Fairbanks v. Lamson

99 Mass. 533
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 99 Mass. 533 (Fairbanks v. Lamson) 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
Fairbanks v. Lamson, 99 Mass. 533 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Gray, J.

Upon the case stated in the bill, both of the purposes, to either of which the testatrix authorized the residue of her estate to be appropriated, were charitable. No object is more clearly charitable, in the sense of the law, than the advancement of religion and education among an indefinite number of persons. Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 552, 553. Bequests to missionary societies, foreign or domestic, have been repeatedly upheld as public charities. Bartlet v. King, 12 Mass. 537. Burr v. Smith, [534]*5347 Verm. 241. Boyle on Charities, 41. Bequests for the circulation and distribution of bibles and other religious books and tracts are charitable gifts. Attorney General v. Stepney, 10 Ves 22. Winslow v. Cummings, 3 Cush. 358. Bliss v. American Bible Society, 2 Allen, 334. Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Barr, 23. So are gifts to establish and maintain a library and reading room, the use of which is not limited to the donors or subscribers. Drury v. Natick, 10 Allen, 169. The benefit of a sabbath school library in this Commonwealth is not ordinarily limited to the contributors, or to the families of those who participate in the support of the church with which it is immediately connected, but extends to the poor children of the congregation, and even of the neighborhood; and we cannot presume, in the absence of any allegation or proof, that there is anything peculiar in the management or use of the sabbath school library in question. The power of determining which of the two charitable objects mentioned by this testatrix was the most suitable, as well as the manner of investing the fund, is to be exercised by the executor. The application of the income, being limited to charitable purposes, is sufficiently defined in the will to make the bequest legal and valid. Saltonstall v. Sanders, 11 Allen, 446. Demurrer sustained.

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

Related

Bianchi v. South Park Presbyterian Church
8 A.2d 567 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1939)
Glaser v. Congregation Kehillath Israel
161 N.E. 619 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Brice v. Trustees of All Saints Memorial Chapel
76 A. 774 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1910)
Selleck v. Thompson
67 A. 425 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1907)
Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Ass'n
96 S.W. 155 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Sherman v. Congregational Home Missionary Society
57 N.E. 702 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Congregational Unitarian Soc. v. Hale
51 N.Y.S. 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Wardens & Vestry of St. Paul's Church v. Attorney General
41 N.E. 231 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Bartlett
40 N.E. 899 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
In re Estate of Hull
3 Coffey 378 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1894)
Brown v. Pancoast
34 N.J. Eq. 321 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1881)
Maine Baptist Missionary Convention v. City of Portland
65 Me. 92 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 Mass. 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairbanks-v-lamson-mass-1868.