Smith's Estate.... Cushman v. The Church.... Harman v. Romberger... Who may invoke the application of the doctrine... Doctrine in Pennsylvania probably applies to trusts created $775 8776 Law in Pennsylvania as to the doctrine of cy pres....... §777 Charitable corporations Preliminary discussion.. $782 Gift to a charitable corporation forbidden by statutes of mortmain.... .. $783 715. A gift to a charity, for reasons which have already been pointed out,' does not call for the application of those principles of public policy which find their expression in the three rules of law which we have been discussing. As it is desirable, for many reasons, to sustain the validity of charitable gifts, and the strict application of these rules would invalidate the greater number of such dispositions, an exception has been allowed in order that the charitable impulses of the community may have reasonable opportunity to assert themselves. The exception, therefore, is only allowed from the necessity of the case, and is to be carried no further than the occasion 1 See §13, ante. 2 The rule against perpetuities, the rule forbidding the creation of restraints on alienation, and the rule forbidding the imposition of restraints on use and enjoyment. requires. As, however, the law on the subject is somewhat intricate, and there are a number of special principles involved, it has been found necessary to devote a separate chapter to the discussion. We shall first examine the nature of a charitable object and then point out the particulars in which the rules against perpetuities, etc., apply. Preliminary Discussion of the Nature of a Charitable Object 3 716. A consideration of the reason why gifts for charitable objects are allowed as exceptions to the principles of public policy which we have discussed, will be helpful in forming a correct idea of a charitable object. This principle of public policy is against the settlement of property for the benefit of an individual or his descendants. Therefore, a gift, which is altruistic, considered from the standpoint of the donor, toward the community at large, is charitable. The character of the object is the material point. And the notion that the motive of the donor is material has long since been exploded. There is a difficulty which springs from a looseness in the use of the word charity. A thing is said to be a charity, such as an act of charity, the giving of something to the poor, and, so also, an institution or a fund producing income for charity is said to be a charity. The word, it will be observed, is used in two different senses, one as meaning the giving, the other as the thing given. It is also used as meaning the object of the gift, and the latter is, it is apprehended, the proper legal meaning and is the sense in which it is used in this treatise. Definition by Mr. Justice Gray 717. Many attempts have been made to define a charitable object. The best perhaps is that by Mr. Justice Gray which is as follows: "A charity, in the legal sense, may be more fully defined as a gift to be applied, consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves in life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works, 3 See §13, ante, for a discussion of this point. In Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539 at 556 (1867). or otherwise lessening the burdens of government. It is immaterial whether the purpose is called charitable in the gift itself, if it is so described as to show that it is charitable in its nature." A gift to a charity is distinguishable solely by the character of the object, and may possibly be in violation of some rule of law, as, for instance, the rule against perpetuities, and yet be charitable. That part, therefore, of the learned judge's definition which requires that the gift be consistent with existing laws, seems to be inaccurate. Furthermore, the gift may be to a definite charitable corporation. The definition, therefore, appears to be too narrow in so far as it is confined to indefinite objects. Not Possible to Define a Charitable Object 5 Perry, Trusts, 5 ed. (1899), Vol. 2, §715. See §§11-13, ante. The rule against perpetuities, the rule forbidding the creation of restraints against alienation, and the rule forbidding the imposition of restraints on enjoyment. 8 In the following cases, the objects indicated were held charitable: 6 8 718. It is impossible to accurately define a charitable object. The court cannot bind itself by defining a charity, for if it did so, there would be danger, on the one hand, of unduly limiting the altruistic impulses of the community or, on the other hand, of affording an opportunity for dispositions violating those principles of public policy which find their expression in the three rules of law which we are considering. A number of cases have been collected in the note, illustrating some 142 (1888); Church's Petition, 166 Pa. 43 (1895). For Protestant Episcopal Church: Nicholson v. Daniel, 152 Pa. 461, (1893). For public use schoolhouse, meeting-house and graveyard: Trustees v. Sturgeon, 9 Pa. 321 (1848). Schoolhouse and house of public worship: McKissick v. Pickle, 16 Pa. 140 (1851). Parsonage and burial ground: Supplee v. Hansell, 17 Pa. 384 (1851). For graveyard: Pearson v. Hartman, 100 Pa. 84 (1882). A devise of real estate to a church in trust to devote the income to keeping testator's family lot in a graveyard in order, and to distribute the balance, within specified limits as to amounts, to home or foreign missions for the spread of Christianity, and the residue among the needy poor of the vicinity, as the trustees and their successors may think best: Nauman v. Weidman, 182 Pa. 263 (1897). For foreign missionary work: Presbyterian Board v. Culp, 151 Pa. 467 (1892). To the RELIGIOUS: To the support of the Gospel among the colored people of the cities of Pittsburg and Allegheny: Pulpress v. Church, 48 Pa. 204 (1864). For Methodist camp-meeting: Saxton v. Mitchell, 78 Pa. 479 (1875). For religious congregations, churches, and meetinghouses: App v. Congregation, 6 Pa. 201 (1847); Beaver v. Filson, 8 Pa. 327 (1848); Griffitts v. Cope, 17 Pa. 96 (1851); Keiper's App. 124 Pa. 193 (1889) (Church); Fidelity Ins. Co.'s App., 99 Pa. 443 (1882); Brown v. Church, 23 Pa. 495 (1854); Latshaw's App., 122 Pa. Franciscan Brothers of Altoona, Pa.: Hodnett's Est., 154 Pa. 485 (1893). A corporation was organized under the Act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, "for the purpose of uniting the persons so to be incorporated socially, for the improvement of their intellectual and moral condition, by the dissemination of scientific truths, by means of literature, music, lecture and debate." It appeared that the corporation had no capital stock and transacted no secular business. Its meetings were held on Sunday, and it was wholly dependent upon voluntary contributions of its members. One member testified that the league was opposed to all isms, and that its object was the investigation of truth. A witness testified that he had heard, on a Sunday evening, a lecture against the Christian religion, and that a discussion, in the same spirit followed the lecture. Held, that a devise or bequest to such an organization was given for a religious use within the meaning of the Act of 1855: Knight's Est., 159 Pa. 500 (1894). For the support of clergymen of a particular denomination: Trustees v. Sturgeon, 9 Pa. 321 (1848). For the education of clergymen of a particular denomination: Young v. The Church, 200 Pa. 332 (1901). IN EASE OF THE PUBLIC: To county commissioners for a courthouse and jail: Seebold v. Shitler, 34 Pa. 133 (1859). For a college and library: Miller v. Porter, 53 Pa. 292 (1866). Memorial hospital: Hospital v. Penna. Co., 158 Pa. 441 (1893). For improvement of a town: Thomas v. Elmaker, 1 Pars. 98 (1844). Public park: Long's Est., 204 Pa.60 (1902). In re Trustees for Kane Boro. Park, 177 Pa. 638 (1896), semble. Planting and renewing shade trees; to endow a professorship of fine arts; towards the erection and support of an agricultural college: Cresson's App., 30 Pa. 437 (1858). To protect citizens of African descent in the enjoyment of their civil rights, and to prevent discrimination against them: Lewis' Est., 152 Pa. 477 (1893). To the Monthly Meeting of the Friends of Philadelphia, to be applied as a fund for the distribution of good books among the poor people in the back part of Pennsylvania, or to the support of an institution or free school: Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Pa. 23 (1848). "Gifts in a will of $500,000, for the erection of a memorial monument or arch in a public park, $50,000, for the construction of a children's playhouse and grounds, and the residue of the estate in trust to apply the income thereof to the maintenance and preservation of such structures and grounds forever * * * and it is immaterial that the testator has directed that a bronze statue of himself with his name underneath in large letters shall be placed upon the memorial, and that a mural tablet shall be placed in the playhouse with an inscription to the effect that the house was erected by the testator and his wife in memory of their son:" Smith's Est., 181 Pa. 109 (1897). For a case of a curious and involved bequest to the Theological Seminary of Princeton, N. J., characterized by counsel as an uncertain, visionary and obscure, unreasonable, tyrannous, unconstitutional and incapable of rational interpretation. Where the court held that the trustee could take, the trust not being annexed to the vesting of the legal title, and did not pass on the question whether the trust was unlawful, see Newell's App., 24 Pa. 197 (1855). Testator gave certain legacies to three charitable corporations, with directions that if the beneficiaries at any time supported the cause of prohibition, the legacy should become forfeit and be paid to the Free Library of Philadelphia. The three corporations declined to take the gifts with the annexed condition, and in the contest between the Free Library and the residuary legatee, the court awarded the fund to the Free Library: White's Est., 174 Pa. 642 (1896). To build a monument to George Washington: Society of the Cincinnati's App., 154 Pa. |