The Saint Paul globe., 1904-10-29

4 The gift of Mrs Wilder the court
then holds, is valid under the laws
OF the state as they existed prior to
the attempted amendment in 1909
winch is now declared unconstitutional.
! The court says that the gift is to p.
corporation, authorized by law, whose
] corporate powers are to be the accent
ance and administration of the gift
for the purposes for which it is made.
and on these grounds the gift is valid.
Inc gilt was made to corporation, as
owner, rather than as trustee. On this
point which is the important point in
/ the case, Chief Justice Start said:
Chief Justice Starts Opinion
/ Was her gift made to the corporation
as owner or IN trust?
Th1s question is to be answered by
reading and considering together the pro-
/ VISIONS OF the will as to the residue of
! her estate as related, parts of a scheme
! for founding noble charity for the re-
lief of the poer of her city. So reading
4 and considering it. we have no difficulty
/ IN discovering her intention 1t is clear
| tnat her primary purpose was to effectu-
ally devote large part of her fortune
for the practical relief of the worthy poor
and to make certain that such purpose
should not be defeated by any unforeseen
contingencies, such as possibility of some
| of her directions to details of the
scheme being held invalid.
The basis of the scheme was the forma-
! tlon OF corporation to own the fund
and administer the charity She accord
| ingly directs the forma ton of such a
corporation. and by the twentieth and
| twenty-sixth subdivisions of her will she
| gives the residue of her estate to it and
/ to its successors and assigns forever; and
| further provides that such property (and
| the will must be construed to that end)
| shall be possessed, owned, used and ap-
| piled by the corporation, free from any
/ prohibited trust feature, to furnish
through legal corporate action relief for
| the worthy poor Again in the first
| codicfl to her will the ownership of the
property is given to the corporation and
| Its successors free of any and every pro-
| hibited trust.
! These provisions clearly indicate that
| she intended that any directions in her
| will as to the details of the administration
of the fund which might be found to be
| invalid or inconsistent with her purpose,
/ to vest in the corporation as owner, the
/ residue of her estate to be used for it's
| corporate work of furnishing relief to
/ the worthy poor, should be treated as
suggestions and subordinate to such pur-
! pose.
| Doesn't Create Trust
| Discussing the alleged trust features
raised by the heirs, including a life
annuity, maintenance of lots in Oak
/ land cemetery and for maintenance for
rooms and beds in ST. Lukes hospital,
| the court says:
| We are of the opinion and so hold that
| the provisions of the will as to this first
4 class do not create any trust within the
| generally accepted meaning of the term.
| 1t may be conceded for the purposes of
| this case that the provisions of the will
as to the third class, those relating to the
care of the cemetery lots, are void, but
! it by no means follows from this conces-
| sion that the will is invalid as to any part
| of the residue of the estate, for effect must
! be given to the repeated and clear direc-
| ton of the teStatriX, to the effect that
| such residue shall vest in the corporation
| free from any trust features of the will
| which may be invalid.
| The legal effect of such direction is to
| make the gift in the alternative as to
any such trust features; that is if they
| are valid, the gift is subject to the trusts,
but if they are not, then the gift vests abb
| solutely in the corporation, free from
| such invalid trusts.
Such alternative gifts are valid.
! This construction does not render the
will void for uncertainty, because within
/ the purview of the law there can be no
/ uncertainty as to what provisions of the
will are invalid. If such there be, the law
| will identify them and give effect to the ex-
pressed intention of the testatriX to vest
/ the residue of her estate in the corpora
| ton precisely as it would if they had not
| been made,
Court Finds No Evasion
Speaking of the question of evasion,
! that the construction of the will as
making an absolute gift to the cor
poration is an evasion of the spirit Of
! The law expressly authorizes and i'm
vites the organization of corporations to
| take by gift otherwise any property as
| the legal and beneficial owner thereof for
| the purposes of its corporate work of re-
| lieving the poor on such conditions and
| limitations as the donor may impose. But
| the law for good reasons forbids the crea-
! ton of trusts whereby the legal title only
of property may be vested in person or
| corporation as trustee for the use and
benefit of the worthy poor any other in
| definite class as the beneficial owners
| thereof.
| Now, because the legislature has thus
| ordained that such charitable gifts shall
be vested In corporations organized for
such purposes, as absolute owners, how
| can it in reason be claimed that the tes-
| tatriX in this case intended an evasion
| of the laws when she did that which the
| law required her to do if she would
make her gift effective. We have at
| tentively considered this claim of the ap-
pellants that this will is an evasion Of
| the law, and the authorities cited in sup
port of it. We have reached the con-
c1usion that the claim is without merit,
and we hold the will of Mrs. Wilder to be
valid
| The syllabus follows:
The Syllabus
! Victor M. Watkins, Chas. L. Spencer and
Charles N Bell, as executors of the last
will of Fanny n. Wilder, deceased, re-
Spondents, VS.. Charles II. lBigeloW ct AL,
defendants; Henry D. Spencer, John S.
Spencer ct al, appellants.
Victor M watkins and Chas. N Bell. as
surviving trustees under the last will Of
Amherst H. Wilder, deceased, respond
ents, VS.. Chas. Fl. Bigelow ct al, de-
PENDANTS; Henry D. Spencer, John s.
Spencer ct al, appellants.
1. If the title to a statute be re-
Strictive one, carving out for conSidera-
ton part only of a general subject, leg
islation under such title must be con-
fined within the same limits. All pro-
visions of an act outside of such limits
are unconstitutional, even though they
might have been included in the act uTl-
der broader title
2. Rule applied and held that chapter
1872, Laws of 1903, relating to trusts is
ter of the act is not expressed in its
title.
g. gift by deed, devise or bequest to
an existing corporation to to be
thereafter organized within the time linn
tied by law with directions or conditions
as to the use or management of the SUBJ
ject matter of the gift which are rea-
sonably consistent with the corporate pur-
poses of the donee is not a gift in trust,
within the meaning of our statute of uses
and trusts
A. Chapter 16S. Laws 1903. relating to
the organization of corpora tionS to admin
lister and furnish relief and charity for
the worthy poor does not authorize such
corporation to take property by gift to
hold in trust for purposes not otherwise
authorize the corporation to take as own
er by gift any property, subject to such
conditions and limitations are not in
consistent with it's corporate purposes, as
the donor may impose.
5. The will here in controversy is valid