The New York herald., 1878-12-04
A SUIT FOR MILLIONS.
Heirs Of Stephen Girard Suing the
City Of Philadelphia.
VIOLATING A SACRED TRUST.
Disregarding the Requests Of the
Old Philanthropist.

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. J. 1878.
The suit OF the heirs of stephen Girard against the
sty OF Philadelphia, which has heretofore been al
luded to in the HERALD was called for argument to-
day in the Court OF Common Pleas. The action in
wolves property worth vast amount OF money aggrc
eating many millions of dollars the claim of the plain
afs against the city being for nothing less than all
HE real estate in Philadelphia owned by stephen
Girard at the time of his death, and the repayment to
them OF all the surplus income this valuable prop
ery for the past twenty over and above the ex
penses of running Girard College Seven of the plain
tiffs are citizens Of France and like number reside
in this State all OF thcn being the heirsat-iaw OF
Girard.
POINTS PLAINTIFFS.
The bill filed in the alleges substantially that
the real estate in question (which is yet possession
of the citv) was under the terms Of the viii of the
estator devised the city in trust for the purposes
of charity in certain contingencies and in the event
OF the devise falling, his heirs-at-law and next OF
kim The bill declares that the contingencies which
the property could have been vested for the charity
have failed &c and that plaintiffs entitled to the
possession and account of the rents and profits
from defendants their trustee and that they
titled as next of kin. to account and decree for
the payment to them of the personal property in the
possession of the defendants. The bill further
charges that the testator in .devising residuary
phans did so for such number could be main
tained in one institution. and limited the number Of
college buildings to one of specific dimensions.
and such other buildings should be
sary for the support and maintenance Of such
a number of orphans be instructed in the
one college OF specified extent that the will directed
that no part of the Pennsylvania realty should be
Sold that the rents outside of Philadelphia should
be appropriated to the repairs of the Philadelphia
estate and To erecting buildings the residue to
be applied to the his person
atty. which was bequeathed for improving the
Delaware front. 100000 to the Com
monwealth. The remainder to be invested
and it's income to be applied every year-Frst to the
lege; second. to enable the city to provide more
eectually for security of persons and property by
9 competent police; third. to improve the city and
diminish taxation after providing for the college
as his primary object. In case the city
violated ,S any Of the provisions, the residne @
further 1t alleged that the devise to the munich
pal absolutely void against the policy OF
the law of this Cominonweat aswe as for the ndef-
niteness and uncertainty and inpossibility OF ap-
picaton and that the devise of the real estate and OF
the rents. &c, Of the colegeis unlawful and void
devise and perpetuity; that the defendants put
ting up other and further buildings for the accom-
mediation of other and further orphans beyond the
extent and limit authorized by the will notwithstand
ing that the college has been completed to the full
extent designed by the testator, and that il has
college and the yearly surplus directed to be applied
to municipal purposes belongs TO the heirs-at law
after the lawful purposes Of the college have been
fulfilled.
DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS.
To this bill the defendants demurred. that the
tracts Of the will do not purport TO be the entire WILL
such parts thereof may be material to the case
and important clauses of the will omitted. Plain
ts therefore could lawfully ask the Court to
strue the will upon the parts thus exhibited that it
appears that the bill not filed until upward Of
forty after the probate of the WILL and plaintiffs
therefore barredb by lapse Of time from maintain
ing any Of the alleged OF action;
that the bill shows the plaintiffs interpreta-
lion of the will is not the true one.
and quoted from the viii itself show The demurrer
also denied that the dcvises municipal purposes
were indefinite, &c and alleged that even were it
otherwise that plaintiffs have claim to any surplus
which might arise: that the devise of the real estate
yet out in the bill void a devise in perpetuity
vas also denied. and number Of other formal OBJ
iections were made to the allegations in the BILL
Judges Ludlow and Yerkes upon the bench
to-day Judge Ludlow announced that some years
ago he. with Mr. Cuyler had issued all the eIectmct
suits against the property IN Philadelphia to bar the
Statute of Limitatons Having been cngsged in the
he didn't know whether he ought TO sit After
discussion the Court decided to sustain the de-
nurrcr without argument, when the case could be
Immediately taken to the Supreme Court and OBJ
tained from Mr.. Brewster. representing the city, .
promise to state to the Supreme Court that the decree
merely pro forma.