In re the Will of Stuart

183 Misc. 20, 46 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1697
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedFebruary 11, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 183 Misc. 20 (In re the Will of Stuart) 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 the Will of Stuart, 183 Misc. 20, 46 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1697 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1944).

Opinion

Foley, S.

This is an application hy the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, for the construction of certain provisions, of the will of the testatrix brought on pursuant to section 12 of the Personal Property Law. The testatrix died on the 30th day of December, 1891, leaving a will and three codicils thereto which were duly admitted to probate on April 5, 1892.

Two questions are presented for determination: (1) whether the terms of the will impose conditions upon a charitable gift which are permanent in nature, or (2) constitute mere regulations or directions subject to change by the application of the cy pres doctrine.

By paragraph second of the first codicil to her will the testatrix bequeathed to the Trustees of the Lenox Library, a corporation located in the city of New York, all her books, manuscripts, paintings and other works of art of every name and nature, to have and hold the same for the uses and purposes of the Lenox Library absolutely and forever, subject to certain ■ conditions.

The paramount condition of the gift contained in the 5th subdivision of the first codicil was that the Trustees of the Lenox Library were to notify the executors in writing within ninety days after her death (subsequently changed by codicil to ninety days after probate of her will) that they would accept the bequest and comply with the conditions thereof.

The other conditions were substantially as follows: the Trustees were to catalogue, arrange and appropriately place the articles bequeathed in a separate room or compartment of the Lenox Library building, the cataloguing to be separate and distinct from other collections in the library, the catalogue to he designated as “ The Bohert L. Stuart Collection, the gift of his widow Mrs. Mary Stuart ”. In the event that no separate room could be provided for the collection, the Trustees were to 'erect a separate wing or extension for that purpose. The collection was to be exhibited to the public free of charge at all reasonable times, subject, however, to such rules and restrictions as the Trustees of the Lenox Library might see fit to prescribe for the protection and preservation of the property. The collection was never to be exhibited by the Trustees' of the library “ on the Lord’s Day ”.

A further condition was imposed hy the 6th subdivision of the second codicil which related solely to the acceptance of the gift by the Trustees of the library. Under that subdivision, if.they failed or refused to accept the gift within the time and [23]*23under the terms indicated by the testatrix, the entire collection was to fall into the residuary estate and pass thereunder to the various residuary legatees.

The Trustees of the Lenox Library duly accepted the gift in accordance with its terms and proceeded to comply with the conditions of the bequest. Thereafter, the Lenox Library was consolidated with the Astor and Tilden libraries to form the present New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, the present petitioner. Upon such consolidation, the property constituting the Stuart Collection passed to the petitioner and was housed and exhibited in a separate room of the máin building of the library on Fifth Avenue between 40th and 42nd Streets in the city of New York. The collection is not of any distinctive, artistic or literary quality, nor is it of any great value.

The petitioner now asserts that because of changed conditions, the overcrowding of the present library building due to a great increase in the volume of books since the receipt of the collection over fifty years ago, and the lack of facilities of the petitioner to properly care for the paintings and other works of art, it has become impracticable and impossible to comply literally with the conditions and restrictions of the bequest.

The petitioner states that it therefore finds it necessary to make some other disposition of the collection, excluding the books and manuscripts which it will retain in its own library, and seeks a decree of this court, under its cy pres powers, authorizing it to make a loan of the collection to The New-York Historical Society for the purpose of its exhibition by that corporation. It 'appears that the Society has a fireproof building specially constructed for exhibition purposes, occupying a block frontage on Central Park West from 76th Street to 77th Street in this city, and is properly equipped to care for and exhibit the collection; that it is a corporation organized to discover, procure and preserve whatever may relate to the natural, civil, literary and ecclesiastical history of the United States in general and the State of New York in particular ; and that it maintains collections in art and archaeology for educational purposes. The pictures and objects of art in the Stuart Collection constitute in part a sociological and historical record of New York City in the middle and late nineteenth century. As such it is urged it is important that they be kept together and properly cared for, and it is desirable that they be housed in an institution such as The New-York Historical [24]*24Society devoted primarily to New York and its history. The New-York Historical Society has signified its willingness to accept a loan of the collection from the petitioner and to carry out the terms specified in the will of the testatrix, if it is authorized to administer the collection free of the restrictions that it shall be separately catalogued, housed in a separate room, and never exhibited on Sundays. Sunday is one of the days on which the exhibits of the society are largely patronized.

All of the residuary legatees under the will were cited in this proceeding, thirty-three in number, consisting of religious, educational and other charitable institutions. Some of the institutions have appeared and have consented to the application; others have not appeared but have indicated their consent thereto in writing. Still others have not appeared at all. The Attorney-General of the State of New York has appeared and strenuously argues in support of the application under which the charitable purposes of the testatrix will be best effectuated. No one has opposed the application except the American Bible Society. That society concedes that a literal compliance with the provisions of the will and codicil has been rendered impracticable and impossible. However, it contends that a failure to perform the condition of the gift that the collection “ shall never be exhibited by the Trustees of the Lenox Library on the Lord’s Day ” operates as a forfeiture of the entire bequest and that the property should be distributed among the residuary legatees named in the will, of which it is one.

The contention -of the American Bible Society is overruled. The acceptance of the gift by the Trustees of the Lenox Library was a condition precedent, under subdivision"5th of paragraph second of the first codicil to the will, to the delivery of the collection to them by the executors under the will. Having-accepted the gift in writing and agreed to comply with the conditions as to its administration, the collection vested in the Trustees of the Library upon its receipt by them. Under the terms of the codicil a forfeiture could only result and the alternative provision for distribution of the gift among the residuary legatees could only take effect if the Trustees of the library failed in the first instance to accept the gift within the time and upon the conditions stated in the codicil. No other forfeiture was contemplated by the testatrix.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Goehringer
69 Misc. 2d 145 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1972)
Charlotte Hungerford Hospital v. Mulvey
225 A.2d 495 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1966)
In re the Estate of Hawley
32 Misc. 2d 624 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1961)
In re the Construction of the Will of Shatford
18 Misc. 2d 953 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1959)
In re the Accounting of State Bank
1 Misc. 2d 869 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1956)
In re the Construction of the Will of Swope
204 Misc. 510 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1953)
In re the Accounting of Bank of New York
204 Misc. 109 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1953)
In re the Construction of the Will of Lawless
194 Misc. 844 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 Misc. 20, 46 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-will-of-stuart-nysurct-1944.