Bartlett

40 N.E. 899, 163 Mass. 509, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 154
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 24, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by48 cases

This text of 40 N.E. 899 (Bartlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bartlett, 40 N.E. 899, 163 Mass. 509, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 154 (Mass. 1895).

Opinion

Field, C. J.

It is convenient to consider the questions in the order in which they arise in the will itself, using for convenience the numbering of the paragraphs made by the petitioners. In the first paragraph the testator gives the burial lot to his execu[512]*512tors and trustees “ who will also have charge of the Homestead Fund, the income of which in part, shall be used to keep the lot and the monument always in good order,” etc. This Homestead Fund appears by the fourth paragraph to be a sum of $12,000, given to the executors and trustees “ to be securely invested in first mortgages on real estate at about fifty per cent of a fair valuation, Government, State, City or Town bonds, or any other substantial securities, undoubted, and the .income thereof only to be paid over to Captain Charles Abram Sawyer, my nephew, his heirs and assigns, semi-annually January and July if practicable. It being intended that the income of this legacy shall be exclusively used for the purpose of keeping the old Homestead and the other buildings, always in good repairs and the grounds in good order and condition as well as the Cemetery Lot as before mentioned. The buildings to be kept constantly insured.”

By the fifth paragraph the Brookbank estate is given to the executors and trustees in trust, “to be conveyed in fee simple to my nephew Capt. Charles A. Sawyer of Gloucester, and his descendants, together with the income of ‘ Homestead Fund,’ which is to be used exclusively for the purpose as before stated, it being my earnest desire and request that the Old Sawyer Homestead, which has been in our family one hundred and seventy-five years, with all the land now belonging to it, in one lot, shall be kept in good repair as before requested, and thus be handed down from generation to generation unincumbered by lien or mortgage as a precious heirloom of the Sawyer Family.” The Brookbank estate, which we understand to be the Homestead estate, has been conveyed by said executors and trustees to Charles A. Sawyer in his lifetime. He has since deceased, and the executrix of his will is a party to these proceedings. It is obvious that this trust of $12,000, so far as it is intended for the purpose of keeping the Old Homestead always in good repair, cannot be carried into effect. It is an attempt to create a private perpetual trust. The Homestead estate, having been conveyed to Charles A. Sawyer, his heirs and assigns, became absolutely his property, and the $12,000, the income of which was to be paid to him, his heirs and assigns, also, we think, became absolutely his property, so far as it is a sum intended to be [513]*513used in keeping in good repair the Old Homestead. Smith v. Harrington, 4 Allen, 566. Harlow v. Cowdrey, 109 Mass. 183. Bent v. Cullen, L. R. 6 Ch. 235. The only question that requires consideration is whether so much of this $12,000 as is necessary to keep the burial lot and the monument always in good order can be separated from the remainder and sustained as a perpetual trust. We think that a trust to keep the burial lot and the monument of the testator always in good order is under our statutes a good perpetual trust, and that, as it is conceded that $500 is sufficient for the purpose, the executors should retain in their own hands $500, or deposit this sum with the treasurer of the city of Gloucester, the income of which should be used to keep the burial lot and monument always in good order; the remainder of this legacy of $12,000 should be paid to the executrix of the will of Charles A. Sawyer. Green v. Hogan, 153 Mass. 462. Sears v. Hardy, 120 Mass. 524.

Of the real estate given to the executors and trustees by the sixth paragraph, some is plainly intended to be cut up into 61 smaller lots and sold for pleasant homes,” and the Large Stone Wharf and the old Webber Wharf seem to be intended to be sold or to be let to the persons who shall build on the lots first mentioned. As to this real estate there is no charitable trust; it is merely a trust for sale. The Chapel lot is a vacant lot in that part of the city of Gloucester called Cove Village. The language of the will is: “ The Chapel lot, having a frontage of about seventy feet on Western Avenue, is to be retained and used when the growth of the village population will justify the building of a larger and more pretentious Village Chapel.” The nineteenth paragraph of the will is as follows: “ I give and bequeath to my Executors and Trustees, the sum of Four Thousand Dollars, in trust, to be safety invested as aforesaid and the the income be allowed to accumulate until such time, when it would seem to be advisable to erect a more commodious Village Chapel in Fresh Water Cove, a portion of the income may be used in purchasing Sabbath School Books; to keep the building and the grounds in good order, and for its general support.” We understand that Fresh Water Cove is the cove on which is situated Cove Village, in which is the Chapel Lot, and that it appears" that in this village, although not on the Chapel Lot, [514]*514there was at the date of the will, and still is, a school-house sometimes used by the inhabitants of the village for religious meetings and a Sunday School. We think it evident that the testator intended to give this Chapel Lot and this four thousand dollars for the purpose ultimately of erecting upon the Chapel Lot a chapel to be used by the inhabitants of Cove Village for religious meetings and a Sunday School. This, we think, is a good public charitable gift. McAlister v. Burgess, 161 Mass. 269. Fairbanks v. Lamson, 99 Mass. 533. Tainter v. Clark, 5 Allen, 66.

The seventh paragraph of the will is as follows : “ None of the numerous Wood Lots now owned by me, or hereafter purchased, are to be sold, or in any way disposed of, but to be retained by my Executors and Trustees for the protection and beauty of the Cove Village, now so called but sometime in the near future, to be laid out handsomely with driveways and pleasant rural walks, and then dedicated in the name of 6 Ravenswood Parkl- and then I hope the village will also be called ‘ Ravenswood.’ ”

The fifteenth paragraph is as follows : “ I give and bequeath to my executors and trustees the survivors and survivor of them and their successors in the office the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars in trust, to be safely invested as heretofore directed, and the income only to be used in developing and beautifying the present ‘ Ravenswood Park ’ grounds by clearing away the dead wood and other incumbrances, and for the purchasing of other contiguous wood-lands, that may be essential in perfecting its present form and completion.” These wood lots are all within the limits of the city of Gloucester. A gift of real and personal property for a public park is, we think, a good public charitable gift. Attorney General v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323. Pub. Sts. c. 116, §§ 35, 36. St. 1882, c. 154.

The first clause of the thirteenth paragraph is as follows: “ I give and bequeath to my Executors and Trustees, the survivors and survivor of them and their successors in the office, to be held by them in trust, the sum of One Hundred and twenty Thousand Dollars including the note of Twenty Thousand Dollars, now held by them on demand, to be safely invested, as heretofore directed, and the income only of said sum, to be paid semiannually to the Board of Trustees of the Gloucester Lyceum [515]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Earney v. Clay
462 S.W.2d 672 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)
Kinghorn v. Athorne
155 A.2d 805 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1959)
Peakes v. Blakely
130 N.E.2d 564 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
Stanton v. Stanton
101 A.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1953)
Arnold v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
100 N.E.2d 851 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Worcester County Trust Co. v. Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus
92 N.E.2d 579 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Worcester County v. GRAND KNIGHT, KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
92 N.E.2d 579 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Briggs v. Merchants National Bank
81 N.E.2d 827 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Goodwin v. New England Trust Co.
73 N.E.2d 890 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Heinlein v. Elyria Savings & Trust Co.
62 N.E.2d 284 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1945)
Trustees of the Public Library v. City of Melrose
56 N.E.2d 131 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Ames v. Hall
46 N.E.2d 403 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Assessors of Quincy v. Cunningham Foundation
26 N.E.2d 335 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Judkins v. Hyannis Public Library Ass'n
19 N.E.2d 727 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Moushegian v. Sheppard
180 N.E. 619 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Pease v. Parsons
173 N.E. 406 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Conley v. Fenelon
266 Mass. 340 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
President of Middlebury College v. Central Power Corp.
143 A. 384 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1928)
Heald v. Johnson
216 N.W. 772 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Dexter v. Jackson
140 N.E. 267 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 N.E. 899, 163 Mass. 509, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-mass-1895.