The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-28
LEGAL xMrnILIaHrgcH.
Supreme Court In BaBo-JudGes Rend
AEnew, and Sharswood.
The following Judgments were entered this morn

THE SAVINGS FUND CASE
George West Deputy EscheatOr, vs.. The Phila-
Nisi Prius In equity. Opinion by Agnew, j.
The claim Of the Commonwealth to the surplus
fund OF the Philadelphia Saving Fund Society rs
clearly unfounded. Neither the act OF 96th April,
1885, relating to literary charitable, and religious
societies nor the act Of ts 1Rr 1892 rSnln rSE 1he
owner, applies to this society. 1t has not the sem
blance OF charity. 1t is specifically business cor
poration for pecuniary purposes; to receive de
posis of money invest them for the security of the
depositors, and repay them with interest The pre-
abe sets FORTH in precise terms. Its sole purpose to
be That OF receiving and investing in public stocks,
substantial security on real estate, the small sums
saved from the earnings OF tradesmen, mechaolcs,
laborers, servants, and others, and OF afordng 70
industrious persons the advantages OF security anu
interest.
and hold real and personal estate by gift, devise and
bequest, as well as by purchase, loan, deposit and
whether by gift or purchase are expressly declared
TO be for the "uses ends and purposes" OF the in-
stituton, which are pecunary, and not charitable
in any sense Of the term, legal or popular the
words gift, devise, bequest and legacy denote any
additional means given to eectuate the purposes OF
the charter. and are not indicative OF its purpose or
design. These terms are used in many old charters
TO describe modes OF acquisition, not ends to be
subserved In this charter they are evidently sub
sidiary TO the power to invest TO enable the society
to strengthen It's securities, by the use OF all the
various forms OF assurance. II father desire to
reinforce the falling or doubtful security OF his son,
his aid might come in any of these modes.
Power is also given to the society to ''mproye and
augment" its property, evidently Tor the purpose or
creating fund for increased security against losses
and fluctuations in the value OF investments. The
rents income and profits of the property are to be
applied to the "uses ends, and purposes OF the in
sttuJion, according TO the rules and regulations of
the society ITSELF made to be made by 1t fully and
erectuay as it could be dsne 10y natural person.
This is broad grant of power, vesting the fund to
be created under this authority in the corporation
ITSELF not for any particular cestut que trust but for
the general uses and purposes of the corporation.
1t cannot be sad therefore, to be property without
an owner. II has not only lawful owner,
purpose to subserve. The property thus i'm
proved and augmented as safety fund for
authorized to hold, enjoy, and retain to the use and
purposes OF the institution, without any Limitation
whatever Nor is danger to be apprehended from
this large grant Of powers, the Legislature having
received the power TO revoke and annu the corpora
tion. The want OF stockholders and prohibition on
the corporators or managers to derive emolument
from the fund does not rob the society OF the express
powers thus given. II there were no beneficial
purposes to which the fund was devoted, the argu-
ment that IL is without an owner might have some
force But the obvious purpose OF producing fund
by improving and augmenting the property OF the
society is to furnish an adequate security for the
repayment OF depostols The success attending
the administration Of the investment, in producing
the large surplus now existing afser nearly century
of good management, detracts nothing from the
charter right to enjoy the accumulation for the true
purposes Of the society Besides the internal evil
dence afforded by the charter ITSELF OF the business
character Of the corporation for pecuniary purposes,
the general Legislature of the State has heretofore
classed such institutions with other business asso-
Citations, such banks insurance companies, etc,
for various purposes such as taxes, unclaimed divi-
dends, ETC.
This being the true character of this society," it is
obvious it Is not the subject Of escheat and the pro-
ceeding to condemn its surplus fund especially IN
mode not prescribed by law is illegal sand inju-
rious. Let US, then, examine the proceeding The
ninth section Of the act Of 1885 directs the proceed
ing to escheat property held by corporation, con-
trary to the true intent OF that act, to be by 'quo
warranto, in all respects as Is provided by law in the
case Of the resumption OF any corporate franchise
the Audtor-Genera to the deputyescheator is with
out authority and confers no power to proceed under
II the proceeding be considered as under the act
of 1869 to escheat property without rghtfu owner,
Another obstacle presents itself. The act OF 1869
wholly Omits to provide for its enforcement. III we
might supply by ntendmept the mode Of proceed
ing according to the act OF 1881 because of the title
OF the act of 1862 as "a further supplement" to that
law, yet the proceeding would be inapt and defec-
tive as applied to cases Of trust property. Under
testate has died seized or possessed without lawful
heir or known kindred. II is true, 1t permits
claimant or party in possession to traverse the find
ing of the inquest, and thus to raise question OF
property in a court of law but the difficulty would
be to apply this to the varied cases of trust. Can
the property be seized and sold or rented by the
sheriff. under process directed to him in the mode
prescribed oy the act OF l7s7?
legal title, is bound to 1t to maintain the pur-
pose OF the trust, and whose title and control may
have to remain in order to preserve the estate. aud
to protect Interior contingent or alternative inte-
rests.
The proceedings under the act OF 17s7 would do to
determine an ordinary question OF property, but
judicial intendments would be insuiiicent-it would
require legislative power to adapt 1t to the pecuar-
ties OF trust Perhaps nothing short OF equity
powers would be available to mould the proceed
ings to suit the eXigencies OF each particular trust
The proceeding to escheat the surplus fund beng
ilga both in its object and It's mode, the Judge at
Nisi Prus was right In enjoning it. The act is CON
ray to law and is preJudcal TO the interest OF the
society and its depositors. NO one can doubt that
an attempt TO wrest from 1t its surplus fund with
the apparent appreciation OF the Court must impair
1t and curtail its business and might subject 1t to
eeasing OF its deposits, forcing 1t either TO suspend
payment or to Impair its assets, by the sacrifices
necessary to maintain its solvency. We cannot view
the proceedings OF the Auditor-General and his
deputy as that OF a sovereign, to be resisted
to be arrested but by reason OF its entire want OF
authority, we must declare 1t to be illegal and void
OF sovereign sanction. Persons thus proceeding
Illegally do not represent the State, which is pre-
sumed to do no wreng, and therefore to be enter
taned not because 1neS are aTubg as agents or
proceeding in violation OF right and contrary TO law,
and have no legal commission to do the act they are
seeking TO perform. The process OF this court acts
upon them individually, and not upon the State.
The decree OF the Court OF Nisi Prius is therefore
affirmed.
This is most important decision, saving to the
Savings Fund Society upwards OF 500, ,OOO which the
| Commonwealth sought to have escheated on the
ground that 1t consisted OF deposits the OF
| which had died, leaving no lawful claimants K
| them.
road Company Error to the District Court OF Phila
| delphia. Judgment affirmed Agnew j.
Mayor VS.. Walter. Error to the District Court o
| Philadelphia Judgment reversed, and v. T. d. n
p awarded Sharswood, j.
McCalla vs.. Ely. Erro = TO the District Court o
| Philadelphia. Judgment affirmed. Sharsw0od, j..
Wright vs. Burbank. Error TO the District Cour
or Phlladelphia- Judgment ainrmed. SharsWood, d
1 Wiltbank vs. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Com
| pany. Appeal from the Common Pleas OF Philadel
phla Decree reversed. Agnew. j.
Hidebum VS.. Curren. Error to the District Cour
OF Philadelphia Judgment reversed, and v. I. d. 1
awarded. Sharswood j.
Dovey VS. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company
krror to the Nisi Prius Judgment affirmed Shar'
wood, j.