Siedler v. Syms

• Decision Date: 20 September 1897
• Citation: 38 A. 424,56 N.J.E. 275
• Parties: SIEDLER et al. v. SYMS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

38 A. 424

56 N.J.E. 275

SIEDLER et al.

v. SYMS et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Sept. 20, 1897.

Bill by Grace Siedler and others against Parker Syms, executor of the estate of Samuel R. Syms, deceased, and others, for the construction of a will.

Washington B. Williams, for complainants.

Charles L. Corbin, for trustee.

STEVENS, V. C. The controversy arises over the sixth clause of the will of Samuel R. Syms, who died in November, 1891. The clause, so far as material, reads as follows: "Sixth. I direct my executors to transfer to such person as shall at the time of my death be the acting cashier of the First National Bank of Hoboken, New Jersey, eighty shares of the capital stock of said bank, now in my name, to be held and used by said cashier and his successor and successors in office in trust for the following uses and purposes, to wit: To collect and receive during the corporate existence of said bank, either under its present charter, or by virtue of any renewals or extensions thereof, the dividends made and declared payable from time to time thereon, and upon the first days of January in each and every year thereafter to divide and distribute such dividends equally among all the clerks and employes (including the cashier and janitor) of said bank who shall at the time of such distribution be actually employed therein, and whose employment in said bank shall have continued for a period of at least two years. * * * In case said bank shall, by dissolution or otherwise, cease to exist, then and in that event I give and bequeath the said eighty shares of stock, together with any increase of shares thereon as aforesaid, or the money payable in lieu thereof, to the Bank Clerks' Mutual Benefit Association of the City of New York, to be held and invested by said association as a part of its permanent fund, and the income arising therefrom to be used and employed as may be directed by the constitution and bylaws of said association." It is plain that neither the bequest to the cashier of the First National Bank nor the bequest over to the Bank Clerks' Mutual Benefit Association is charitable. Not being charitable, the objection made to these bequests is that they violate the rule against perpetuities. The gift, in the first instance, is to the cashier of the bank and his successors, in trust to collect and receive during the corporate existence of the bank, either under its present charter, "or by virtue of any renewals or extensions thereof," the dividends received, and "on the first days of January of each and every year thereafter to divide" them among the employes designated. If this is a trust which is to continue more than 21 years from the death of the testator, it is invalid. The bank was incorporated on June 19, 1865, for the period of 20 years. Its corporate life would have ceased on June 19, 1885, had it not been extended for a further period of 20 years under the provisions of the federal law of 1882. Its charter will therefore expire on June 19, 1905. It is admitted that at testator's death there was no act of congress under which any further extension was authorized, nor is there now. If the testator had limited the gift to the corporate existence of the bank, I should have thought—as we could only deal with the facts as they were at the time of testator's death, and as one of those facts was that the charter of the bank would expire within 21 years, and could not be extended beyond that time—that the gift was unobjectionable for the reason that the trust must have been completely performed within the legal period. But the testator has not limited the trust to the legal period. He has...