Roberts v. Corson

107 A. 625, 79 N.H. 215, 5 A.L.R. 1172, 1919 N.H. LEXIS 33
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMay 6, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 107 A. 625 (Roberts v. Corson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roberts v. Corson, 107 A. 625, 79 N.H. 215, 5 A.L.R. 1172, 1919 N.H. LEXIS 33 (N.H. 1919).

Opinion

Young, J.

If the words of the residuary clause are given their ordinary meaning the testator intended to create a trust for the benefit of those who are or who may become members of Humane Lodge; that is, he intended to create a trust for the benefit of a definite section of the public. A gift of this kind constitutes what is commonly known as a charitable or public trust. Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 393, 417; Haynes v. Carr, 70 N. H. 463, 482; Jackson v. Philips, 14 Allen, 539; Hoeffer v. Clogan, 171 Ill. 462; s. c. 63 Am. St. Rep. 241, note 249; 11 C. J. 301.

If the purpose such a trust is intended to effectuate is legal and the persons for whose benefit it is established can be ascertained, it is the duty of the court to enforce it. Fernald v. First Church of Christ Scientist, 77 N. H. 108; French v. Lawrence, 76 N. H. 234; Adams v. Page, 76 N. H. 96. It is immaterial in so far as the validity of such a bequest is concerned how large or how small a section of the public it is intended to benefit. That, is, whether it is intended to benefit every living human being, Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 393, 417; or whether its scope is limited to the poor and needy of New Hampshire, Haynes v. Carr, 70 N. H. 463; the, sick of Franklin and vicinity, Adams v. Page, 76 N. H. 96; or to indigent and distressed masons of Bible Lodge society in Goffstown, their widows and orphans, Duke v. Fuller, 9 N. H. 536. The bequest in question, therefore, constitutes a valid public trust for the purpose for which it was created, is legal, and it is possible to ascertain those it is intended to benefit. The person who establishes such a trust may entrust its administration to a corporation, Chapin v. Winchester School District, 35 N. H. 445; to a voluntary association, Parker v. Cowell, 16 N. H. 149; 11 C. J. 339; or to trustees appointed by the probate court P. S., c. 198; Petition of Straw, 78 N. H. 506. It will be unnecessary therefore to consider whether Humane Lodge is a corporation or a voluntary association. In either case it will be the duty of the executor to turn over the property passing under the residuary clause to the lodge unless the court finds that administering the trust is inconsistent with the purpose for which the lodge was established. If that is found, the executor will turn the property over to whomever the probate court appoints to administer the trust.

Case discharged.

All concurred.

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

Related

Society of the Cincinnati v. Exeter
31 A.2d 52 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1943)
Estate of Henderson
112 P.2d 605 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Peck v. Eastern Star Homes
112 P.2d 605 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Fifth Avenue Bank
257 A.D. 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Portsmouth
192 A. 617 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1937)
In re the Estate of Watkins
118 Misc. 645 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A. 625, 79 N.H. 215, 5 A.L.R. 1172, 1919 N.H. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-corson-nh-1919.