Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 37 Atl. 652,38 L. R. A. 339, the court, in a very elaborate opinion, in a case identical in its leading features with that now before us, held t......
-
State v. Rand
...as well as personal, property for public purposes whether in the manner of trusts or conditional gifts. See: e.g., Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 37 A. 652 (1897); Manufacturers National Bank v. Woodward, 138 Me. 70, 21 A.2d 705 (1941); City of Bangor v. Merrill Trust Company, 149 Me. 16......
-
Gardiner Trust Co. v. Augusta Trust Co.
...to be sure, that only the state can raise the defense of ultra vires. In some special cases this may be true. Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 37 A. 652, 38 L.R.A. 339; Oakland Electric Company v. Union Gas & Electric Co., 107 Me. 279, 78 A. 288. The rule is, however, otherwise in the ordi......