Wilber v. Owens

• Citation: 65 A.2d 843
• Decision Date: 02 May 1949
• Docket Number: No. A-264.,A-264.
• Parties: WILBER v. OWENS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

65 A.2d 843

WILBER

v.OWENS et al.

No. A-264.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 2, 1949.

Appeal from former Court of Chancery.

Suit by Charles P. Wilber, as sole acting executor of the last will of William Brokaw Bamford, deceased, against John Owens and Asbury Park National Bank & Trust Company, the Trustees of Princeton University, and others, for a construction of the will of William Brokaw Bamford, deceased. From decretal findings that the testator had a general charitable intent, that trust created by the tenth paragraph of the will was a valid charitable trust, and from the direction that the executor pay over the corpus of the trust to the Trustees of Princeton University in trust to invest and reinvest it and use the income in some fitting manner for scientific and philosophical research in its department of Philosophy as such trustees may in their best judgment decide, 142 N.J.Eq. 99, 59 A.2d 570, John Owens appeals.

Decree affirmed.

F. Morse Archer, Jr., of Camden, for appellant.

William E. Foster and Applegate, Stevens, Foster & Reussille, all of Red Bank, for complainant-respondent.

Donald B. Kipp and Pitney, Hardin & Ward, all of Newark (Charles B. Alling and Robert P. Hazlehurst, Jr., of Newark, on the brief), for respondent Trustees of Princeton University.

HEHER, Justice.

The bill of complaint seeks a construction of the will of William Brokaw Bamford, deceased.

The appeal is from the decretal findings that the testator had ‘a general charitable intent’ (142 N.J.Eq. 99, 59 A.2d 570, 584) and the ‘trust created by’ the tenth paragraph of the will ‘is a valid charitable trust,’ and also from the direction that the executor pay over the corpus of the trust to the Trustees of Princeton University ‘in trust to invest and reinvest the same, and to use the income in some fitting manner for scientific and philosophical research in its Department of Philosophy as said Trustees of Princeton may in their best judgment decide.’

The avowed purpose of this provision of the will was the creation of a trust, to be known as the ‘Exton-Bamford Research Fund,’ and the use of ‘the income thereof in some fitting manner to continue and carry forward to a completion and to publish for popular understanding the results of the researches contained or outlined in’ the testator's ‘manuscript entitled ‘Random Scientific Notes seeking the Essentials in Place and Space’ or by whatever future title' he ‘might designate them.’

The learned Vice Chancellor found that the “Random Notes' are ‘irrational, unintelligible, and of no scientific or other value’; that ‘the express purpose of the trust created by’ the cited paragraph of the will ‘is impossible of accomplishment;’ that the testator had ‘a general charitable intent and the trust’ so created ‘is a valid charitable trust;’ and that under the doctrine of cy pres Chancery was empowered to direct the use of the trust fund ‘to carry out, as near as may be, the testator's general intent and purpose’: hence, the provision for the use of the income for ‘scientific and philosophical research’ by Princeton University, who was named by the testator as the ultimate trustee for the execution of the trust if those given the prior option of service should decline to accept the trust on the terms and conditions laid down in the will.

First, the insistence is that the testator did not have a general charitable intent. It is said that the testator's ‘purpose’ cannot be ‘disassociated from his Notes;’ that while he indicated the ‘thought’ that ‘his notes would be of world benefit,’ his ‘basic and fundamental purpose, desire and intent’ was simply the ‘completion and publication for popular understanding of the results of his ‘researches“; and that this was ‘paramount and vital,’ and not subordinate to a general charitable intent, and a construction ‘severing the decedent's intent from his ‘Random Notes” would run counter to ‘the express terms of the will, the testimony and the evidence, all of which deny the existence of a ‘general charitable intent.“

The testamentary expression is not to be so narrowly read. It reveals a general charitable intent. The testator's dominant purpose was the devotion of his property to uses which are charitable. He gave what he considered was the bulk of his wealth to the charitable use provided in the tenth paragraph of the will. As it turned out, the bequest was far in excess of the value of his estate. The amount thus bequeathed was $150,000; and the bequest was conditioned upon the raising of a like sum by the trustee, the whole to constitute the principal of the trust in perpetuity. But the fulfillment of the trust was not made to depend upon the provision of the additional principal. In the event that the several trustees should refuse acceptance of the trust so conditioned, the same bequest was made, first to the League of Nations and, in case of a refusal, to Princeton University, in trust ‘for the same purposes, but upon any satisfactory terms and conditions by which’ such accepting trustee ‘will agree to endeavor to carry out the purposes of this bequest and trust so that the results may be of benefit to the entire world.’ Such trustee was authorized to do the work attending the execution of the trust by its ‘own staff or by assignment to scientists or other qualified workers who believe that the common good of the worthy and meritorious of all mankind is greater than that of an isolated part.’

Then came a series of specific and pecuniary legacies, the pecuniary legacies totalling $34,600, many of them charitable, but none to become effective until after ‘the provisions' of the tenth and other preceding paragraphs of the will ‘have been fully complied with.’ There was prior provision of $15,000 for the preservation of his ‘Random Notes' and for a scientific analysis and appraisal of the ‘researches' therein ‘outlined,’ to the end that such ‘researches' be made available ‘for the use and benefit of all mankind,’ if they ‘have any practical value.’ And, by the thirty-third paragraph of the will, the ‘residue’ of the testator's estate was constituted a trust designated as the ‘Exton-Bamford Trust,’ to be administered by a ‘voluntary association’ composed of designated ‘representative’ second cousins.

This latter trust was to continue until the youngest of his second cousins attained the age of fifty years, when the corpus was to be divided equally among such of his second cousins therein mentioned as should then be living. Meanwhile, the income was to be ‘used and applied to promote the well being of mankind and more especially the social, physical and economic welfare and efficiency of any of my relatives who are worthy and deserving and are in special need of such assistance, or of any of my relatives who have * * * acquired special merit in their own lives through their efforts to help others beyond their ordinary duty or obligation.’ Authority was also given to apply such income ‘to the use and benefit of any worthy charitable, benevolent or educational purpose; or for the establishment and maintenance of any endowments or memorials' as may be found ‘to be appropriate following where reasonably possible the spirit of the various provisions of my will or of my ‘Random Scientific Notes“. In this paragraph the testator urged his kin to find ‘a fitting way’ to ‘overcome the evil effects of direct inheritance of unearned property.’ In the event that such voluntary association should not for any reason be ‘set up or maintained,’ of if the income should not be spent by such association as provided in the will, or if all of the second cousins therein appointed to form and maintain the association should die ‘before the youngest one shall have attained the age of fifty years,’ then the residue of his estate would pass to the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, ‘in trust, as far as may be possible, as set forth to establish the ‘Exton-Bamford Research Fund’ for the purposes and under the same terms and conditions as provided' in the tenth paragraph of the will.

A general charitable intention is outstanding in these provisions. The design of the trust created by the tenth paragraph is the advancement of education and learning, and therefore it is a charitable trust. Trusts for the advancement of knowledge by research or otherwise are charitable. A gift for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, among other purposes, is a charity in the legal sense. George v. Braddock, Err. & App. 1889, 45 N.J.Eq. 757, 18 A. 881, 6 L.R.A. 511, 14 Am.St.Rep 754; MacKenzie v. Trustees of Presbytery of Jersey City, Err. & App. 1905,67 N.J.Eq. 652, 61 A. 1027, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 227; Vineland Trust Co. v. Westendorf, Ch. 1916, 86...