Codman v. Brigham

72 N.E. 1008, 187 Mass. 309, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 994
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 72 N.E. 1008 (Codman v. Brigham) 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
Codman v. Brigham, 72 N.E. 1008, 187 Mass. 309, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 994 (Mass. 1905).

Opinion

Knowlton, C. J.

This is a bill brought by the trustees appointed under the will of Peter B. Brigham, for instructions in regard to the disposition of certain income in their hands, received under the fourteenth clause of the will. This clause is as follows : All the rest and residue of my property and estate, of every kind and description, real personal and mixed, of which I shall die seised or possessed-, or to which I shall be entitled.at the time of my decease, I direct my said executors to take, hold, manage and invest, for the term of twenty-five years from the time of my decease, and to take the rents, interest, income and profits thereof and from the net income thereof to appropriate and pay as follows, that is to say: ” Then follow seven provisions for the payment of annuities to relatives and friends of the testator, with directions on the death of the annuitants to pay specific sums to their children if they die leaving children, concluding as follows: “ My said executors shall add the balance [311]*311of said net income, that shall remain after making the payments aforesaid, to the principal of my said estate, so that the same may be accumulating for the term of twenty-five years aforesaid ; and at the expiration of said term of twenty-five years from my decease, my said executors shall set aside a sum or sums of money and may deposit the same in some safe trust company, — preference being given, other things being equal, to the Massachusetts Hospital Life Insurance Company, of said Boston, — which shall be sufficient to provide for the payment of such of the foregoing legacies and bequests, if any, as shall then be unfulfilled ; or may provide for the payment of such unpaid legacies and bequests by the purchase of annuities for the unpaid legatees or otherwise, as my said executors shall deem expedient; and after the payment, or provision for the payment, as aforesaid of all the foregoing bequests and legacies, the unexpended balances, if any, shall be paid to and for the use of the hospital hereinafter provided for.”

Then comes the following paragraph: 8. At the expiration of said term of twenty-five years from the time of my decease, my said executors shall dispose of said rest and residue of my property and estate and of all the interest and accumulations which shall have accrued thereon, for the purpose of founding a hospital in said Boston, to be called the Brigham Hospital, for the care of sick persons, in indigent circumstances, residing in the said County of Suffolk, in the following manner, — that is to say: They shall procure the formation of a corporation, to be called the s Brigham Hospital ’ with suitable provisions as to officers, their powers and duties for control, direction, conduct and administration of the corporation and the care and management of the funds in its charge; and upon the legal formation and organization of said corporation, my said executors shall transfer to it all the property and estate provided for it as aforesaid, to be by it used and employed for the purposes above declared : — and I give, devise and bequeath said rest and residue of my property and estate accordingly.”

The testator died on May 24, 1877, leaving real estate valued at $690,000, and personal estate which amounted to about $325,000, after payment of debts and the legacies other than those payable under the fourteenth clause. The executors quali[312]*312fied, and managed the property until the death of the' last survivor of them, when the plaintiffs were appointed trustees by the Probate Court, and, thus succeeding to the rights of their predecessors, they since have continued the execution of their trust. The corporation was formed under the general laws in May, 1902, and because such a corporation could not hold property in excess of $1,500,000, the St. 1902, c. 418, was passed on May 22 of that year, which authorized the corporation to hold real and personal estate to an amount not exceeding $5,000,000. On May 24, 1902, $4,811,935.65 was paid to the corporation by the trustees. The whole property in the hands of the corporation, with that held by the trustees to meet the remaining payments called for under the seven provisions of the fourteenth clause, amounts now to more than $5,000,000.

It earnestly is contended by the heirs at law of the testator, that the gift for the purpose of founding a hospital is void under the rule against perpetuities. It therefore becomes necessary to ascertain the meaning and construction of the will. This clause begins with instructions to the executors in regard to the possession, management and disposition of the residue of the estate, and, after proceeding at length with these directions, it ends with the words, “ and I give, devise and bequeath said rest and residue of my property and estate accordingly.” These directions involve a final disposition of the whole of the residue, and the closing words expressly devise and bequeath it. The whole language, considered together, transfers the title of all the property to the executors, charged with a trust in regard to the management and disposition of it. This involves the performance of duties beyond those which belong to executors, and they necessarily take as trustees, although the word “ trustee ” is not used. Carson v. Carson, 6 Allen, 397. Bean v. Commonwealth, 186 Mass. 348. Fay v. Taft, 12 Cush. 448. Sears v. Russell, 8 Gray, 86, 89. Mullanny v. Mangle, 212 Ill. 247. The trust is for charitable uses, and the instrument creates, from the death of the testator, a public charity. The beneficiaries who are entitled to the equitable interest are sick persons in indigent circumstances, residing in the county of Suffolk, for whose care a hospital is to be established. Burbank v. Burbank, 152 Mass. 254. This charitable trust comes into ex[313]*313istence immediately on the probate of the will, and it comprises all the rest and residue of the estate, except so much as is needed to make the payments called for in the seven provisions above referred to. Not only the legal but the equitable estate vests immediately, the legal estate in the trustees, and the equitable in that part of the public Avhich is to be benefited. So much as is required to pay the annuities and the'sums which are to go to the surviving children of annuitants is held under a private trust, and this amount, whatever it may prove to be, diminishes to that extent the amount which otherwise would be appropriated to charitable uses.

It is provided that the fund shall be held and accumulated for tAventy-five years before it shall be put to active use for the relief of the suffering. Such a- provision is not uncommon, and even though the time for the accumulation may extend beyond the time prescribed in the rule against perpetuities, it is not invalid. Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen, 1. St. Paul’s Church v. Attorney General, 164 Mass. 188, 203. Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings, 95 U. S. 303. Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163.

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

Related

Rodriguez v. Parks & Woolson Machine Co.
22 Mass. L. Rptr. 643 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2007)
Palmer v. Evans
124 N.W.2d 856 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1963)
Tumlin v. Troy Bank & Trust Co.
61 So. 2d 817 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
Briggs v. Merchants National Bank
81 N.E.2d 827 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Town of Milton v. Attorney General
49 N.E.2d 909 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Perkins v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
8 S.E.2d 28 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Proctor v. White
28 F. Supp. 161 (D. Massachusetts, 1939)
Powers v. Home for Aged Women
192 A. 770 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1937)
Frazier v. Merchants National Bank
5 N.E.2d 550 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Welch v. Commissioner
9 B.T.A. 1370 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1928)
In re Crane
205 A.D. 147 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Reasoner v. Herman
134 N.E. 276 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1922)
Eustace v. Dickey
132 N.E. 852 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Attorney General
126 N.E. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Deacon v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
197 S.W. 261 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
Porter v. Porter
226 Mass. 204 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Richards v. Wilson
112 N.E. 780 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1916)
Collector of Taxes v. Oldfield
219 Mass. 374 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Oldfield v. Attorney General
219 Mass. 378 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Ripley v. Brown
105 N.E. 637 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 N.E. 1008, 187 Mass. 309, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/codman-v-brigham-mass-1905.