The national Republican., 1867-01-11
The Cesrts.
SUPREME CoURT OF THE UNITED STATES


and counsellor Of this court. "'..
On motion Of Mr.. Ashton, A. ". Barry, ESQ.,, Of
Pennsylysnia, was admitted an attorney and soun-
sellor OF this court. .HHo1.
No. IS. Esr. 8. Stanley 81 al, pl.iniiasin error,
VI. Elizabeth J. Colt. The argument Of this cause
was concluded BY Mr.. Evarts, Of counsel for the
plaintiffs In error ..-
No. 90. The United States, appellants, Va. Jose
Francisco Arm.jo, a ali and No. 1853. A. p. Jack.
son, ct al, intervenors and appellants, VS. Jose y.
| Armejo a. These cases were submitted TO the
consideration Of the court on the record and printed
argument by Mr.. Attorney General stanbery, Of
counsel for the appellants, and by Mr. carlisle, Of
counsel for the appellsss. f.'-t
No. ss7. he Msrehsnts Insurance company,
plaintiffs, p. James Richis. This cause was ar.
gusd W Mr.. Attorney General stsnbsfy, OF eoun.
ssi for ID. plaintiff and Submitted on printed az.
gument Of Mr.. Bartstt, Of counsel for the defend
ant. Adjourned until tomorrow at II o'clock.
Charitable Begrsas = disnaf,on - Condition.
Sr5ssqasrf- Devils 20 Trasss-- Esya s. Stsnisy
q al, Piainfifs in Error, %. EisaSetA J. Ceh-
ley, Of Hartford, Conn, left BY his will certain
real property In the city Of Hartford 10 the South
Ecclesiastical socisty. In the lapse Of ysan this
property became valuable. and Il vas rsosntly sold
70 the late Samuel Colt. ThsrsuPon the heir, Of
stanlsy-eontending that, BY aproper construction
Of the will, the devise was conditional upon the
continued ownership Of the land by the society and
nsisting that the sale thereof such breach Of
this condition forfeited the right Of the society
under the will--brought this action 10 recover the
property from the widow Of the purchaser.
Believing themselves without the power to con
vey the fes this society pettioned the Legislature
Of the State Of Conneoticut TO authorire sale and
oonyeysues Of said property In foe simple" and
sold u In pursuance Of such an enabling sst:
Under the rulings Of the court below, the case
resulted In favor Of the society and adversely 10 the
heirs. Appeal was then taken 10 this court, where
the questions to be determined sre: l. Had the 20.
oety power under the bill itself 10 sell and convey
this propertyto Colt without mourning orfsiture1
2. IL II had not such power under the will, II
enabled so TO do BY the act Of the Lsgsature7 and
8. II the society had no power to convey from
either source, what consequence results from Its
violation oof the condition Of the devise' r.
will could not sell, without violating the condition
upon which they held the property and thus incur
ring forfeiture II Is insisted BY the plaintiff In
error Is apparent from the very fact Of their asking
the Legislature for power to SELL as well from the
avsrmsnts Of the petition itself These show that
such was at that time, and always had been. the
construction placed upon the will and the Legis.
laturs found the allegations Of want Of power 10 be
true II Is also insisted that the Very fact Of hc
dsviSe, II being Of land, shows the intent Of the
donor that II should not be sold. He intended that
this property should alicayS remain In the hands o
the society, for he desired To be remembered In
connection herewith forever. The perpetual own.
ership Of the society would insure the perpetual
memory Of the testator In connection herewith AZ
II would also insure that the principal should
tended merely TO 6snsft the sociefy, he could have
bequsathed . certain sum In money but rs such q
bequest would not have permanently preserved hiI
name and memory 10 connection with the s0siety,
which vas his desire, the devise Of ands which
cannot perish nor pass away.
But II the society was without authority to con
ysy the fee Of the property before the act of th,
Legislature, Is was equally 80 afterwards for th,
Legislature Of neither the State Of Connestout mol
any other State has the power to alter the express
conditions Of will Such an attempt 10 contrar,
to the principles Of natural right and Justice which
no Legislature can contravene. II has always beer
bsld In tho State Of Connecticut that such laws arr
void, besides the act Of the Legislsture was void
under the constitution Of the State, because II de-
pved these heirs Of property which, II the act wa,
necessary to make the sale valid, could not have
otherwise been taken from them, and without Just
compensation therefor" " The constitution DECLARE
that 'the property Of person shall be taken foi
public use, (by the state,) without just oOmpenss
tion." Tho act was also void as being contrary Il
that clause Of the Constitution Of the United State
which prohibits State from passing any law i'm
pairing the obligation Of contracts for II has beer
held from an early day In Connecticut that by th,
visors Of lands for pous uses mentioned In the act
and that all acts OF the Legislature affecting such
deyises in any way contrary to such act are void.
nthsre was no power to convey, and the devise
upon the condition that the land should not bs
sold and conveyed, and that condition beinJ
broken the effect Of the violation 10 that the hair
! ofthe devisor may enter declare the devise for
feited by the breach, and recover the devised prop
erty. This. II is submitted IL too familiar rul,
Flaw to need citations.
The defendant in error contends that the land Ii
/ question, having been devised BY Stanley, In To-
simple, to trustees, for the and bensht Of Q 70
lgious society, his heirs cannot recover them IN
!, less they can show that the devise was upon som,
condition, or what 10 not pretended In this case
that there was some limitation made In the will
their favor. II would not be sufficient for the heir
TO make II appear that the lands had been diverte
from the use for which they were devised, or tha
. they had not been enjoyed by the benehoiariss Il
4 the particular manner described BY the tsstator
1 for whsre lands have been DEVISED 10 charitable
use In fee simple the heir has no more interest In
and no more right to the land than he has whsI
they are devised to individual In foo simple
: either directly or In trust.
Tho public have an interest In the extension o.
public charities and the benehoiaries have an In
tsrss and u the disoretions contained In the vii
Of the tsstator either as to the manner Of the en-
joymsnt or the obIects1uhich are 10 be benefited
BY his bounty are departed from, either the public
or the bsaehoiaries II they arc sufficiently certain
remedy. But the heir has no interest and no right
and therefore can have no remedy. 1t Is necessary
therefore, for the plantis 10 satisfy the court tha
some condition created BY The t0H has been violated
. for unless they can do this their case has nj
foundation Whatever.
An elementary rule perfectly familiar to the oour
that II depends upon the intention Of the testator
to bs gathered from an attentive examination 0
tho will not TO be dsduced from particular phrase
having technical effect upon 1t. but an intention
= TO be deduoed from examination Of all the pro
. visions Of the will which have any bearing OF
J the matter In question. Anothey rule equally vel
settled 10, that although the law allows testatO
impose conditions subsequent, breach Of whiol
win create forfeiture, yet the law deems II i'm
+ probable that testators will do 50, and therefor
y leans against any construction which would 70
suit In such condition. In order to create con
Q dition the breach Of which will work forfeltur
Of vested estate In fec simple, the intention to
80 must be clear and unquestionable The Lap
= | o.-p- -riaYad mnst he s..-h 90 ~ teAye no doub
Of the intention. Courts will not give II that ehec
z by construction. Words OF condition will be con
strusd into words Of covenant when such Is the ap
. parent intention and meaning Of the parties.
But II the legal sstats In this case shall be foun
TO be vested In the trustees, that will be decsiy
Of the whole case. II Is q rule Of law that wher
trustees are named In will II Is not necessary Il
0 order TO hnd the legal estate vested In them, +
hnd direct devise to them In the will. II Is no
necessary that the testAtor should say In term
that he gives the legal estate to the trustees. No
Is necessary that he should describe the quantit
= Of legal estate which he intends to give them.
Z trustees arc named the law looks to sec wha
|. powers are conferred upon them, and what dutie