The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-01-10
COURT SAYS WILL OF
CATHOLIC PRIEST
IS INVALID
Supreme / Tribunal Holds
That Bequests in Father
shanahan's Will, of Money
to Bishops for Education
Of Priests, Are Against the
Law Of 1875 Brother and
Niece Get Estate.

Nineteen decisions were filed by the
supreme court yesterday In only four
OF them We're the lower court reversed.
Chief. Justice Start affirms the rul-
ing OF the Houston county district
court in setting aside the will Of Phil
lip Shanahan, and dividing the estate,
snare and share alike, between a broth
er and niece of the deceased.
rather Shanahan was a Catholic
priest for forty years. and on his death
In March, 1900, at Caledonia, Mimi.
ne left a will setting forth, in four
paragraphs, the disposition of his prop
erty' Inc nrst paragraph provided for
MS funeral expenses. The second di-
fected the payment of $500 for masses
10 pe distributed by the executor. The
thlrd gave to Rt. Rev. Edward Fitz-
gerald, bishop of Little Rock, Ark,
or ms successor, $1,000 for the educa-
tlon OF Catholic priests. The fourth
gave to the Rt. Rev. Joseph B. Cotter.
or ms successor, for the education Of
priests in the diocese of Winona, the
residue of the estate.
Inc probate court of Houston county
appointed James C. Kelly as executor.
and admitted the will to probate, and
| ordered the distribution of the estate
Will Declared Void.
William Shanahan, a brother, Bird
get Walsh a niece, both living in Kill
kenny county, ireland, through attor-
neys, appealed to the district court
from the order of the probate court
and Judge Buckham declared the will
void and ordered the estate of $4,000
divided between the brother and niece
of the deceased.
Inc executor and those mentioned
in the will took an appeal to the SUI
preme court after a motion for a new
trial had been denied. Chief Justice
Start in his decision says:
The general question for our decis-
| ion involves a consideration of two
minor ones. -First-Are the bequests
to the bishops for the education of
priests for their respective dioceses
| gifts to them direct and absolute, or in
trust? Second-If in trust, are the
trusts forbidden by our statutes?
1T is the contention of the appel
lants that the requests were gifts to
the bishops direct and absolute; not
to them personally, but officially, to
| be used by them in their discretion
for the purposes named in the will, and
| that the use to be made of them, indi-
Gated in the will, is merely the motive
which induced the testator to make
| them, hence no trust was created by
the Will Ii the D6Qu0StS III THIS case
| mad been made to a corporation organ
| lied for the purpose for which the
| gifts were made, the education of
| young men for the priesthood, this con-
| ciuston would be correct and the cor
poration would take the requests alb
solutely as the beneficiary and not in
| trust.
Can't Dissolve An Individual.
''But it by no means follows, as coun-
| sci claims, that because a corporation
| would take such requests as bene-
| f1ciary, and not as a trustee, that leg
| aztec would so take the gifts. The diff
| ference between an Individual and a
| corporation in the case is manifest
| The corporation would be expressly
| organized and authorized by the law
! to do the work for which the requests
were made, and should it abuse it's
| franchise it could be dissolved. Not
SO in the case of an individual
1.-THE legatees in this case the bish-
ops, do not occupy any civil official
| position, nor is either a corporation,
| sole or otherwise, hence in determin-
| ing the legal effect of the will they
must be regarded as private individu-
| ais. 1t is clear from the language
used by the testator that he intended
| the requests should be used at all
| events for the purposes named. That
| the bequest named in the second par
| agraph of the will was not a direct
| gift to the executor, but was given
| in trust, is too obvious to justify any
| discussion. We therefore hold that
| all the requests in the will are gifts
| to the respective -legatees in trust and
| not to them direct.
Beneficiary Is Uncertain.
cit may be conceded that the be-
| quests were for a. charitable use. That
| all trusts, including charitable trusts
| in real estate, except as authorized in
| chapter 43, are abolished, and that
| the beneficiary of any authorized trust
may be certain or capable of being
rendered certain, or the trust is void,
is the settled law of the state. 1t is
| obvious from the mere reading of chap
! ter 43, as it now stands, that whatever
| may have been the rule previous to
| 1875, all express trusts. including char
| liable trusts in personal property, ex-
| cept as provided therein, are abolished,
| precisely as trusts in real estate.
"The trusts attempted to be created
! by this will are unlimited as to time.
| All trusts, with the possible excep-
/ ton of those authorized by the sixth
subdivision of section H., chapter 49,,
must be definite and certain as to the
| beneficiary of the trusts or capable of
being rendered certain"
| Other decisions are as follows:
Jacob Greengard, respondent, vs. Nellie
| Burton, appellant
| Sylla 5us-For reasons stated In the