Wright v. Wright

• Decision Date: 14 January 1919
• Citation: 122 N.E. 213,225 N.Y. 329
• Parties: WRIGHT et al. v. WRIGHT et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

225 N.Y. 329

122 N.E. 213

WRIGHT et al.

v.WRIGHT et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 14, 1919.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Proceeding by Mary R. Wright and another, to settle their accounts as sole surviving trustees under the will of James Hood Wright, deceased, against Mary R. Wright and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (173 App. Div. 966,159 N. Y. Supp. 1150), affirming a judgment of the Special Term entered on a referee's report, defendant Knickerbocker Hospital alone appeals. Affirmed.Eli J. Blair, of New York City, for appellant.

George L. Shearer, of New York City, for respondent New York Public library.

HISCOCK, C. J.

The questions which are presented to us upon this appeal arise under and in connection with the will of one Wright. For several years before his decease Mr. Wright lived in the territory known as Washington Heights. While this was located within the limits of New York City, it was really a community by itself, having local and distinct interests and institutions. Mr. Wright, who was a man of large means, became interested in at least two of these institutions which are the contending parties upon this appeal. These were the Washington Heights Library, a corporation of which the name was subsequently changed to that of Washington Heights Free Library, and the Manhattan Dispensary, a corporation of which the name was subsequently changed to that of Knickerbocker Hospital. Without going too much into details, it may be stated generally that down to and for several years after the death of Mr. Wright the former institution maintained a public library which possessed as one of its features that of free circulation of books in the community in question. Mr. Wright seems to have been a contributor to the support of these institutions during life, and he attemped by his will to make generous provision for their support after his death.

He died in 1894, and thereupon his will was admitted to probate. It disposed of a large amount of property, and most of its provisions are not of any consequence in this discussion. After making many specific bequests, he made provisions which present the questions now under consideration. He provided that in case he died without issue, which was what happened, his residuary estate after the above bequests should be divided by his executors into three parts and he provided for the disposition of the third of these residuary parts follows:

‘My executors and trustees shall hold the remaining one-third part of my residuary estate in trust to receive the rents, issues and profits thereof during the life of my said sister (duly designated in the will) and to pay the same to her or in case of her incapacity to apply the same for the personal and exclusive use, and after her death either after, before or with me, to pay or apply such income and principal as follows (and then after various specific bequests):

‘(g) I direct my executors and trustees to pay and deliver to the Washington Heights Library, in the city of New York, upon the condition that it shall be maintained at all times as a free circulating library, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars. * * *

‘(i) All the rest, residue and remainder of the said one-third part of my residuary estate, shall be given and delivered to the Manhattan Dispensary * * * the principal of such sum to be kept invested and the income thereof to be maintained as a permanent investment during the continuing operation of the said Dispensary. * * *’

In 1892, or two years before the testator's death, chapter 541 of the laws of that year was passed, permitting the consolidation of library corporations in the city of New York. Provision was made for the manner in which consent to such consolidation was to be obtained from directors or trustees and stockholders in case there were any; that on completion of the consolidation all manner of rights and privileges and every species of property theretofore belonging to the separate companies should be deemed to be transferred to and vested in the new corporation; that rights of creditors of the individual companies should not be impaired but should become liabilities of the consolidated company and that pending suits should not be affected. In 1894 and after the death of the testator, an amendment to this act was adopted, wherein and whereby the express attempt was made to prevent the abatement of legacies and bequests to a library corporation entering into such a consolidation and to preserve the same for the benefit of the consolidated corporation.

The New York Public Library was organized by what amounted to a consolidation of the Astor, Lenox and Tilden Libraries under the name of New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. In [225 N.Y. 334]1901 and several years after the will of the testator had become effective, an act was passed, being chapter 57 of the laws of that year, which is of supreme importance to respondent's claim, and whereby it was in substance provided amongst other things that any corporation carrying on a library in the city of New York might convey and transfer all of its property to said New York Public Library on such terms, conditions, and limitations as might be agreed upon between the two parties, provision being made for the manner in which this agreement should be authorized and executed; also, that the regents of the university on being satisfied that any such library corporation had conveyed all of its property to the said New York Public Library under the authority of such act might ‘accept a surrender of the charter of the library corporation so conveying its property, and forever discharge its directors or trustees from their trusts in the premises'; that the New York Public Library should have power to hold and enjoy the property so conveyed to it and power to dispose of the same; also, that ‘any devise or bequest contained in any last will and testament made to any corporation conveying its property under the authority of this act, whether made before or after such conveyance, shall not fail by reason of such conveyance, but the same shall inure to the benefit of’ such New York Public Library.

Some time after the passage of this act and before the death of the testator's sister, who as already stated had a life interest in the residuary part from which the bequest to the Washington Heights Library was to be paid, said latter corporation took proper steps under the provisions of said act of 1901 to transfer its property to the New York Public Library and surrender its charter. It executed a proper and effective conveyance of its property to the latter under an agreement whereby that corporation in effect undertook to maintain in the region known as Washington Heights a public library such as had theretofore been maintained by the Washington Heights Library, and subsequently on proper proof of this conveyance and agreement the board of regents duly and in accordance with the provisions of said statute accepted a surrender of the charter of said former library corporation. Thereafter the sister, who was the life beneficiary, having died, the question arose concerning the disposition of the bequest of $100,000 by the terms of the will made payable to the Washington Heights Library. It was and is contended by the Knickerbocker Hospital that said library corporation before the bequest to it had in any manner vested or become payable had ceased to exist by reason of the proceedings referred to, and that therefore the legacy to it lapsed and passed under the residuary bequest to the hospital. The New York Public Library, on the contrary, contends, and with it thus far the courts have agreed, that under the act of 1901 and the steps taken in pursuance thereof by and between it and the Washington Heights Library the bequest has been preserved and passes to it as in some manner the successor to the Washington Heights Library. With this view we are unable to agree.

[1] Some attempt, rather half-hearted as it seems to us, is made to argue that the bequest in favor of the Washington Heights Library vested on the death of the testator and that payment of it was only postponed until the death of the life beneficiary. If this were so, it would, of course, be a complete answer to the claim of the hospital and would clearly and fully sustain the judgment which has been rendered. It seems to us very clear, however, that the legacy did not thus vest. The only bequest to the Washington Heights Library was by means of a trust with a direction ‘to pay and deliver’ to it after the death of the life beneficiary under the trust. There are in the will no words or provisions which directly or indirectly import a present or vested gift or which indicate such an intent. The testamentary disposition is to the trustees in trust to collect the rents, issues, and profits of this portion of the residuary estate during the life of the testator's sister and to pay the same to her and ‘after her death either after, before or with me to pay or apply such...