Richardson v. Mullery

• Decision Date: 24 November 1908
• Citation: 200 Mass. 247,86 N.E. 319
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. MULLERY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

200 Mass. 247

86 N.E. 319

RICHARDSON v. MULLERY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

November 24, 1908

COUNSEL

Dana Malone, Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

Fredk. Manley Ives and M. Stuart Taylor, for respondents Mullery and guion.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The petitioner asks for instructions as to the effect of this clause in the will of Harriet M. King, late of Salem deceased: 'I give and bequeath the rest and residue of my estate to my sister, Eliza A. Hoffman, for her use during her life, at her death to be given to the life saving station to be built and established in Marblehead or Nahant, not yet decided upon.' The holder of the interest for life having deceased, the question is what shall now be done with the residue, which amounts to about $6,000. It appears by the agreed facts that, when the will was made, the testatrix knew of the intention of the United States government to establish a life saving station in the neighborhood of Nahant. Her will was made on March 19, 1900, and the construction of the life saving station at Nahant was completed on February 18th of the same year, although it is averred in the bill and not denied in the answer that the station did not go into commission until September 13, 1900. This station is on the shore at Nahant, about four or five miles across the bay from the nearest part of the shore of Marblehead. No life saving station has been established at Marblehead, and none is contemplated by the United States government or the officers having the life saving service in charge. This station is maintained under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, acting under a law of the United States. 'The building of the station is an accomplished fact, and there is no doubt that it will always be maintained by the government.' The Congress of the United States has taken no action towards the acceptance of the legacy, and the Secretary of the Treasury has filed in the case a disclaimer of any interest in the residue of the estate of the testatrix. The keeper and crew of six or seven men live in the station, and the keeper has quarters for his family there. No provision is made for the families of the men of the crew.

The gift is 'to the life saving station to be built and established,' etc. This is equivalent to a gift to the proprietor or proprietors of the life saving station, for the benefit of the station. The charitable nature and object of the gift, and the fact that its benefits are to extend generally to all the members of the class or classes for whose benefit the life saving station is established, make it a public charity. Johnstone v. Swan, 3 Maddox, 457; Fire Insurance Partrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. 624, 15 A 553, 1 L. R. A. 417, 6 Am. St. Rep. 745; Minns v. Billings, 183 Mass. 126-129, 66 N.E. 593, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 686, 97 Am. St. Rep. 420; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539-556; Drury v. Natick, 10 Allen, 169-178; Attorney General v. Shrewsbury, 6 Beav. 220; Attorney General v. Day, L. R. (1900) 1 Ch. 31; Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 291, 11 Am. Dec. 471; Hamden v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350; Stuart v. Easton, 74 F. 854, 21 C. C. A. 146. If the United States government, by act of Congress, had accepted the trust, the money would have been paid over to be used for the maintenance and support of the life saving station in a way to make it as beneficial as possible to those for whose safety and protection it was established. But the United States declines to accept the trust. See Dixon v. U. S., 125 Mass. 311, 28 Am. Rep. 230; State v. Blake, 69 Conn. 64, 36 A. 1019. The management and control of the station is in its owner, the United States government,...