The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-11-14
VOID GIFTS TO CHARITIES.
co SAYS MISS BDsoN's WILL
ETIDED THE LAW.

One or the GHecutors, Lawyer Farsons'
Hnev tho Requests 20 the Three Were
10 ne Passed On, SO st. Johns Cathe-
drai Loses . Third or What IL Got.
A check 10 evasion OF the statutes by making
absolute gifts by will, With a secret understand
ing that the beneficiary will turn tho gifts
over to institutions to which the testator could
not lawfully give them, was applied by the
Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court yes
terday in the cnse of the will OF Miss Mary A.
Edison. She died at the ago Of 20 on Nay 90,
1890, leaving n will and three codicils made In
the month of her death. and an estate appraised
ut 81, 21O, 900. The testamenta-y papers were
drawn by Lawyer John K. Parsons.
As Miss Edison desired TO give the bulk OF
her estate to charities, and was likely to die
(as in fact she did die) within two months
after making tho will, thereby making the
charitable requests invalid under tho statute.
Lawyer Parsons had % draw n Will which
would appear 10 make such requests an aoso-
luto gift. BY the will admitted to probate
the testatrix gave q third OF her estate to her
brother, Marmont y. Edison made specific be-
Quests of Sao6, 900 10 q number Of institutions.
and left tho residue to her executors. John e.
Par sons. Charles 8. Fairchild, and John A.
Barlow. The will said:
The rest, residue. and remainder of my estate not
disposed of by my will or by any codicl, I give and
beaueath to my executors, to be divided by them
among such Incorporated religious, benevolent
and charitable societies of the city OF New YORK
and in such amounts as shall be hxed and appoint
ed by them. with the approval OF my friend. the
Rev. Or. william r. Huntington, II living.
But q codicil made absolute the bequest to
the three executors as trustees. Soon after
the death Of Miss Edison the three executors.
with the approval of DR.. HUNTINGTON, made q
=. ~ - . klirl 1f tha rnotHuA fn Tho
Cathedral of st. .-Jonn the Divine, and the two
thirds to eleven charitable institutions of this
city. Marmont b. Edison. and, after his death
his widow Ms executrix, brought and carried
on the present action 70 declare that the gifts
to the executors were under a secret trust fer
charitable uses, and therefore void under the
two months statute.
II did not appear that either Mr.. Barlow or
Mr.. Fairchild knew anything about the wishes
o. Miss Edison except what he cleaned from
the residuary clause of the will and from Mr..
Parsons after the death of Miss Edison. The
third of the residue to each was an absolute
Rtft. When examined In the matter Mr.. Bar
tow was asked why he did not keep the prop
erty, and he replied.
I'm the first place the will had not beon fully
settled; I did not know anything about IL, how
much.the property was going to be. and what
was the rest OF It. but II you ask me squarely
lhe viii I considered that was carrying out
the wishes of Miss Edison"
Wien Mr.. Fnirchild was asked the same
question he replied
II thought | would be ashamed to. / did
not think tlat was the intent OF the tesla
trix. I thought that her whole purpose was
the last clause of her will should 20 to some
benevolent objects. Failing Its going as eS-
pressed in her will, l felt that her intention
was to give this property to us to be disposed
Of ns we thought best for benevolent objects. l
did not think she intended that l should keep
any Of it for myself"
The Appellate. Division. Justice Rumsey
writing the decision. holds that the gifts Of
o third of the residue 10 Messrs: Barlow and
Fairchild were not Impressed with any trust,
and so the will stands as to those gifts. The
court decides that the will as to tho other
third impressed a trust. to which Mr.. Par
sons was a party. to devote the third to chart
table purposes. and Is invalid. In dissenting.
Justice Ingrahani says that Messrs. Barlow
and Fairchild were also parties - the trust. an
evidence of which was that they Joined IN the
deed Of gift; The decision of the court states:
1T Is perhaps unnecessary 70 say that there
Is no claim on.the part OF anybody that there
IS any actual fraudulent intent on the part of
the executor or anybody else to get possession
of the property. The aJte mpt Is simply to eva6e
well-settled rules of law which render q be-
quest void if IL should happen that they were
applied in this case. While such an intent.
which has for It's ultimate oud not private
gain. but to devote the property to charitable
yet there ane grave reasons OF public policy
why such things should not be permitted"
By the decision the deed of gift will be seri-
ously affected. for IL it stands the gifts will
have to be scaled down a third. Thnt.third
will go to the estate of Marmont Is. Edison.