9 Misc. 2d 148 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1957
Testator’s will gave his residuary estate to his trustees, the income and so much of the principal as may be necessary, to be used to make scholarships available to American citizens of Armenian descent. His will directed his executors and trustees to “ select one, or two, citizens each
Because of the existing international situation, the fulfillment of the direction to send citizens to the Armenian University at Erivan is not possible or practicable. To permit students to attend that university might result in education with political indoctrination adverse to good American citizenship. The executor and the Attorney-G-eneral therefore request that the sending of students to centers of Armenian culture and study outside the U.S.S.R. be authorized.
It has long been the policy of the courts of this State where a fund is bequeathed for charitable purposes, to give the most liberal construction to the terms of the will in order to validate the bequest. The will must be read and considered in its entirety in order to carry out the intent of the testator. The gift for educational purposes in this will is clearly charitable. (Matter of Potter, 307 N. Y. 504; Matter of Neher, 279 N. Y. 370; Butterworth v. Keeler, 219 N. Y. 446; Matter of Donchian, 120 Misc. 535, affd. 209 App. Div. 806.) The main object of the testator’s charitable gift as stated by him was to provide the means to understand the ideals and culture of the Armenian people, to promote better understanding and friendship and create spiritual unity between the two nations. Obviously by the “ two nations ” testator meant the Armenian people and the American people. His clear charitable purpose must not be permitted to fail merely because the manner of carrying out his objective cannot be exactly effectuated. Certainly the mere fact that students cannot be sent to the University at Erivan should not cause the entire gift to fail. As stated in Matter of Neher (supra, p. 374): “ Such a grafted direction may be ignored when compliance is altogether impracticable and the gift may be executed cy pres through a scheme to be framed by the court for carrying out the general charitable purpose. (See Real Prop. Law [Cons. Laws ch. 50], sec. 113, subd. 2; Sherman v. Richmond Hose Co., 230 N. Y. 462, 472, 473; Matter of Gary, 248 App. Div. 373; 272 N. Y. 635; American Law Institute, Restatement of Law of Trusts, sec. 399, Comment at p. 1211.) ” Even had the University at
The reasonable compensation of the attorney-executor is fixed and allowed in the amount requested.
Submit decree on notice.