Woodcock v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co

• Decision Date: 12 October 1938
• Docket Number: No. 100.,100.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WOODCOCK et al. v. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO.

199 S.E. 20
214 N.C. 224

WOODCOCK et al.
v.
WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO.

No. 100.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 12, 1938.

[199 S.E. 21]

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; A. Hall Johnston, Judge.

Action by Julian A. Woodcock, Jr., and others against the Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, executor and trustee under the will of S. Johnston Woodcock, deceased, to construe the fourth paragraph of the will of S. Johnston Woodcock, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

This was an action by interested parties to construe the fourth paragraph of the will of S. Johnston Woodcock, deceased. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed.

Parker, Bernard & Parker, of Asheville, for appellant.

Geo. H. Wright, of Asheville, for appellees.

DEVIN, Justice.

S. Johnston Woodcock, a resident of Buncombe County, North Carolina, died December 31, 1927, leaving a last will and testament wherein he named his brothers Julian A. Woodcock and Rufus J. Woodcock, and the Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, as executors. The question presented by the appeal concerns a bequest contained in the fourth paragraph of the will, in these words: "I then give and bequeath to my said executors the sum of $10,000.00, to be held in trust and paid out and appropriated by them within twenty years after my death, in entirety or in installments, principal and interest, to such corporations or associations of individuals as will in their judgment best promote the cause of preventing cruelty to animals in the vicinity of Asheville."

It is admitted that distribution of the estate has not been made and that the trust referred to in paragraph four has not been set up or paid out. Both the personal executors, the brothers of the deceased, have died, one in 1936, and the other in 1937, leaving the defendant Bank & Trust Company the sole surviving executor. Those now entitled under the residuary clause of the will of S. Johnston Woodcock claim that the bequest in paragraph four is void and that they are entitled to have the amount of the fund distributed as part of the residue of the estate. The corporate executor, claiming the bequest to be valid, proposes to set aside the $10,000 fund to be paid out as provided in this paragraph of the will.

A case for a declaratory judgment, under the provisions of Chap. 102, Public Laws of 1931, is thus made for the construction of paragraph four above quoted, and for the determination of its legal effect. The court below held that the bequest was void for indefiniteness and uncertainty, and that it was one which could not be executed by the corporate defendant.

The question arises, can the bequest be upheld as a charitable trust? It

[199 S.E. 22]

was said in Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U.S. 303, 24 L.Ed. 450, that "a charitable use, where neither law nor public policy forbids, may be applied to almost any thing that tends to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man, " [page 311] and it has been uniformly held that a bequest for the protection of animals is classed as a charitable trust. Minns v. Billings, 183 Mass. 126, 66 N.E. 593, 5 L.R.A., N.S., 686, 97 Am. St. Rep. 420; Shannon v. Eno, 120 Conn. 77, 179 A. 479; In re Grove-Grady, 1 Ch. 557, 66 A.L.R. 465; 2 Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, § 379, p. 1210; Barden v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N.C. 318, 67 S.E. 971, 49 L.R.A., N.S., 801.

Trusts for charitable uses are of ancient origin. The jurisdiction of courts of chancery in England was grounded upon the common law and the civil law, and upon this was ingrafted the English statute of charitable uses, 43 Elizabeth, Chap. 4, enacted in 1601. The principles of the English Statute, defining and regulating the enforcement of charitable trusts, have been modified by statute in America, and the subject treated as one within the inherent powers of courts of equity. The Statute of Elizabeth was in force in this state until superseded by our act concerning charities, now C.S. § 4033 (State v. Gerard, 37 N.C. 210), and the equities raised by charitable bequests have been considered by our courts and administered as part of their equitable jurisdiction, independent of the statute, and in accord with applicable principles of equity.

While one of the characteristics of charitable trusts, in addition to the expression of a definite charitable purpose, is the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries...