Trustees of the Rush Medical College v. University of Chicago

143 N.E. 434, 312 Ill. 109
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 14, 1924
DocketNo. 15904
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 143 N.E. 434 (Trustees of the Rush Medical College v. University of Chicago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trustees of the Rush Medical College v. University of Chicago, 143 N.E. 434, 312 Ill. 109 (Ill. 1924).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court:

In 1837 an act was passed incorporating Rush Medical College under the name of “Trustees of the Rush Medical College,” the object of the corporation being “to promote the general interests of medical education and to qualify young men to engage usefully and honorably in the professions of medicine and surgery.” Shortly thereafter it established a school of medicine and surgery in Chicago and up to this time has continuously conducted such a school. In 1871 substantially all its property was destroyed in the great Chicago fire. Since then it has, from donations made to it by its professors and other people and out of fees collected by it from students, purchased real estate situate at the corner of South Wood and West Harrison streets, in the city of Chicago, and has erected buildings thereon. One of the buildings was erected in 1875 and was then equipped as a medical and surgical school. In 1893 a laboratory building was erected across the street from the original building. About ten years later, through the generosity of Dr. Nicholas Senn and other friends of the school, Nicholas Senn Hall was built as an addition to the old college building. For twenty-five years the first two years of medical instruction has been given at the University of Chicago, and the last two years of such instruction, which consists largely of clinical work, has been furnished by Rush Medical College. In 1918 a third year was added, so that the college had the responsibility of the last three years’ training of medical students. The college has never had an endowment fund, and has been able to attain the high rank among medical colleges which it holds, because of the generosity of physicians and surgeons interested in research work and medical education. A hundred or more clinical teachers have donated all their teaching service, and many of them have contributed from their private funds to keep their departments up to standard. If it had not been for the loyalty of this faculty the college would have discontinued its work years ago.

The University of Chicago was incorporated in 1890, its principal objects being “to provide, impart and furnish opportunities for all departments of higher education to persons of both sexes on equal terms; * * * to establish and maintain a university, in which may be taught all branches of higher learning, and which may comprise and embrace separate departments for literature, law, medicine, * * * and all other branches of professional or technical education which may properly be included within the purposes and objects of a university, and to provide and maintain courses of instruction in each and all of said departments.” Persons interested in medical education, and especially in the establishment of a first-class college of medicine and surgery as a department of the University of Chicago, have created an endowment fund of $5,300,000, to be used and applied by the university to the work of medical and surgical education. This fund has been raised by the efforts of the faculty of Rush Medical College and persons interested in the University of Chicago.

After extended and careful consideration of the subject of medical and surgical education and the existing condition of the same, and of the best course to pursue in order to advance, improve and enlarge the facilities for such education and make the same more efficient, the university and the college have prepared an agreement by which the college agrees to convey all the real and personal property which it owns (except certain minor trust funds that will not be affected by the agreement) to the university, and the university agrees to develop a medical and surgical school, and hospital in connection therewith, and to make all necessary and proper provisions for the operation and maintenance of said school and hospital on the university grounds, on the south side of Chicago. The university further agrees to establish and maintain a school for medical and surgical research work on the site of Rush Medical College, on the west side of Chicago, and to construct and equip at that place a new laboratory building costing not less than $400,000, to be occupied and used for the purposes of such school. It is further agreed that the university may designate its medical department as the “Rush Medical School of the University of Chicago,” and it agrees to use the name “Rush” in connection with the name of the post-graduate school which is to be erected and maintained on the present site of Rush Medical College.

The Trustees of the Rush Medical College filed its bill in the circuit court of Cook county, setting out all the facts hereinbefore stated in much greater detail than we have considered it necessary to recite them for the purposes of this opinion, and alleging that “the net income of complainant at the present time is wholly insufficient to enable it to make such changes in and additions to its present medical school and laboratory, and the equipment thereof, as are necessary to meet the advances in medical and surgical science, and to keep said medical school and laboratory, and the equipment thereof, up to modern methods and afford the public the most efficient service, and that said net income is, in fact, wholly insufficient to enable complainant to make adequate and proper provision out of the same to cover depreciation in its present property.” It suggests to the court that after mature consideration its faculty and governing officers have concluded that its objects and purposes can be best served by its becoming a part of the University of Chicago, and it presents to the court the agreement hereinbefore mentioned and asks the court’s advice respecting the administration of the property intrusted to it. It requests the court to direct it to transfer its property to the university in accordance with the agreement, or to grant to it such other and different relief as the nature of the case may require and as the court may deem advisable. It prays that the University of Chicago and the Attorney General may be made parties defendant and that they be required to answer. The university answered, admitting all the allegations of the bill, and submitted to the court for its decision the question of law arising upon the facts shown by the allegations of the bill and such other facts as might be shown by evidence to be taken. The Attorney General answered, admitting most of the facts alleged but demanding strict proof of the allegation that the net income of the college is insufficient to enable it to continue to function as a college, and denying that the college has a legal right to transfer its property to the university in accordance with the agreement submitted to the court. The cause was referred to a master, who took and reported the evidence. The chancellor entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and the Attorney General appeals.

The Attorney General admits that the findings of fact in the decree are supported by the evidence, but contends that the Trustees of the Rush Medical College, being a charitable corporation created by law for a definite purpose, cannot donate or transfer its funds to another corporation organized for similar purposes.

When Dr. Senn donated to the college $50,000, to be used in connection with other funds donated by members of the faculty and others, to erect an addition to the college building, he specified that the college should become the medical department of the University of Chicago as soon as it might be deemed advisable.

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

Related

Bertram v. Berger
274 N.E.2d 667 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1971)
Fenn College v. Nance
210 N.E.2d 418 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1965)
City of Aurora Ex Rel. Egan v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n
137 N.E.2d 347 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1956)
In re Syracuse University
1 Misc. 2d 904 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
First National Bank v. King Edward's Hospital Fund
117 N.E.2d 656 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1954)
Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Booth
116 N.E.2d 161 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1953)
Fenske v. Coddington
57 So. 2d 452 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1952)
Town of Cody v. Buffalo Bill Memorial Ass'n
196 P.2d 369 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1948)
Board of Education v. City of Rockford
24 N.E.2d 366 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 N.E. 434, 312 Ill. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-rush-medical-college-v-university-of-chicago-ill-1924.