The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-12
SEMINARY IN THE WRONG.
,,rsr RETURN TO ITS THEOLOGICAL
LLUMNI A S25, 400 FUND.

- ,,e Fuud on Certain Conditions.
-,,cs the Court FiHds Have Net Bees Az
$3.50 to-A la,sie sermon from Justice MO-
I.urhiin on Honesty nnd Fnir DesiinE.
controversy between the General Theo-
,..oi seminary Of the Protestant Episcopal
-, of The United States Of America and
~ A.sociato Alumni Of the seminary over o
-, rbicb IN 1893 amounted to R25,40O, the
...o,,,to division OF the Supreme Court has
s,r.o,od the seminary to return the fund to the
.,,r,ri assoc Iation. The fund Is linked in the
s..,.,or with n history OF the institution, which
-. founded in 1922, for the education OF stu
at. Tor the ministry. In 1882 the alumni as
.ocintion was formed to promote interest in the
.smIrorv In 1886 IL decided to collect q fund
to establish a professorship In theology at the
,ns,i,r,ion 10 DO known as ''the professorship OF
na,toral theology and public eloquence." Sub
s.ouently such a professionally was established
nv nriyatc endowment, and in 1883, as the FUNDS
among the alumni had accumulated to $25.4o0.
n was decided to stablish q professorship or
The evidences Of revealed religion.
Tn that year the fund was turned over to the
institution under certain provisions. the main
onos OF which were that the alumni should
name the professor and that the term OF the pro.
fsssorship should be three years. Difficulty
arose over the limitations Of tho gift. DR.. Hop
Tins, who had been named by, the alcmni for
tbe nrofcssorship,:was rejected by the seminary,
and The alumni then named DR.. Cady, who was
accented by the seminary. pr. Cady was re-
named nj the expiration Of the term, but the
aeminary refused to act on the, name, averrinR
that Il had been agreed that the professorship
should be permanent AMI that the incu hbent
should be named by the institution.
Tho matter came before the courts on the
c,aim OF the alumni that thore had been o
Breach of the trust on the part Of the seminary.
The seminary set up that Tho present incorpo.
rated alumni'association.is not the successor OF
Tho voluntary association. which started, tho
fund and that the terms oil. the trust had been
modified In the ways stated.
Thea ppcllate Division. in an opinion by JUS
tice McLauph him. says that there was no change
IN The conditions Of the trust, and further:
Honesty and fair dealing require, when ono
person receives property from another under an
agreement that he will do something with It,
thai he should do as he agreed or else return the
nroperty to the one from whom he received II.
fhe fnnd was offered to defendant by the asso-
citation ON certain conditions. Tho defendant
IN order to receive the fund assented to these
conditions and agreed to be bound by them.
II cannot now be heard to say that the %associa:
tion had no title to or interest in this fund. III
II desired to make such claim IL should have
done so when the fund was offered and not
after IL had obtained possession OF it."
The court says that as the matter came DO.
fore the court on agreed facts II will not direct
A specihc performance, but will place the par
ties in their original position by directing that
the seminary turn over the fund to the alumni
with the accumulations Of interest.