Twenty-Third Street Baptist Church v. Cornell

New York Court of Appeals

Twenty-Third Street Baptist Church v. Cornell

23 N.E. 177, 117 N.Y. 601, 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 482, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 950

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 23 N.E. 177 (Twenty-Third Street Baptist Church v. Cornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Twenty-Third Street Baptist Church v. Cornell, 23 N.E. 177, 117 N.Y. 601, 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 482, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 950 (N.Y. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Finch, J.

It is an insuperable barrier to a recovery by the plaintiff that the subscription of Mrs. Weeks to the fund for the erection of a new church building was merely an ■executory gift, unsupported by any consideration. The doctrine settled in the recent case of Presbyterian Church v. Cooper (112 N. Y. 517) is decisive upon the facts here presented. Since the subscriptions of several furnished no ■consideration for the promise of any one; since the dece *605 dent did not request the corporation to build a new edifice, and the church did not promise that it would; since no endeavor to obtain subscribers was occasioned by the expressed wish or direction of testatrix, but began and was continued irrespective of it; since these facts exclude the existence of a consideration at the date of the promise; the plaintiff is compelled to rely and does rely upon one originating later. The contention is, that the church corporation erected, its new edifice and incurred the large .cost of its construction in reliance upon these subscriptions, and so in the end, if not in the beginning, a consideration arose to support the promise. That may happen where the expenditure can be said to have proceeded with the knowledge and assent of the subscribers; but here, before any expenditure was made, or any work was begun, Mrs. Weeks died. Her gift was unexecuted at her death and revoked by that event; and no after action of the church corporation could change or affect the result. Her executors could not create a new liability where none existed before, and had no authority to bind the estate by any assent to the work of construction, or convert an invalid promise of’ the testatrix into an enforceable liability of her estate. The promise died when she died, and was merely a good intention which did not survive her.

This view of the case makes it needless to discuss the other questions with which the argument was largely occupied.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Finch, J.

It is an insuperable barrier to a recovery by the plaintiff that the subscription of Mrs. Weeks to the fund for the erection of a new church building was merely an ■executory gift, unsupported by any consideration. The doctrine settled in the recent case of Presbyterian Church v. Cooper (112 N. Y. 517) is decisive upon the facts here presented. Since the subscriptions of several furnished no ■consideration for the promise of any one; since the dece *605 dent did not request the corporation to build a new edifice, and the church did not promise that it would; since no endeavor to obtain subscribers was occasioned by the expressed wish or direction of testatrix, but began and was continued irrespective of it; since these facts exclude the existence of a consideration at the date of the promise; the plaintiff is compelled to rely and does rely upon one originating later. The contention is, that the church corporation erected, its new edifice and incurred the large .cost of its construction in reliance upon these subscriptions, and so in the end, if not in the beginning, a consideration arose to support the promise. That may happen where the expenditure can be said to have proceeded with the knowledge and assent of the subscribers; but here, before any expenditure was made, or any work was begun, Mrs. Weeks died. Her gift was unexecuted at her death and revoked by that event; and no after action of the church corporation could change or affect the result. Her executors could not create a new liability where none existed before, and had no authority to bind the estate by any assent to the work of construction, or convert an invalid promise of’ the testatrix into an enforceable liability of her estate. The promise died when she died, and was merely a good intention which did not survive her.

This view of the case makes it needless to discuss the other questions with which the argument was largely occupied.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.E. 177, 117 N.Y. 601, 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 482, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twenty-third-street-baptist-church-v-cornell-ny-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack