The New York herald., 1869-03-25
SUPREME CcuaT-spEcIAL Term.
The Roosevelt Hospital Case-Imporfant
Decisiau-rhe Will Sustained.

The Roosevelt Hospital Case-Important
Decisi0n-rhe Will Sustained.
Charles BuyT'tH Executor, rs. Jt,sd W. Bodrdn,on
ct aL-Judement was rendered In this case yesterday
morning. 1t appeared that James II. Roosevelt by
his last will and testament Ieff the greater portion
or his property certain trustees, OF whom num-
ber were officers OF institutions and Others named
BY himself 70 found hospital IN this city, and IN
case they should obtain an act OF INCORPORATION
within years. should the youngest OF his trustees
live 70 long, to the United States absolutely. His
nephew ami heir, NJ Brown, died shortly after Mr.
Roosevelt, but meanwhile affirmed his unce's dispo-
deemed II his dutY TO bring this suit trial to settle
his own liability In the matter. Judge Ingraham IN
delivering judgement said the only question pro-
perry before him arose out OF the inquiry as TO the
validity OF the bequestby Roosevelt. II was unne-
cessary to discuss the question regarding the
bequest TO the United States absolutely In the event
OF the Legislature refusing, two years after the
decease OF the testator 70 grant liberal charter for
the hospital Such charter was accepted within
the two years and 1t was accepted by the trustees.
such acceptance shows their appreciation OF It's pro-
visions, and they were the persons to judge OF IT'S
uberality. Their acceptance upon the suficency OF
the charter Is conclusive TO the character OF that
instrument l. therefore, lay out OF view any claim
by the United states ior any portion OF these funds
as without foundation also shall for the
purposes OF this case consider the law as
now settled in this State, that no distinction
can any longer be made between ordinary
trusts and trusts for charitable uses and that
the trusts In the present VIII can be sustained upon
the principles applicable to other trusts, they must
fail. To make such trust valid there must be trus-
tees capable OF taking beneficiary and vesting OF
the estate at the death OF the deyiser or within the
period OF two lives being the death OF the testa
tor. IL cannot be denied that there are trustees
named here capable OF taking Even II the persons
who are named as trustees by virtue Of their Offices
arc not good trustees st II there are Others 10 whom
the trust Is conhded by name competent and sulri-
Gent 10 take, and In whom the whole estate would
vest anG provision Is made for their succession Nor
did he think there difculty az to the beneficiary
IL Is true that the terms used OF very general
character, namely for the establishment the city
d New York OF an hospital for the reception aud
iei OF sick and diseased persons and It's permanent
endowment After alludng TO the powers
OF the VIII the opinion went on 70 state
mat the great object the testator, had
An view the creation OF the hospital and Its en-
dowment. II after this creation 1t departed from
the object OF Its endowment the Court OF Equity had
ample power to force the discharge OF its duties IN
accordance with the provisions OF the VIII. The
testator made provisions for the Incorporation and
the charter subsequently granted b. the Legislature
created beneficiary capable OF taking provided
the provisions OF the win not subject TO the OBJ
Jectons raised ~ the plaintiff, being within the
provisions OF IN. statute against perpetutes or "a
10 the passage OF the act OF incorporation after the
decease Of the testator II the devise and beduest
IN tins case had been made TO for the Dene-
nj and use OF . child OF some person 70 be born
after the tesator death such trust would be valid
and no objection could be made thereto. so q trust
70 trustees for the benefit OF corporation thereafter
10 be created may be valid If the statute against
perpetuitles does NOT interfere with n. ! see no
reason why the subsequent incorporation OF a
company Is any greater objection than the subse-
guent birth OF child. Neither was In existence ~
the decease OF the testator. Either would into
being afterwards, and one would be as competent to
take ~ the other, SO far as any objection could be
made on the ground ofnonexstence at the testators
DEATH Does this provision then fall within the pro-
hibiuon OF the statute against perpeutiesf II the
disposition OF the personal estate suspended for
longer period than the continuance OF more than
Two lives then IN beng at the death OF the testator
The provisions OF the will were give the property
70 trustees lOr the establishment OF the hospital. for
the inc0i p1raton OF which the trustees were to an
ply to the LEGISLATURE promptly, aud were 10 walt
for two years for such incorporation provided the
YOUNGEST Oh the trustees and uia "a NJ
tnem should 50 long live; and In OF neglect or
refusal oy Tue ,egisa'nIe the property was TO pass
any period beyond the death OF the two persons
naned. u tnat event takes place before the
the two years the Limitation ceases and
the p.operty passes TO the United states without
limitation. II either OF the trustees survive the two
years and the act OF incorporation onained within
that time the temporary tax comes into being before
The expiration Of the lives, as regulated by statute
4 no valid objection 70 tps beQues either upon the
ground that the corporation was to be subsequently
incorporated or that such Incorporation was TO be
obtained IN two years sooner, u both lives expired
before. ] do not deem IL necessary 70 inquire
whether the case OF Williams a Sold. 524 has been
warranted by subsequent decisions nor as 10 the
eject OF the deed executed by Brown 10 the trustees
made after the death Of Mr. Roosevelt the testator
fhat conveyance might be subject Of inquiries which
IL not necessary TO discuss at this time. The exc
cutioD OF the Will Of Brown, confirming the win o.
Roosevelt could AID no force to the latter. II illega
or Invalid, Browns Will, made under the same cir
cunstances, would be equally Invalid and would II
no inaDner ratify that OF Mr.. Roosevelt After recit
Ing the various authorities on the points of law 10
VOWED, Judge Ingraham coniinued:--From O review
these cases II Is apparent that In all Of them there
was something wanting TO make out legal trus
which could be enforced under the ordinary statu
tory provisions regulating trusts either the want
trustee at the death OF the testator or or bene
nciary who could take, or illegal suspense
OF alienation. and that IN order % susts..
those trusts II would BE- necessary to resort TO ths
Cy pres doctrine some OF the rules a. formeri
applied 10 cases OF charitable uses have already
stated that no one or these defects exist Ia the pro