In re Bailey

10 N.Y.S. 877, 24 Abb. N. Cas. 206
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1889
StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 877 (In re Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Bailey, 10 N.Y.S. 877, 24 Abb. N. Cas. 206 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Opinion

Jenks, S.

Objections were filed to the proof and probate of the will which were afterwards withdrawn, and the due execution of the will was proven without objection; but the validity, construction, and effect of the said will, and especially the seventh clause thereof, were put in issue by Charles Boe and Harvey Boe, as provided by section 2624 of the Code. The testatrix left no parents, husband, or descendants. After providing for her burial, funeral expenses, the erection of a monument for herself and her parents, giving a fund of $50 for the care of the cemetery lot, she gives to a niece her silver spoons, and to her sister Abigail her household furniture and wearing apparel. By the seventh clause, she devises and bequeaths all the rest of her property, real and personal, to her executor and trustee in trust to sell, convey, and convert the same into money, and invest in United States bonds, or bonds and mortgages, and from the income thereof pay such sums as the executor and trustee may in his judgment think necessary for the support of her sister Adeline Youngs, but only in case she shall be in “absolutely needy circumstances;” the surplus in any one year, if any, to be paid to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of McDonough, to be used by them solely for the purpose of "paying the salary of the minister of said church; the whole of such income to be so paid, if not needed for the support of such sister. The eighth clause of the will is as follows: “After the decease of my said [878]*878sister Adeline, and after all other claims on my said property and estate, as provided for and directed in this my last will and testament, shall have been fully met and disposed of as herein directed, if the said Methodist Episcopal Church of McDonough shall be and remain incorporated and in good standing, and my said executor and trustee shall regard safe and for the best interests of my estate, he may then, and in that event, hand over and deliver to the then-trustees of the said Methodist Episcopal Church, the said residue, rest, and remainder of my estate, or the security or securities representing the same, and the said trustees of said church shall from thence thereafter become and be the trustees of such fund, under this my last will and testament, be governed in all respects by the directions herein in regard to said fund, in no event using any part of the principal of said fund for any purpose, and only appropriating the income thereof in the manner and for the purpose indicated and directed by me in this my last will and testament, and from the time of handing over and delivery of the said fund to the said trustees of said church, and the receipt thereof by them, my said executor and trustee shall be discharged from all care of and liability for said fund. ’’ The ninth clause provides that if the time shall come when such investments as prescribed cannot be made, the executor and trustee, or the trustees of said church, whichever shall then have control of the fund, shall invest the fund in such securities as shall be approved of by the surrogate. Ho question is raised by the contestants over the incorporation or standing of the church. It must be conceded therefore that the donee of this trust is competent to take and use the bequest for the purpose indicated by the testatrix. Laws 1813, c. 60, § 1; Laws 1875, c. 443. Like the bequest in Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525, 530, “the object of this bequest is the support of a minister, which is one of the prominent objects for which these corporations are created. It is not essential to the validity of a bequest to a religious corporation that it should be given generally for all the purposes for which it may be legally used, or for any to which the trustees may see fit to devote it. Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y. 335, 343; Wetmore v. Parker, Id. 450, 457. The trustee is directed to sell the real estate, and invest the proceeds together with the personal estate in government bonds, or bonds and mortgages. It is therefore an equitable conversion of the real estate into personal, and the provisions of the ¡Revised Statutes relating to the devise of real estate do not apply. Power v. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602; Wetmore v. Parker, 52 N. Y. 450, 456. The provision in the will that the income only should be used by the trustees, does not invalidate the bequest, and is not affected by the statute against perpetuities. Wetmore v. Parker, supra; Robert v. Corning, 89 N. Y. 225, 241.

The first principle in interpreting wills is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will shall prevail, in case no rule of law is violated. In this case there is no room for doubt that the testatrix intended that the Methodist Episcopal Church of McDonough should have the benefit of her entire residuary estate, after satisfying the absolute needs of her sister during her life. The estate vested in her executor and trustee upon her death. The mode of investment and the disposition of the income is very clearly expressed. Ho person save the sister and the church has any claim upon such income in any event. The right of the trustees of the church to enforce payment of that portion of the income of the fund not needed for the support of the sister, so long as she shall live, is notquestioned.by the contestant. During her life-time the executor has no discretion to withhold that portion of the income not absolutely needed for the support of the sister.- During the sister’s life-time there can be no doubt that the trustees of the church can appeal to a court of equity to enforce their rights by a judicial decree, for, by the terms of the seventh clause of the will, the only discretion reposed in the executor is to determine how little will answer to satisfy the absolute needs of the sister. The balance must be paid over to the trustees. This discretion [879]*879is very carefully guarded in the interests of the church, and clearly indicates the intention of the testatrix to devote as large a portion as possible of the residuary fund towards the support of its minister. Is there any reason for supposing that she was not equally solicitous for the welfare of the church, after her sister should cease to have any claim upon her bounty? The eighth clause of the will clearly shows her intention to vest the whole residuary fund in the trustees of the church upon the death of her sister for the same purpose as before, the support of the minister, and the discharge of her executor and trustee from any further duty relating to the trust, provided he should regard it safe, and for the best interests of her estate to make such transfer. The discretion was merely to determine whether it would be better for the due protection of the estate for the executor to continue to hold the fund in his own hands, or to pass it over to the trustees of the church as the substituted trustees of this trust; but there is nothing in the language of this clause, or in the general scheme of this will, to indicate anyintention of the testatrix to confer any power upon the executor to withhold the income of the fund from the trustees of the church. Because of this discretion the trustees of the church might not have the right to demand the custody and control of the principal of this fund; but, if the income therefrom should be withheld from them, I have no doubt of- their right to appeal to the courts for the enforcement of their rights.

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

Related

Bascom v. . Albertson
34 N.Y. 584 (New York Court of Appeals, 1866)
Beekman v. . Bonsor
23 N.Y. 298 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)
Power v. . Cassidy
79 N.Y. 602 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)
Robert v. . Corning
89 N.Y. 225 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Williams v. . Williams
8 N.Y. 525 (New York Court of Appeals, 1853)
Wetmore v. . Parker
52 N.Y. 450 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 N.Y.S. 877, 24 Abb. N. Cas. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bailey-nysurct-1889.