Title: Trustees of New Castle Common v. Gordy

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

91 A.2d 135 (1952)
TRUSTEES OF NEW CASTLE COMMON
v.
GORDY et al.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
September 4, 1952.
Edward W. Cooch, Jr., Wilmington, for plaintiff.
Albert W. James (of Hering, Morris, James & Hitchens), Wilmington, for defendants.
SOUTHERLAND, Chief Justice, TUNNELL, Justice, and HERRMANN, Judge, sitting.
PER CURIAM.
The question certified concerns the power of Trustees of the New Castle Common, a corporation administering a charitable trust, to sell and convey certain land constituting a part of the corpus of the trust. The sole parties to the cause below are the corporation and the persons that have contracted to buy the land.
It is the general rule that in any suit involving the existence or administration of a charitable trust the Attorney General is usually a necessary party.
In Story's Equity Pleadings, Sec. 222, it is said:
In Volume 1 Daniell's Ch. Pl. and Pr., p. 137, it is said:
In Jackson v. Phillips, 96 Mass. 539, at pages 579, 580, Judge Gray, after referring to the duty to maintain the rights of the public as a duty vested in the commonwealth, exercised through the Attorney General, said:
In Orford Union Congregational Society v. West Congregational Society, 55 N.H. 463, the court said:
The question involved in the case was a dispute between two religious societies, each claiming the rents from certain lands left in charitable trust for the support of the ministry. They had effected a settlement as between themselves, but the court held the settlement invalid.
In Rolfe & Rumford Asylum v. Lefebre, 69 N.H. 238, 45 A. 1087, 1088, there was a petition to sell lands held in trust. The Attorney General had not been made a party. The court said:
In Bible Readers Aid Society v. Katzenbach, 97 N.J.Eq. 416, 128 A. 628, a bill was brought by the Society and the Y. W. C. A. to discharge the Society as trustee of a charitable trust and to appoint the Y. W. C. A. as successor trustee. Vice Chancellor Buchanan said:
And see the annotation in 62 A.L.R. at page 887.
The instant case would seem to be one especially calling for the presence of the Attorney General since the interests of the parties (so far as appears from the record) are not really opposed. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract to sell real estate, and it is reasonable to suppose that both parties would like the title sustained.
This point has been raised by the Court ex mero motu. Ordinarily argument would have been requested, but we think the matter admits of no doubt. In the light of the foregoing authorities, this Court may not proceed to a determination of the question certified until the Attorney General shall have been made a party to the cause below and afforded an opportunity to be heard. Leave will be granted to the parties, or either of them, to take such further proceedings before the Court of Chancery as may be appropriate for this purpose. This having been done, the record in this Court should be supplemented accordingly. The Attorney General will then have leave to file a brief herein or take such other action as he may think proper. The cause in this Court will be stayed until further order.