The Topeka state journal., 1903-01-10
WIN 5000 ACRES
Famous De Boissiere Home Goes
to Troutman & Stone.
Supreme Court Decides They
Are Entitled to 1t.
ESTATE is VALUABLE.
Consists of Large Tract Of Land
in Franklin County.
Judge Pollock Writes ScOrch-
ing Dissenting Opinion.
ESTATE is VALUABLE.

James A. Troutman and Robert Stone
have won the famous De Boissiere case,
by which they are given the title to
over 5000 acres of fine land in Franklin
county, which was decided to the Odd
Fellows Grand lodge of Kansas for an
Odd Fellows Orphans home. The case
was decided by the supreme court to
day. after having been hung up for elev-
en- months since it was argued.
The land is said to be worth about s25
an acre and the improvements on it
cost originally about $4,000, but they are
not worth that much for general farm
/ ing purposes, so that the total value of
4 land and improvements is upwards of
S100. 900. Another suit involving the ii
tie to about $4,000 worth of personal
property has not yet been decided.
This is the second time the case has
! been decided by the supreme court. 1t
was first decided just after the supreme
court was increased to seven judges, and
the decision stood two TO five against
Troutrnan & Stone. Then G. c. Clemens
was employed to assist in it and a mo-
ton for a rehearing was made which
was granted, and the case was again
argued in February of last year Since
that time the decision has been hung
up, as the court was divided. 1t now
stands four to three. Pollock. Cunning
ham and Rurch dissenting.
The decision hung on whether or not
the Odd Fellows orphans home is a
public charity. It was finally decided
that it is not The court says in its
syllabus:
An instrument Of writing purporting 3
to convey lands to trustees and their
successors in perpetual trust to provide
a home and school for the maintenance
/ ana education of the children of the de
ceased members of a secret society, IS
not a gift for purposes OF a nublic char
ity, and is void against the rule pro-
/ hibiting perpetuities Of title in real
estate
Justice Pollock is very vehement in
the adverse view of the case, and IN
closing his dissenting opinion he uses
the following rather strong language.
After thorough examination OF
many Of the multitude of decisions and
pTecedents governing this case, it is to
my mind ineomprehensible and inexplic-
able why this most noble gift TO d
= worthy charity has been stricken down
in the house of its friends. The reasons
given for SO doing neither convince the
mind nor excuse the act. We had q
wealth Of learning to guide our foot
steps The mistake is irretrievablc-
Men of large wealth and benevolent
minds viii in future shun the state as
they would pestilence. No self
respecting court, unless compelled there
to by law, will follow the decision made
No lawyer will cite it unless in suppols
of a doubtful or desperate case. Its emf
accomplished, it should retire to the
oblivion to which it belongs. The or
phans in their poverty and their rags
vii say of it 'anathema, naranatha.' ="
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
Ernest Naleton Boissiere was a
F'renchman who came to America many
years ago and in 1870 purchased about
1000 acres Of land about IS miles south
west of Ottawa, in Franklin county. He
was philanthroDist, and in 1892 he
made a will deciding over 8 100 acres OF
the best of the land to a board of trus-
tees to be used as a home and school for
the orphans of Odd Fellows. This prop
erty was all fenced and well improved
Trouble arose between the Odd Fellows
grand lodge and the trustees because
the latter had formed a close corpora
ton and could control the property in
+ dependent Of the grand lodge. As a re-
suit the lodge finally refused to longer
support it. and it was not used for the
4 purpose for which De Boissiere had be
Gueathed it.
Madam Martine1li a sister Of De Bois-
siere in France, and his only surviving
I heir, brought suit through Troutman &
! Stone to recover the title to the property.
and eventually they purchased her claim
to 1t. she giving them cult claim deed.
The first trial was held in September.
1898, III Ottawa before Judge Riggs. but
the decision III the case was not given for
a whole year. Then it was appealed to
! the supreme court and it was decided
against Troutman & Stone by vote Of
| five to two. but a rehearing was secured.
! the decision from that hearing is just
/ giEpn today