The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-12-31
HOSPITAL
GETS FIVE
MILLIONS
U. S. Circuit Court Sustains
VIII Of tho Late Peter Bent
Brigham, Who Died In 1877

Boston. Dec s1.-Judge Colt. in the
United States circuit court yesterday
handed down a decision which gives 10
the Peter Bent Brigham hospital nearly
IS, 100000 under the will OF the late Peter
b. Brigham He holds that the heirs at
law and next OF kin have no valid claim
TO this fund that formed the greater part
OF the estate OF Mr.. Brigham.
The hospital which receives this large
sum OF money was chartered last year
under the provisions OF the will through
which the money was given. and is for
the care of sick persons in poor circum-
stances. Although the matter has only re-
Gently come before the courts. Mr.. Brig
ham died in 1871 BY his will. however, ne
directed the executors 10 hold the estate
for rs years for purposes OF accumulation
and then TO use II for the launching OF
cies were provided for in the meantime.
the unexpended balance TO go 10 the hos
pital reduced by these annuities and lega-
cies and the accumulation during the 20
years has been considerable.
When the time came 20 charter the new
hospital and 10 turn these millions over
TO the charity for which they were in
tended. Herbert F. Brigham. one OF the
heirs at law. brought suit against the hos
pital and the executors. seeking 10 have
the provisions OF the will IN favor OF the
hospital declared void on the ground that
they coniicted with the rule OF law
against perpetuities. He also maintained
that n his first claim was not sustained
the law OF Massachusetts at the time the
gift vested did not permit a charitable
corporation OF this sort To hold property
in excess OF a million and a half. and all
above that amount should go to the heirs
at law
STATE WAIVED RIGHT.
Judge Colt decided against both OF
these claims. In regard TO the question
OF perpetuities he said in part:
THE validity Of this charitable gift
depends upon the law Of Massachusetts.
where IL appears the testator was domi-
ciled and the lands situated. Provisions
in Will directing accommodations for
charitable objects for a period longer
than allowed by the rule against per
petuitles are not invalid and win be up
held. gift I'm trust for a charity not
existing at the date OF the gift and the
beginning Of whose existence is uncer-
tain. which Is 10 take effect upon
contingency that may possibly not hap
pen within life or lives I'm being and
2l years afterward. Is valid. provided
there is no gift OF the property mean
while To or for the benefit OF any pri-
vate person or corporation.
Where the intention in favar of char
ity is absolute and the gift and con-
stitution Of that trust are imr9e dlate.
and the only thing which is postponed
or made dependent for It's execution
upon a future uncertainty is the par
ticular form or mode OF charity to which
the testator wishes the property 10 be
applied. the gift is vested and not con
tingent. II is not subject to condition
precedent. and. therefore II Is not with
in the rule against perpetuties. The rule
against perpetuties is n rule against re-
moteness. or the remote Vesting OF an
estate. and where the estate vests Inn
mediately. the rule has no applca ton"
THE charter Is contract between
the corporation and the state. The
limitation OF the amount OF property IL
may hold for the benefit Of the general
public represented by the state. and not
for the benefit Of the heirs or next OF kin,
Of the testator or any particular persons.
Any transgre ression Of the contract by the
corporation I'm accepting excessive de-
vises or bequests is an offense only
against the state. and I'm no sense an
offence against the heirs OF the testator
or his next Of kin. Such limitation is
mainly regulative and dire ctory pro-
vision. and is only impiedly prohibitory.
no penalties being attached thereto De
vises and bequests in excess OF char
tered capacity 10 hold property are void
able only. and whether they shall be
declared void or be permitted TO remain
as valid is question OF policy or ex-
pediency which the state must determine
for Itself Such a question can only be
determined in a direct proceeding orig
mated by the state through It's repre-
sentative officers, and not by any coll
lateral proceeding brought by or for the
benefit OF any individuals 10 set such
provisions aside
1T may further be observed that the
State of Massachusetts has waived any
right 20 institute proceedings TO declare
this gift void by the passage Of the act
OF Nav % 1902"