The San Francisco call., 1896-06-06
An Oakland Hospital and Bow
doin College the Principal
Benefciaries.
VAIN EFFORT OF TWO NEPHEws
The Eccentric Oakland Widows
Wishes to Be Carried Out.
She Was of Sound Mind.

The famous GarceIon trust was declared
valid by Judge Hawley yesterday. The
decision covers fifty closely typewriter
pages, every detail of the case being care.
fully gone into and sifted to the bottom.
The litigation involved 81, 1,250,0OO, the
principal losers being James P. and Fred
erick a. Merritt, nephews of the late Dr..
Merritt of Oakland. Mrs. Garcelon, as
the sister of the latter, inherited his prop
erty and at the time of her death, Decem-
Der, 1891, was considered the richest wo-
man in Oakland. She decided Bowdoin
College $4,000 and also put aside $780,,
600 to found hospital in Oakland. The
relations of the deceased sought to annul
the deeds on three grounds; first that it was
created TO evade the State statute permit
ting only one-third of an estate to be given
to charity by will; second, that Mrs. Garce-
lon was not in her right mind when the
trust was created; third, that she was un-
duly influence by the trustees, John A.
Stanley and Stephen w. Purrington.
Judge Hawley consumed two hours in
delivering the opinion, which is in part as
follows:
The main question for decision was whether
q decree should be given against James 2.
Merritt, Catherine NJ. GarcelOn, next of kin; !;
against Harry P Merritt, her residuary devisee
and legatee, and against George W. Reed, her
administrator, decle ring valid deed OF real
estate of the value OF $3.50, 600, and convey
600.
To arrive at a proper solution of this ques-
ton it will be necessary, among other things,
to determine, first, whether the conveyances
were executed in violation OF section 1913 of
the Civil Code OF California, which makes void
any attempt of q person TO give by will more
than one-third of his estate to charitable pur
poses; second, whether Catherine NJ. Garcelon
4 >, aT4r a1Nar.r
character and extent of her property and to
make the conveyance; third whether the
cOnveyances were obtained from her by undue
influence or fraud.
1t viii become necessary in reviewing the
questions of fact to consider all the circum-
stances and surroundings of the respective
parties. The testimony OF the witnesses covered
q wide range and opened a broad field for the
study of human nature in all OF its phases and
essential characteristics. The reasons for the
conclusions reached by the court cannot very
well be crystGlliZed by brevity of expression
into the limited space of an ordinary judicial
opinion. Many OF the minor details of the evil
dence will not be noticed at all Others will
only be generally stated. 1t will, however, be
essential 10 refer in review upon the most
important questions to the lives, history and
character OF some of the persons who figure so
prominently in the transactions involved in
this litigation.
1t is proper to state that the wit
nesses were as rule, intelligent many of
them being people of extensive business expe-
rience and knowledge, men and women of
prOD1ty ana Strength OF character. Many OF
them were the relatives or the close friends of
the family of DR.. Merritt or Mrs. Gsrcelon and
frequent visitors at their home Their char
acter and credibility, with TWO or three eXcep-
tions, were unimpeached and stand unques-
toned. Many of the witnesses who appeared
on behalf OF he'defendants were more or less,
in personal feeling at least, interested in the
result OF this litigation. Several OF them had
not received much from Mrs. Garcelon as
they expected. Some of the witnesses who ap-
peared on behalf OF the complainants were
also benefciaries in the trust and were salts
fed with what they had received and felt
grateful for the kind remembrances Of Mrs.
Garcelon. The interested feeling of many of
the witnesses was plainly diseernible by the
court, and in several instances human nature
plainly manifested itself.
Judge Hawley here read section 1913 of
the Civil Code of California, after which
he continued:
The defendants contention is that doeu-
ments in question were ambulatory, reYocable
at the will and pleasure of Mrs. Garcelon dur
ing her life, and that it not intended they
should take effect SO far as she was concerned,
until after her death, and that these condi.
tions make the document a viii and not a
deed. The statute in question does
not apply to every disposition of property il
is evident from a careful reading OF its provi-
sions that it is limited in its application to
"devises or bequests" of property by will. Il
does not apply to deeds. Every person having
the mental capacity and being free from debts
and personal obligations, has the unques
toned right to convey, and dispose OF his
so doing cannot be set aside If the transaction
is free from fraud and undue influence.
The court then reviewed the contention
of the defendants that the intention of the
parties was to make will, and that the
documents were put into the form of a
trust deed for the express purpose OF
eVadIng section 1913. This argument was
sought to be upheld on the grounds,
among others, that Mrs. Garcelon after the
signing OF the papers continued through
her agent to manage the property, and al
all times treated it as her own, and that
she often spoke of the documents in ques-
tion as her will. Judge HawIey held that
the document in question was deed, and
had been delivered to the trustees as such.
1t was claimed by the complainants that
the deed of trust only contained q limited
power Of revocation. He continued:
Conceding, for the purposes of this opinion
that the revocation does apply to the charities
II does not destroy the character OF the docu
ment as a deed, for no revocation was ever
made. II is true that Mrs. Garcelon's
idea at the inception was to make a will
but when the matter was fully explained tC
her she directed that the disposition of hel
property should be made by deed. It is also
true that Mrs Gareelon during her life time
spoke of the trust papers as her will.
My conclusion is that the instruments were TO
executed in fraud or in violation of the
statutes That the disposition OF the property
for Charitable purposes was by deed, which il
not prohibited by any OF the provisions of the
code.
Judge Hawley held that while Mrs. Gar
celon was weak physically, she was O
sound mind aid perfectly capable of max
ing the conveyance in question. The cour
referred to Stephen w. Purrlngton as
''crusty, penurious old bachelor. a
trusted friend and an honest man."
In order, Judge Hawley reviewed the
different characters in the great contest
closing his decision as follows:
She fully understood their contents and he
execution OF them was her own free and youn
tary act. 1t was her deed. Her declaration o
trust. In all things she meant to d.
right She did her best. Who, under the cir
cumstances, even in perfect health, could hav,
done better?
Complainants are entitled to decree agains
all OF the defendants and to recover cost
against all except as to the defendants who il
their answers disclaimed having any interes
herein, and Frederick A. Merritt.