The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1912-03-09

the authority Of the trustees to sell,
or as to whether title could be given,
If they now undertook to convey. 1t,
and the other two questions, appear
to assume that the trustees have all
the authority which could be bestowed
upon them, and their solicitude APP
parently arises from fear that if
they make conveyance of the prop
erty which Mrs. Pettengill placed I'M
der the trust which they are execut-
ing, the trust would be defeated, and
a forfeiture to her heirs or reSiduary
legatee result However this may be
no one of the questions propounded
directly calls for an adjudication as to
the nature and extent Of the power of
the trustees. Neither does any one of
them indirectly call for such adjudi-
cation. This latter fact follows from
the nature of the trust under which
the property is held, and the peculiar
public charitable trust, and as such
is brought within the application Of
the general principles governing trusts
of that nature, and of General Statutes
s4026.
The existence of this statute, first
enacted in 1854, renders it unnecessary
to inquire whether or not it's provts-
ions of present pertinence add any
thing to what the general principles of
equity would supply, did it not exist.
1t, at least, removes from the domain
of discussion the policy of our law, and
contains an unnhstakab1e statutory
declaration as to the permanent and
abiding character of the devotion to
the charitable use which attaches to
gifts intended for such use by the
donor
Wherever this policy prevails,
whether it be declared In statute, or
otherwise deduced, 1t is well settled
that the trust will not ordinarily be
permitted to fail through any improp-
er action on the part Of the trustees
in their administration of the trust.
There may indeed be express condi-
tions SO embodied in the instrument
creating the trust as to make manifest
the intention of the donor that for the
breach of them there shall be a for
fixture and a reversion of the fund.
But nothing which even remotely par
takes Of the character of such cOndi-
tions enters into Mrs. Pettengf1l's will.
Her provisions are all such as are re-
garded as either explanatory Of her OBJ
ject, indicative Of her purpose to
regulations for the guidance of the
trustees in the management OF the
trust. Similar provisions have been
before the courts repeatedly. and upon
several occasions before the United
States Supreme Court, and held not to
of that term, but regulations for the
guidance Of the trustees or explana~
tons Of the terms under which the do
nor intended the estate to be manag-
ed. In not a few Of these cases the
terms Of the gift were much more sug-
gestive of conditions than the present.
even going to the extent Of expressly
forbidding sale of the property,
Stanley VS.. Colt, Wall. (U. S. 119,
1856; Guild VS.. Washington Hospital. IS
u. S. Bog, 81; Jones VS.. Habersham,
107 ~. S. 174, 1873 This proposition and
Perry on Trusts, VOL 2. 9Th Ed. Sec.
IA, as follows: eff the trustees of a
charity abuse the trust, misemploy the
charity fund, or commit a breach of
the. trust, the property does not revert
to the heir or legal representative OF
the donor, unless there Is an express
condition of the gift that it shall re-
vert to the donor or his heirs, in case
the trust is abused: If a good
public charity is created by gifts upon
condition or with limitations, or by
gifts for particular purposes. or to a
certain end, the heir cannot defeat the
charity by reason Of brea CHI of the
trust or perversion Of the charity; but
the courts upon proper proceeding will
correct all abuses, and restore the
charitable gift to its original purpose.
Heirs and personal representatives OF
donor have no Beneficial interest re-
verting or accruing to themselves from
the breach or non-execution Of q trust
for a charitable USE" The following
are few of the cases which support
this statement Of the law. Vidal VS..
Girard. How. CO. So 127, 1911; Guild
vs. Washington Hospital, IS U. s. 303,
312: Sanderson VS.. White, 13 Pick.
CMass:) 32s 1893; Chaplin VS.. schoo1 Dis
trict, 35. N. H., AS. 455; Church VS..
Christian Association VS.. Kansas City,
AT Mo. 103, 126. This court has repeat
eddy recognized its underlying principle
Asylum VS.. Phoenix Bank, Conn. 172,
17S: Ilangdon VS.. Plymouth Cong So
ciety. u Conn; 11s. 19s; storrs Agri-
a42, GAS: Christ Church vs. Trustees,
81 Conn. 5H. SGT.
1t follows that no forfeiture would
result from any attempt on the part
of the trustees to ALLEVIATE the prop
erty, that neither Mrs. Pettengills
heirs nor the Burroughs Home, as re-
siduary legatee, have any right, title.
or interest In 1t to be made the sub
ject of a release or conveyance, and
that any release or conveyance by any
or all of these parties would be inef-
fectual as enlarging the title which
the trustees have, as adding to their
power to ALLEVIATE the property. or as
tempted alienation of 1t. .
This conclusion, as we have already
had occasion to observe, results from
considerations quite apart. from any
question as to the authority of the
trustees to convey, and the legal prop
riety of any attempt on their part to
do so. This question of authority,
however, is so interviewer with those
which the complaint propounds that
we ought not perhaps in fairness to ig-
more it.
Whatever authority the trustees may
in question must be derived from the
terms of Mrs. Pettengill's will Great
ing the trust OF from the resolution
of the General Assembly. Special
Laws, 1907, p. 356. It is clear that the
will gives them no such power. The
resolution purports to do so. It con-
tains other provisions, some of which
are unusual, but it's second section. in
clear and positive language, under |
takes to empower the trustees to sell, |
and to direct as to the investment of
the proceeds for the uses of the trust |
In so far as it was competent for the |
General Assembly to confer such au-
thority, It has beyond doubt here done |
so.
the United States in Stanley VS.. Colt |
5 Wall. (U. Sd 119, supported by others, |
prior and subsequent. removes from |
the field of discussion any question |
as to the existence of a power in the |
sovereignty of the State fully adequate |
to bestcw upon trustees administe ring |
a n11hlio cha ritab1e trust authority as |