218 Mass. 33 | Mass. | 1914
It is the duty of the trustees, in whom the legal title properly vested, to administer the provisions of the will as directed by the testator unless they are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. Hall v. Cushing, 9 Pick. 395. Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309, 314. And while, if no appeal had been taken, they would be protected by the probate decree setting aside the clause in question and establishing a resulting trust in favor of the heirs to whom the moneys forming the trust fund will be paid, nevertheless, they were persons “aggrieved” within the meaning of R. L. c. 162 § 9, and their appeal, as well as the appeal of the Attorney General, is properly before us. Adams v. Adams, 211 Mass. 198. Whitwell v. Bartlett, 211 Mass. 238. Burroughs v. Wellington, 211 Mass. 494. Minot v. Attorney General, 189 Mass. 176.
But if the motion to dismiss cannot be granted, the principal question discussed is whether the fourteenth article, which is not affected by the agreement of compromise, created a good public charity. It reads as follows: “I give, devise and bequeath to my said trustees the sum of Fifty thousand dollars to which shall be added after the death of my wife Betsey Mann Fifteen thousand dollars, after the death or marriage of Emma A. Leeds twelve thousand dollars, after the death or marriage of Carrie S. Leeds, six thousand dollars, (see Articles one, two and three,— of this my last will and testatment, to which this refers.) These amounts combined making eighty-three thousand dollars shall be held in trust by my said trustees and kept invested in accordance with their best judgments the income and profits thereof shall be added semi-annually to the Principle until it shall amount to the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, or until a society shall be formed who will contribute a sum equal to said eighty-three thousand dollars and its accumulated interest to make the same amount at which time the said one hundred thousand dollars together with the same amount (or more) that may be contributed by said society (if any such shall be) shall be devoted to the building and maintaining of a Temple that shall be consecrated
The principal objects which may be promoted by charitable gifts so recently have been pointed out that whether the trust is valid is very nearly settled by Molly Varnum Chapter D. A. R. v. Lowell, 204 Mass. 487, 492, 493, 494, and cases cited; New England Sanitarium v. Stoneham, 205 Mass. 335, 341, 342; Little v. Newburyport, 210 Mass. 414; and Chase v. Dickey, 212 Mass. 555. To endow or build a church for the worship of Christ, or
While nearly twenty-one years have elapsed since the will was admitted to probate, and the fund as shown by the last account of the trustees is little more than a quarter of the amount provided by the testator for the temple and the school, yet the provision for accumulation is not invalid even if the period may run far beyond the time prohibited by the rule against perpetuities. St. Paul’s Church v. Attorney General, 164 Mass. 188, 204. Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309. The testator contemplated that many years necessarily must follow before either the temple or the school could come into existence upon an endowment sufficiently ample for their successful establishment.
If at the termination of the first period of accumulation the trustees are in doubt whether the trust for the temple can be administered as he directed under the conditions then existing, they should apply for further instructions. It will then be within the power of the court of probate, or of this court, unless their jurisdiction is changed, to determine whether there is any public demand for the temple or the school, and to decree whether the fund is sufficient for its founding and maintenance, or whether the fund should be applied in aid of the deserving poor, and to frame a scheme accordingly, or whether a further accumulation for fifty years should be decreed, or until the fund amounts to “Five hundred thousand dollars,” before the third mode is adopted. St. Paul’s Church v. Attorney General, 164 Mass. 188. Richardson v. Mullery, 200 Mass. 247. Grimke v. Attorney General, 206 Mass. 49.
The motion to dismiss is overruled, and the decree appealed from must be reversed and the petition dismissed.
So ordered.