Case Name: Old Ladies Home Ass'n v. Grubbs' Estate
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1940-12-23
Citations: 191 Miss. 250
Docket Number: No. 34384
Parties: Old Ladies Home Ass’n v. Grubbs’ Estate.
Judges: Griffith, J., concurs in this opinion.
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 191
Pages: 250–272

Head Matter:
Old Ladies Home Ass’n v. Grubbs’ Estate.
(In Banc.
Dec. 23, 1940.
Suggestion of Error Overruled May 26, 1941.)
[199 So. 287.
No. 34384.]
W. H. Watkins, Lyell & Lyell, and Green & Green, all of Jackson, and JohnB. Brunini, of Vicksburg, for appellant.
Thomas Mitchell, of Magnolia, for appellee.
Green & Green, of Jackson, for appellant, on suggestion of error.

Opinion:
McGehee, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This appeal involves the construction of Sections 269 and 270 of the Constitution of 1890, as applied to certain devises of'real estate and money, respectively, made to the Old Ladies' Home in Jackson, Mississippi. From a decree which held that both of such devises were void, the appeal here was taken by the Old Ladies' Home Association, a corporation under the laws of this State, duly chartered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 25, Section 83"2 et seq., Code of 1892, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a home for aged and destitute women in the State of Mississippi.
The cause originated in the court below on petition of the executor of the last will and testament of Mrs. Quinnie Varnado Grubbs, who died at Osyka, Mississippi,, on August 8, 1938, wherein a construction of the will was sought to determine whether it violated the sections of the Constitution here involved in that it provided (1) that "the house and lot now owned by me in the Town of Osyka shall be given to the Old Ladies ' Home in Jackson, Mississippi;" and (2) that "any monies remaining after all expenses shall have been met shall likewise go to the Old Ladies' Home in Jackson, Mississippi." The expenses referred to related to minor items mentioned in the will and the expenses of the administration of the estate. A pleading was then filed by the appellant, the Old Ladies' Home Association, setting forth the reasons for its contention that these devises should be upheld. Thereupon, a demurrer was sustained to this pleading, the effect of which action was to hold that the gift of the real estate violated Section 269 and that the gift of the money was in violation of Section 270 of the Constitution of 1890.
Section 269 of the Constitution provides, among other things, that: "Every devise or bequest of lands, . . . contained in any last will and testament, . in favor of any religious or ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or any religious or ecclesiastical society, or to any religious denomination or association of persons, or to any person or body politic, in trust, either express or implied, secret or resulting, either for the use and benefit of such religious corporation, society, denomination, or association, or for the purpose of being given or appropriated to charitable uses or purposes, shall be null and void, . . ." The appellant, the Old Ladies' Home Association, is a body politic within the meaning of this section of the Constitution, and the land in question was given to be appropriated to a charitable use or purpose. Therefore, the remaining question to be decided is whether the devise of the land was in trust, either express or implied.
In the case of Blackbourn v. Tucker et al., 72 Miss. 735, 17 So. 737, wherein A. L. Blackbourn, after some small bequests to his wife, devised and bequeathed the remainder of his estate, real and personal, to the Senatobia Educational Association, to be applied "in maintaining and keeping in a prosperous condition that institution of learning owned by said association, and known as the 'Blackbourn College for Girls,' in Senatobia, Mississippi, or in both maintaining said college and erecting such additional and suitable buildings to said college as their judgment may dictate, having always in view the best interest of said institution," it was held that the bequests of the real estate was void under Section 2691 of the Constitution, and that the devise of the personal property was valid under Section 270 thereof. The basis on which the distinction was made was that the first section prohibited a devise of land in trust for charitable use, not only to any religious or ecclesiastical corporation, religious or ecclesiastical association, or any religious denomination or association of persons, but also to any person or body politic, and that the latter section only prohibited a legacy, gift or bequest of money, or other personal property, in favor of any religious or ecclesiastical corporation, religious or ecclesiastical society, or to any religious denomination or association, for such purposes, and not those in favor of any body politic other than religious or ecclesiastical corporations, societies or associations.
The decision in the Blackbourn case is therefore controlling here to uphold the gift of the testatrix in the case at bar as to the gift of any money to the Old Ladies' Home which should remain after the payment of the expenses referred to, on the ground that the said Home is not a religious or ecclesiastical corporation, society or association; and it is also controlling to defeat the devise of the land on the ground that Section 269 prohibits such a devise to any body politic, in trust, either express or implied, for the purpose of being given or appropriated for charitable uses or purposes, for the reason that while the testatrix did not expressly provide in her will that the land, or the proceeds from any disposition thereof, should be devoted to the promotion of the comfort and welfare of the inmates of the Old Ladies ' Home, such an intention and purpose is clearly to be implied. It is stated in Best., Trusts, Paragraph 24, Subsection 2, that "No particular form of words or conduct is necessary for the manifestation of intention to create a trust." Also see Greely v. Houston, 148 Miss. 799, 114 So. 740.
Chapter 25, Code'of Mississippi in 1892, under which the Old Ladies' Home Association was first organized and chartered as the Best Haven Home Association, the name of which was later changed to the Old Ladies ' Home Association by amendment of the charter, authorized the corporation to hold such real estate as might be necessary and proper for its purposes, not exceeding $250,000 in value. The house and lot here involved is located more than one hundred miles from the Old Ladies' Home in Jackson, Mississippi, and the only reasonable conclusion is that it was within the contemplation of the testatrix that the property would have to be sold or leased at a rental in order for the inmates of the home to receive any benefit from the gift, and we think that it necessarily follows that this corporation, which was chartered for purely benevolent purposes, as recited in its charter of incorporation, could not receive the property within the intent and purpose of the will' other than in trust, and under an implied obligation to appropriate it to the charitable purpose of promoting the comfort and welfare of the inmates of the Old Ladies' Home, and for that purpose alone. In other words, we are of the opinion that while no trust is expressly created by the terms of the will in the instant case, as was done by the testator in the Blackbourn case when he provided that his real estate should be applied by the Senatobia Educational Association "in maintaining and keeping in a prosperous condition that institution of learning owned by said association, and known as the 'Blackbourn College for Girls,' in Senatobia, Mississippi . . .," nevertheless, a similar intention on the part of the testatrix is implied in the case at bar, that is to say, that the property here involved should be applied in maintaining the Old Ladies ' Home for the benefit of those intended to receive this bounty, "having always in view the best interest of said institution" as was expressly stated by Blackbourn in his will. If this construction of the will here involved is correct, then it follows from the decision in the Blackbourn case that the devise of the land clearly violates Section 269 of the Constitution of 1890, which was not repealed by constitutional amendment until after the death of the testatrix herein on August 8, 1938. It máy be a rather anomalous situation that at the time of the execution of this will the State was contributing by legislative appropriation the sum of $2,500 per year for the support of the Old Ladies' Home at Jackson, while one of its citizens was prohibited by the Constitution from making a gift of land to be devoted to the same purpose. Nevertheless, the Constitution then prohibited such a devise of land by will, and it is the duty of the court to enforce its mandate.
The decision of the court is therefore affirmed as to the invalidity of the devise of the real estate mentioned in the will, and is reversed and remanded wherein it held invalid the bequest of the money.
• Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
On Suggestion oe Error.
McGehee, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court on suggestion of error.
We adhere to the former opinion rendered in this case, whereby the bequest of money made by the testatrix, Mrs. Grubbs, to the Old Ladies' Home in Jackson, Mississippi, was upheld as a valid gift under section 270 of the Constitution, and whereby the devise of her house and lot, owned by her in the town of Osyka, Mississippi, to the Old Ladies '. Home was declared void, as being in violation of section 269 of the Constitution, which prohibits such a devise, not only in favor of any religious or ecclesiastical corporation, society, denomination or association of persons, but also to any person or body politic in trust, either express or implied, for the purpose of being appropriated to a charitable use or purpose.
It is again urged that since the devise of this real estate was direct to the Old Ladies' Home Association, a- corporation- chartered "to establish and maintain a home for aged and destitute women in the state of Mississippi," it was not a devise in trust, either express or implied, for the purpose of being appropriated to a charitable use or purpose, as prohibited by the constitutional provision in question.
In the former opinion we undertook to analyze and apply to the fact in this case the decision of Blackbourn v. Tucker et al., 72 Miss. 735, 17 So. 737, wherein Blackbourn bequeathed his real estate to the Senatobia Educational Association under an express provision that it was to be devoted to the purpose of "maintaining and keeping in a prosperous condition that institution of learning owned by said association, and known as the "Blackbourn College for Girls," in Senatobia, Mississippi,' " and we undertook to show that in the case at bar the testatrix bequeathed her real estate to the Old Ladies' Home, in Jackson, Mississippi, alleged to be owned by the Old Ladies ' Home Association, the body politic hereinbefore mentioned, under an implied provision in her will that this property was to be devoted to the purpose of promoting the comfort and welfare of the inmates of the said Old Ladies ' Home, which was likewise for a purely charitable purpose. Looking to the substance, rather than to the form, of these two devises, they are identical in principle. Mrs. Grubbs has clearly intended that her property should be appropriated to the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Old Ladies' Home as if she had expressly so declared. For aught that appears in the record before us, she may not even have known that there was such a corporation as the Old Ladies ' Home Association. She did know that the Old Ladies' Home at Jackson was undertaking to minister to the needs and comfort of aged and destitute women in Mississippi, and it is manifest that these were the objects of her bounty when she wrote her will in her own hand. The gift is not to the corporation for the benefit of its non-stockholding members, who pay a fee of $1 each for membership therein and operate the institution through a board of directors as a public charity; nor was there any intention to vest the title in the corporation for general purposes, since it has only one corporate function to perform under its charter, and can claim the property for no other purpose than that of appropriating it for benevolence, under its charter from the State.
Moreover, in our opinion the prohibition of section 260' of the Constitution, which was not repealed until after the will in question became effective, was not merely intended to prevent property from being devised so as to create a trust in a strict technical sense, but it rendered invalid any such devise to any corporation, society, denomination, association, person or body politic enumerated therein, where such devise is to be accepted under an obligation, either express or implied, to appropriate the same to a charitable use or purpose. An implied trust is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (3 Ed.), 1260, as "A trust raised or created by implication of law; a trust implied or presumed from circumstances."
In Best. Trusts, section 1, under subsection c, it is said: ' 'Although many of the rules applicable to private trusts are also applied to charitable trusts, other rules applicable to private trusts are not applied to charitable trusts, and there are rules applicable to charitable trusts which are not applied to private trusts. The fundamental distinction between private trusts and charitable trusts is that, in the case of a private trust, property is devoted to the use of specified persons who are designated as beneficiaries of the trust; whereas, in the case of a charitable trust, property is devoted to purposes beneficial to the community. The rules applicable to charitable trusts are stated in sections 348-403."
In Best. Trusts, section '307, subsection f, it is stated that, "If the owner of property devises or bequeaths it for charitable purposes, and not only does not name a trustee, but also does not use language indicating that the property is to be held upon trust, nevertheless a charitable trust will be created."
Again, in Best. Trusts, section 2, subsection i, it is said, "A trust can be created, or having been created can continue, although for the time being there is no trustee. Thus, if the owner of property devises or bequeaths it in trust, a trust may arise although no trustee is named in the will or the person named as trustee is dead or otherwise incapable of taking title to the property."
If the mere fact that the devise of the real estate in the present case was direct to the corporation, instead of to it for the express or implied benefit of the home, would remove it from the contemplation of section 269 of the Constitution, then it would necessarily follow that the denominational colleges in this State have been under an erroneous impression for many years as to their right to accept devises of real estate in their corporate capacities, under the terms of a will; and that there was, in reality, no need for the recent repeal of this constitutional provision. These institutions, and our religious and ecclesiastical denominations could all have acquired such real estate as may have been devised to them, if they had only adopted the expedient of letting the devise be made directly to the college or to a religious or ecclesiastical body, as the case may be, as a corporate entity, without naming the true capacity in which it may have taken the title — in trust, to be used for the purpose intended.
In Blackbourn v. Tucker, supra, it is stated, "Manifestly, the purpose of the constitution is to prevent one who will not be charitable at his own expense from being so at the expense of his heirs at law." If this be the philosophy of the provision against alienation of lands in mortmain, then the same reason would apply for holding void a devise by will direct to a body politic, when it is apparent that the testator intended that the devisee should appropriate it to charitable purposes, as would exist if the devise were made to a named devisee for the express benefit of another. On the other hand, if it be said that the purpose of the provision was merely to prevent the accumulation of land in the corporations, societies, denominations, associations or persons and bodies politic, enumerated in the Constitution, for the purpose of being appropriated to charitable uses and purposes, then this purpose would be defeated by upholding a devise made direct to either for that implied purpose, although it would be admittedly void if made to either of them for the express purpose of being appropriated to some particular charitable use or purpose.
As to whether the prevention of the accumulation of lands for the purposes mentioned was the dominant idea, it is significant to note that section 269' of the Constitution likewise, and with equal emphasis, prohibits a devise or bequest of any money directed in a will to be raised by the sale of land. Therefore, we come back to the proposition that the framers of the Constitution undertook to prevent the disposition of land by will, either directing its sale or by vesting the title thereof, so as to permit its appropriation, either directly or indirectly, for a charitable use or purpose.
While many cases are cited where devises of land to one for the benefit of another have been held invalid, and it is argued that such was the basis of the decision, no case decided by this court is called to our attention which has upheld a devise of land under the circumstances mentioned in the Constitution, on the ground that it was made direct to a named devisee, instead of to it for the benefit of another.
In Greely v. Houston, 148 Miss. 799, 114 So. 740, 743, the court said: "Section 269' of the Constitution prohibits a devise of land direct to a religious institution or in trust for the use and benefit of such an institution 'or for the purpose of being given or appropriated to charitable uses or purposes.' " This section of the Constitution applies to a devise of land in favor of any person or body politic, the same as it does to a religious institution.
Suggestion of error overruled.