Schouler

134 Mass. 426, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 323
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 5, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 134 Mass. 426 (Schouler) 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
Schouler, 134 Mass. 426, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 323 (Mass. 1883).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The will we are called upon to construe, written by an illiterate person, is as follows: “ Boston, Sept. 27, 1857. I the undersigned do authorize the ítev. Thos. Lynch to withdraw the contents of my bank book $>250.y^6-0- no. 93343. [427]*427The Provident Institution for Savings in the town of Boston after my death being of sound mind, memory and understanding. Said money to be disposed of as follows, part for my burial and funeral expenses and the residue for charitable purposes, masses, &c.” If we disregard the punctuation, and supply a few words accidentally omitted, the main intention of the testatrix is sufficiently clear. Being unmarried and without any near kindred, her object was to devote to public charitable purposes, after payment of her funeral expenses, her money deposited in the Provident Institution for Savings, being the whole of her estate. The terms of the bequest clearly manifest the intention to create a trust in the Rev. Thomas Lynch. He is to take the estate, not for his own use, but to be disposed of for the purposes she directs. The omission of the words “in trust ” is immaterial, as the intention is clearly manifested that the whole property shall be applied by the legatee for the benefit of other persons than himself. Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 211, and cases cited.

The trusts defined by the will are that the property is “ to be disposed of as follows, part for my burial and funeral expenses and the residue for charitable purposes, masses, &c.” Masses are religious ceremonials or observances of the church of which she was a member, and come within the religious or pious uses which are upheld as public charities. Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, 553. The abbreviation “ &c.,” equivalent to “ etc.” or “et cetera,” imports other purposes of a like character to those which have been named. Noscitur a sociis. It is not the fair construction to hold that it imports that the trustee may apply the property to other purposes not charitable, at his discretion. This is not the necessary or obvious construction, and it defeats the main purpose of the testatrix, apparent in the will, to devote her property to charitable uses. We therefore construe the will as meaning that the trustee is to apply the residue to charitable purposes, masses or other charitable uses.

Though the specific objects of the charity are not named by the testatrix, but are left to the discretion of the trustee, the rights of the heirs at law, or of the Commonwealth by escheat, are devested. Such bequests are upheld as bequests to public charities. Saltonstall v. Sanders, 11 Allen, 446. See also [428]*428Jackson v. Phillips, ubi supra; Nichols v. Allen, ubi supra; Brown v. Kelsey, 2 Cush. 243.

We cannot doubt that, if the Rev. Thomas Lynch had lived until the will was proved, he would have been entitled to the' property, to be applied by him as trustee to charitable uses, as’ directed by the will. He died before the will was proved, and therefore did not qualify as trustee. But this does not defeat the trust. The main object and purpose of the testatrix was to devote her small estate to charity. She nominated her spiritual adviser as a trustee, with power to select the particular objects of charity. The will is very inartificial, but we think that her intention was that the power and discretion to select objects of charity should attach to the trust, and was not personal to the nominee; and that it is a case where the courts may properly supply a trustee, in order to carry into effect her main and controlling purpose. Harvard College v. Theological Education Society, 3 Gray, 280, 282. Attorney General v. Andrew, 3 Ves. 633. Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Ves. 36.

Archbishop Williams has been appointed as such trustee; • and the administrator, with the will annexed, should pay over to him the property, with its accumulations, to be by him applied according to the directions of the will. Decree accordingly.

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

Related

In re the Construction of the Will of Yadach
5 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
MacKey v. Bowen
124 N.E.2d 254 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
Lanza v. DiFronzo
56 Ohio Law. Abs. 310 (Cuyahoga County Probate Court, 1949)
State Ex Rel. Emmert v. Union Trust Co.
86 N.E.2d 450 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1949)
Forman v. Columbia Theater Co.
148 P.2d 951 (Washington Supreme Court, 1944)
Sedgwick v. National Savings & Trust Co.
130 F.2d 440 (D.C. Circuit, 1942)
Mahoney v. Nollman
35 N.E.2d 265 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Fitzgerald v. East Lawn Cemetery, Inc.
10 A.2d 683 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1940)
In re the Estate of Stephen
150 Misc. 27 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1934)
Minturn v. Conception Abbey
61 S.W.2d 352 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1933)
Fleck v. Harmstad, Kingsley
155 A. 875 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Kirwin v. Attorney General
175 N.E. 164 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Reilly v. McGowan
166 N.E. 766 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Obrecht v. Pujos
268 S.W. 564 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1925)
Sherman v. Shaw
137 N.E. 374 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Estate of Hamilton
186 P. 587 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
In Re the Accounting of Morris
124 N.E. 724 (New York Court of Appeals, 1919)
Rea v. Griffin
21 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 129 (Madison County Court of Common Pleas, 1916)
Wagner v. Brady
130 Tenn. 554 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 Mass. 426, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schouler-mass-1883.