Imbrie v. Steen

124 A. 155, 96 N.J. Eq. 190, 11 Stock. 190, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 230
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedApril 9, 1924
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 A. 155 (Imbrie v. Steen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Imbrie v. Steen, 124 A. 155, 96 N.J. Eq. 190, 11 Stock. 190, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 230 (N.J. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

By deed dated March 5th, 1917, William M. Imbrie and Janet T. Imbrie, his wife, conveyed to themselves and others. as trustees, certain lands, with the building thereon erected now known as "Englewood Memorial House," situate on the northwest corner of Englewood avenue and Armory street, in the city of Englewood. The conveyance was a gift by the grantor, William M. Imbrie, to the trustees and their successors, upon the express terms and conditions, which in said conveyance were stated to be covenants running with the land, that the same should be held and used exclusively for Protestant religious and social work among and for the benefit of Italians, but if the number of persons of that race desiring to use the building should become small, the trustees were authorized to admit others to its use. It was stated in said conveyance that the trustees should have no power to sell or mortgage the property, or to consolidate or unite with any organization other than the Young Men's Christian Association, but if at any time it should appear to the trustees that a sale or other disposition of the property is necessary, they should have power to make application to the chancellor, in accordance with the provisions of the New Jersey law relating to the sale or disposition of lands granted to religious, educational or charitable corporations, and, in the event of sale being directed, to apply the proceeds of sale in accordance with the order of the chancellor. The donors reserved the right to change the terms and conditions of the gift in any manner.

The building cost to erect and furnish about $40,000. The intention of the donors was to Americanize the Italian residents of Englewood and vicinity through religious and *Page 192 social work conducted at the "Memorial House," but a few years after it was established an Italian church was erected in the neighborhood and the Italian people discontinued their attendance at the "Memorial House," whereupon the trustees devoted it to a meeting place and club room for all boys and girls for social and recreation purposes.

By a supplemental deed or declaration of the terms of the trust, dated April 2d 1921, made by William M. Imbrie and wife to the trustees and duly recorded, the donors declared that the said premises should "be used exclusively to serve the needs of the community, so as to develop better lives through the encouragement of wholesome activities of any kind that shall be deemed by the trustees to further such purposes;" that no person or organization, other than the trustees, should control the use and occupation of the premises; that the trustees should have no power to sell or mortgage the premises, unless because of a material change in the character of the neighborhood, the object and purposes of the gift became no longer capable of fulfillment, in which event the trustees were authorized to make application to the chancellor, in accordance with the provisions of the New Jersey law relating to the sale or disposition of lands granted to religious, educational or charitable corporations, and, in the event of a sale being directed, the proceeds should be applied to carrying on similar work elsewhere in accordance with the order of the chancellor.

The expense of maintaining the building and carrying on the work therein was borne by the donors for several years, and when they became no longer able to continue their financial support, the work was taken over temporarily by Englewood residents interested in philanthropic, charitable and social welfare work, and in May, 1922, some of these men and women incorporated the "Social Service Federation of Englewood," under the laws of this state, Mr. Imbrie and three other trustees of the "Memorial House" being among the incorporators, and this corporation has been and is conducting settlement and social welfare work at the "Memorial House," and it is the desire of the donors and the trustees *Page 193 that such work be continued by the federation, to which the federation consents, provided the property can be conveyed to it free of the covenants, conditions and restrictions imposed by the deed of trust and supplemental deed.

The general object for which the federation was organized, as stated in its certificate of incorporation, is "to serve the needs of the community (of Englewood) so as to develop better lives through the encouragement of activities of any kind that shall be deemed by the trustees to further such purposes," and the specific object of its organization is to conduct philanthropic, charitable, settlement and social welfare work among the residents of Englewood in need of such service.

The complainants in this cause are William M. Imbrie, his wife and all the other trustees named under his gift, except Emma M. Steen, a trustee named in the original deed, who has since resigned. She is made a defendant to the suit with the attorney-general of the state, and the specific prayer of the bill is that the complainants may be authorized to convey the property in question to the social service federation of Englewood, free from the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the deed and supplemental deed above mentioned, to the end that the property, when so conveyed, may be held, used, conveyed, mortgaged or otherwise disposed of by the grantee, free from any covenants, conditions or restrictions. The defendant Emma M. Steen has filed her consent to the entry of a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and the attorney-general, representing the undefined body of the public which may have acquired an interest in the property under the terms of the conveyance from Mr. and Mrs. Imbrie, has filed an answer alleging that the rights of the public in the trust should be preserved, and stating that he sees no objection to a conveyance of the property by the trustees to the federation, for the purpose of carrying out the trust imposed on the trustees, in case it shall be found that the federation is able to administer the trust. *Page 194

The doctrine of cy pres is recognized and applied by this court. The principle of the doctrine is that when a gift has been made for charitable purposes, which, by lapse of time or otherwise, can no longer be literally or exactly executed, the gift will be administered under the direction of the court of chancery, as near as may be, according to the donor's intention. The plan or scheme for the future administration of the gift must be submitted to and approved by this court. Mackenzie v.Trustees, 67 N.J. Eq. 652, 672; St. James Church v. Wilson,82 N.J. Eq. 546; affirmed, 83 N.J. Eq. 324; Christian v. CatholicChurch, 91 N.J. Eq. 374. But the doctrine cannot be applied when the donor has directed what disposition shall be made of the trust property in the event of the failure of the use to which he directed it should be devoted. Larkin v. Wikoff, 75 N.J. Eq. 462;affirmed, 77 N.J. Eq. 589; First Congregational Society v.Bridgeport, 121 Atl. Rep. 77.

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

Related

Board of Trustees of York College v. Cheney
63 N.W.2d 177 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1954)
Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Laise
12 A.2d 882 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1940)
Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. American National Red Cross
149 A. 581 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 A. 155, 96 N.J. Eq. 190, 11 Stock. 190, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imbrie-v-steen-njch-1924.