The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-02-16

q
Law Of pennsylvania in relation TO Wills until after Mr.
Girards death LIST sect page Is"All wills writing
proved by credible witnesses valid to the
to bequesth" &c. This ID the end OF the history of the
laws Of Pennsylvania relating wills and this power
has never b, crcumscrbed In any one instance The
10 will evsrs thing sny So ahsn pp hs
allegation that the city Of Philadelphia take by
But something has been said about Mortmain policy
prevailing in the State Now these statutes do prevail
there but IL they did the statutes Of Mormain do
On this head. read from Sargent Rawle. p. 3is
u Peters. 1921 shsliord. p 8 But there is no evil
mistake to suppose exists in the act Of 1871. There
s nothing in that act to prevent the corporation Of
thousand acres QIere he read IRON the acD Here
find proviso limiting the amount and they rely this
the hinge Of the objection to the power of the corpora
ticn take hold this devise in Mr. Girards Will Now
the proviso says that they can't have more than $500
from land or from lent But the
proved They may pay the taxes and charges upon it.
and when rises in value they may sell it. and endow
many churches &c. and give to as many as choose to
cept the grant and comply with the terms thereof But
what evidence have that the statutes Of Momain
tend to Pennsy all All the other reject
ed the statutes of Mortmain And they do exist in Penn
sylvania it in opposition to the declared policy (acts
onies Sir william Grant decided that they did not ex
tend to Lord Camden decided that they did not ex
who is to follow me on the other side websse) himself
has argued to the same effect in cause reported in
Wheaton, 476
MIR BMrEr thought he had much respect dign
ofthe law 10 endeavor perve its meaning There
judicial dicum before lSOe in regard the powers of
corporations take to hold and in like this
In 1888 there act passed to restrict the powers of
corporations but this Of locally political character
to prevent certain New York corporations from digging
out coal Sc in the State of Pennsylvania II has been
argued that whenever Legislature passed law in
ation to which an English Statute was in force-that
the of 9c law n in
ary For in the compilations cf the laws Of Pennsylva.
MIA have parts and sections Of statutes incorporated in
those laws. Iere he cited the 18th George 10 4h Ann
and several others from the Compilation lndex) Thus
get under the statute 4h Ann the action of the endor
against the endorser of note and by the the
legislature get the action of the endosee against the
drawer and the payee against the drawer We contend
then that the City Of Phil delphia has unlimited power to
the present charter Of l7s9.-See ID Smiths laws. By
this the city can have hold purchase take receive all
city convey mortgage, devise" &c. in any way
whatever Here is conferred the general power TO take
the part Of the corporatonas indeed they taking
and must take every day for the benefit of the citizens
have thus then your honors disposed of the question Of
the power OF the city to take by will devise without
| Mortinain opposition
Mr.BINNEY-I come to the second important point
the power to take in trust possessed by the corporation
Here there arises slight difficulty from the statute of
uses. The power to take in use defined by them, with
their restrictions might seem opposed to shall not
60 into the meaph yscs Of this bygone policy of the
ute of uses, about which, the less hear the better
This policy certainly never was intended to be operative
about like eel through all the quips quirks Of the
law and at last tving tselfnto knots which nothing but
the statute Of 27th Henry sth could cat asunder Hear
my Lord Coke this subject He says, "As to having
confidence in land better have confidence in beastfo
the beast though have has while land
Uses It has been said How can corporation take in
cause it had power execute. This the
ing, till and equity, and law dispersed the
n ca TAX. tas thing
clearly established by the law and by the courts Of
equity is this that If corporations have any power a,
all they have power take in trust has been argued
that the statute of Wills says estate shall not be
Of Wills raises the objection, this question of trust
does not arise But the power given Of bargain and
sale be given to corporation the power to take and use
in trust is also given to them 1t true that they have in
England sued cooperation for taking money on mort.
gage in connection with this matter but think that doc
trne will not be advocated sustained by learned coun
sci We have not yet got to that result Of the statute in
! this enlightened nation.
| MIR. WEB.rrR--lt for taking il beyond the amount
specially named in their charter and the decision
| rect and legal.
Mr. BNsrY-No one can doubt your honors that the le.
gal estate in question in the city of Philadelphia at this
moment And when the legal estate in the corporation
the question is for what purpose does she hold t Why
course in trust for others how will you ever get
property out of her hands in Of nsucency to
ecute the trust in the Of mismanagement her
Part in its execution Gentlemen do not to perceive
the effect which this doctrine would lead The statute
like cruel sepfaher, comes |? and says no matter how
trust The Common law like nursing mother comes in
and says that while the power remains the trust shall be-
properly executed Now, the statute cuts the convey
snce down to prevent the corporation from taking
the estate Then for what does she hold it As trus
If the court thinks that the corporation cannot have
the trust because she has not the execute the
hen the Court Of Equity comes in and compes you to
transfer the trust to some else who has the and
Tor the sake of ITSELF It our interest And IT.
taking away this is not to say that destroy the trust
but we transfer it because you can't execute But il
your competence be part Of the subsatum Of the
hat the trust be executed by OF your
competency then the trust is gone forever That, take it
H1x AI,a,,
he moment with the trust As to the question you
capacity execute the trust that Corporation yon
cannot execute, that is totally different matter Here
efer your Honors for authority to the LIST Saunders,
i6-the difference Of decisions in equity Also TO the lst
W S% a Ho
Of Cruises Digest 403 II is now settled that the King
ian hold in trust. That Corporation may be trustee
where this the Court Of Chancery exercise tn.
power that Corporation private mer.
Wright mot very eminent lawyer decided that Corpo
aons trustees for charities; and he set aside
that had made for 20 years be renewed for
twice 90 more making so years. Because the founder Of
he charity had said they should not grant any lease
for more than 20 years ID Browns Parliamentary Cases
T0-thc Haberdashers' Co vs.. the Attorney General
18th Browns Parliamentary Cases 235the City of Co.
ventry, VS.. the Attorney General In this last case,
| he city Of Coventry abused the trust. The Lord
Chancellor dismissed the corporation from the trust
On appeal the decision of the Chancellor affirmed
y the Lords, who at the same time, gave leave to thu
| If Elizabeth have been referred TO defining the nature
fdevses for charitable but they had foundation
| ID. Browns Chancery Cases, p III, the Attorney Gen.
eral VS. the City OF London. This with which
| the celebrated Robert Boyle was connected
heguest of money for the civilization of the In
ans in America Court OF Chancery ordered it to be in
vested in the Manor OF Brompton and further ordered il
be conveyed the city OF London in trust Part Of the
rents and profits Of these lands went to the support of Will
liam and Mary College On this point. read from the
vesey, p. lsshe King be trustees ID vescy, p
| 6-Atorney General the Founding Hospital, a cor.
poration is individual; LIST Vesey, 467Green and
rutherford, no matter who is trustee; 4th vcsey, 1883
| Drummer vs. Corporation of Chippepham. This last
before Lord Eldon The charge corruption
The master of school removed by the corporation
for not voting their side Of politics Lord Eldon deci
1ed that there must be full investigation, and that he
corrnptly removed the master be restored This
shows the perfect exbiy ofthe powers ofthe Court
Of Chancery to control all of trust corporation
must act through persons and by with whom the
/ Court Of Chancery can deal
On this point also read from l2th Mass reports $40
Case of Whitman Lex the trust of ST. Phillips &C. Also
18th Sargent Rawe, p. 80 Here of the devises was