The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-07-12
DECISION IS
SUSTAINED.
Appellate Court Hands Down
an Important Opinion.
WRITTEN BY JUDGE DUBOIS.
Brown University viii Retain The Land
Decided by AImlra 7. MstcaIt
HAD NOT Forfeited The DONATION.
Donors Eidenl Intent Was 10 Psrpstuste Her
Husbands Name BY a Gift Forever 10 the
University, Says The Cour.
Brown University viii Retain The Land
Decided by AImlra 7. MetcaIt
HAD NOT Forfeited THE DONATION.

The Appellate court today, handed
down an opinion in the case of Almira
F.. Pierce VS.. Brown University, on the
appeal from Judge Rogtrs' decision in
the same case. The suit was one Of
trespass and ejectment, to recover pos
session of land for breach of condition
contained in deed of gift from
plaintiffs ancestress. to the defendant,
one of two cases tried together by
agreement of parties, and heard and
decided by the court, jury trial not
having been claimed.
The land in dispute was conveyed
by Almira Il. Metcalf. now deceased. to
the defendant in October, 1884, upon
this condition, Provided. however, and
this deed is upon the express condition
that said Brown University and its
successors shall forever hold said tract
of land and devote the same exclusive
ly TO academic and scientific purposes
Uncluding the erection and mainte-
nance on said premises OF dwelling
houses for the use of the professors,
officers and servants OF said Brown
University, IL said University shall so
desire), and to the establishments and
maintenance therein of a botanical
| garden. which shall bear the name Of
| my late husband Whiting Metcalf. and
| that upon the breach OF this condition
| at any time hereafter by said Brown
| University or it's successors this deed
shall become null and void and the es-
tate hereby granted shall be forfeited
| and shall thereupon revert 10 and be
vested in the grantor. her heirs and
assigns" The plaintiff was the daugh-
4 ter of the donor.
The plaintiff claimed that the Univer-
sity had not established a botanical
| garden. There was evidence OF some
preparations made to establish such a
garden, and Judge Rogers did not
think under all the circumstances OF
the gift and after happenings the Uni
| vers1y had forfeited the property.
Judge Dubois writes the opinion OF
the appellate court on the appeal and
says: I'VE think the conclusion of Mr.
| Justice Rogers was correct. In addition
te The facts found by him. ii appears
from the testimony of Mr.. William
Goddard that Mrs. Almira t. Metcalf
entertained sentiment for the place
as the home in which she nad enjoyed
many happy years, and for long time
had cherished a desire TO convey il to
Brown university. Her intent ex-
| pressed in the deeds not merely TO give
10 brown university tract or land IL
! be devoted exclusively TO academic and
scientific purposes. and to cause TO be
| established and maintained a botanical
! garden thereon, but forever to preserve
| the land and forever To ptrpetuate the
| name of her husband. Whiting Metcalf.
| Place and person, home and husband,
were happily associated and she de-
| sired to permanently continue the as
| sociation of name and place.
The desire for perpeuation OF names
| furnishes the strongest OF motives; IL
| has caused the construction OF pyra-
| mids the erection of monuments and
memorial buildings, and perhaps one
| of the most practical methods OF ac-
| complishing such results is by con-
| Meeting a name with some charitable
| or educational object, through cor
| poration devoted to the same, likely to
endure because worthy OF enduring.
| Under the circumstances a forfeiture
should not hastily be inferred.
"A forfeiture would defeat the very
| end the donor had in view. The land
would no longer be preserved. The heir
would take Il subject TO no condition or
| restriction, and at no distant date, In
all probability, IL would be divided into
house lots and sold to different per-
sons having no interest i'm the perpetu-
| alton of the name OF Whiting Metcalf.
| which would soon cease TO be associ-
ated with the place.
me wtrial denied and Judgment rem
dered on the decision of Mr.. Justice
Rogers for the defendant for costs