The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-06-18
TRUSTEES HAVE
RIGHT TO DISPOSE
Of THE FUNDS

Judge Johnson today handed down the
opinion of the supreme court In the case
OF willard c. selleck ct al, trustees, VS..
Sarah A. Thompson. This is a bill in
! equity for the construction OF the will of
J Urania G. Sherburne, which was admit
ted TO probate by the probate court OF
Cumberland in 1s93 and for instructions
to the trustees. The testator| left an es-
tate valued at about $4,000
In the second paragraph OF her will
Mrs. sherburne recited that knowing that
her mother, Mary Ann Grant, and her
only sister. the wife OF Alexander Thomp-
son. had an abundance OF this world 5
goods OF their own, she desired TO devote
the greater portion OF her property TO
charitable purposes, and lanes Alexan-
der Thompson OF Cumberland and the
late Byron A. Andrews of Slatersville as
trustees TO take all save a very small por-
ton OF her estate I'm special trust.
The money, notes. bonds, stocks and
real estate were to make up a fund to be
known as the Grant Sherburne fund.
This name was given to perpetuate "the
name and memory OF my honored father,
whose untiring zeal and indomitable ener-
gy enables me TO create said fund, which
desire shall be lasting memorial TO
him and to the memory OF my late below
ed husband" Small gifts were made to
aunts. cousins and friends of $50 a year
for the purchase of little extras for their
comfort.
This statement is made after providing
for the small payments "and whatever
balance there shall remain OF said annual
income unexpended as aforesaid by said
trustees are hereby authorized and di-
rected to give to such charitable purposes
as they and their successors In office shall
judge will do the most real good. giving
preference TO several different objects In
stead of a few"
Mr.. Thompson and Mr.. Andrews have
both died since their appointment and
Rev. willard C. Selleck and Sarah F.
Thompson are their successors.
Judge Johnson. in the course OF the
opinion written by MIN. says The inten-
tion TO create charitable trust is clear.
The testatrix has expressed her desire to
devote the greater portion OF her property
TO charitable purposes; has given the
same to trustees; and has vested in them
the power to select the beneficiaries. Such
a gift Is sufficiently definite for judicial
cognizance and constitutes a>valid gift
to charitable uses. Substantially the
same question was decided by this court
in Pell VS.. Mercer IA r. i. 4l2. where the
court held that a bequest OF personal es-
tate In trust for such works OF religion
or benevolence as the executors of the
will after full consideration should select
was a good gift to charitable uses. This
case was followed and affirmed by Rhode
Island Hospital Trust company VS.. Olney.
The general current OF the decisions both
in this country and in England is in ac-
cord with Pell VS.. Mercer
THE corpus of the trust is 10 be kept
intact and only the income 10 be used.
The selection OF the benficiaries is by the
will vested in the trustees. II a scheme
OF distribution were required. a revision
OF the scheme would be necessary when
ever the trustees made a new selection.
This would impose a great and continuing
burden OF expense upon the fund. We
think the selection may well be left where
the testatrix has placed 1t, in the discre-
ton OF the trustees"