The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-08-23


card, a woman OF as, joined, in 1871, Prot
sstant organization known as THE Sisters
of the Poor" the rules of which required {
sister to give up all her property, eithel
10 the organization or to the poor, or to hel
relatives; to regard the voice Of her Supe
rior as the voice Of God; and not to seek ad
| vice OF any extern without the Superior
leave. Within few days after becoming q
member Miss Aboard made will leaving
all her property to Miss Skinner, the Lady
| Superior. and from time to time. while still
member of the sisterhood, she made over
to Miss Skinner cheques and stocks valued
at more than S95, 600, the greater part oil
which was spent for the purposes Of the sis
terhood. In 1879 Miss Alcard left the sis
terhood. and forthwith revoked her will
but made no claim for the return OF her
property until 1886, when she brought suit
for its recovery The case was deliberately
argued by Sir Charles Russell for the plain
tiff, and by Sir Edward Clarke for the de-
PENDANT. At the original hearing before
Justice Kekewich, the Court held that be-
cause, at the time when she made the gifts,
she was subject TO undue influence, Miss
Aboard would have been entitled. on leav-
ing the sisterhood, to claim restitution OF
such of her property as was still In the
hands OF Miss Skinner; but IL was further
decided by this Judge, and, in the Court Of
Appeals by Lords Justices Lindley and
Bowen (Lord Justice Cotton dissenting),
that under the circumstances Of the case
the plaintiffs claim was barred by her
laohes and acquiescence during the six
years that had elapsed since her withdrawal
from the sisterhood. In the passage wa
are about to quote, Lord Bowen sets forth
the reasons for holding that in 1879 when
the plaintiff left the sisterhood. she might
while member.
Lord Bowen began by declaring it to be OF
essential importance to keep quite distinct
two things which, in their nature, seemed
TO him to he different TO wit the rights Of
donor on the one hand, and on the other. the
duties of the donee. and the obligations i'm
posed upon the conscience of the donee by
the principles of equity, AS to the rights
OF the donor, in a case like the present. l
entertain no doubt. II seems to me that
even persons who are under the most COM
plete influence Of religious feeling are per-
feotly free 70 act upon that feeling in the
disposition of their property. and not the
less free because they are enthusiasts Per-
sons OF this kind are not dead In law. They
are dead to the world. 80 far as their own
wishes and feelings about the things Of the
world are concerned, but such indifference
to things external does not prevent them
in law, from being free agents In the
present instance, there was no duress, no
incompetence, no want of mental power
on the part of the donor. 1t seems to me
that. 30 far as regards her rights, she had
the absolute right TO deal with her property
IA she chose"
Passing next 10 the duties of the donsc,
Lord Bowen held that although the power
OF perfect disposition remains in the donor
under circumstances like the present, it is
plain that equity will not allow a person who
exercises or enjoys dominant religious
influence over another to benefit directly or
indirectly by the gifts which the donor
makes under or in consequence of such in
fiuence, nnieas II is shown that the donor,
at the time OF making the gift, was allowed
full and free opportunity for counsel and
advice outsidethe means of considering
his or her worldly position, and exercs ing
an independent will about It. This il not
placed on the action of the donor;
IL Is fetter placed upon the conscience OF
the recipient Of the gift, and one which
arises out Of public policy and fair play"
Such being the rule of equity, Lord Bowen
proceeds 10 inquire whether the plaintiff in
the case before him was entitled TO the bene-
TT Of IL, not having had full and free oppor-
tunity for outside advice AShe had vowed
in the most sacred and solemn way. absolute
and implicit obedience to the will of the
defendant, her Superior and she was also
bound by her VOW altogether TO neglect the
advice Of eSterns-not TO consuls persons
outside the convent Now offer no sort of
on institutions of this sort; no kind
enter them or Of those who administer them. |
In the abstract, respect their motives, but |
II in obvious that it is exactly to this class of
cases that the rule Of equity which have
ought to he applied II it exists. |
1t seems to me that the plaintiff. so long as
she was fettered by this vow so long as she |
was under the dominant influence Of this |
religious feeling-was a person entitled |
10 the protection Of the rule" Lastly. the |.
question ia considered, Was the defendant |
bound by this rule Of equity? "Iacquit her !
most entirely Of all selfsh feeli ing in the |
matter l can see no sort of wrongful !
desire 10 appropriate to herself any worldly |
benefit from the gift; but. ncrertheless, she |
~as person who benefited by 1t, 80 far a. |
he disposition of the property was con-
,erned, although, no doubt, she meant to
lse it in conformity with the rules of the
and did 80 use it," The con-
huston reached was For these reasons,
think that. without any interference with
he freedom OF persons to deal with their
property az they please, we can hold but one
'pinion-that in 1879 the plaintiff could
lave set this gift aside As We have said.
,owever, Lord Bowen held that the plaintiff
rad lost her right by non-user during the six
,ears which had elapsed since she left the
,isterhood,
v.
Concerning John Marshall, who. like
Grskine. was an officer in the army before
he was admitted 10 the bar, the fact il re-
allied that, when he became Chief Justice
# the United States Supreme Court, only
tx decisions had been rendered on Con-
titutional questions by that tribunal.
Not only were the Federal Constitution
md the laws enacted under it in their in
ancy. but an absolutely new question in
POLITICAL science was presented. the q,les-