Case Name: MOUNT v. TUTTLE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-12-23
Citations: 91 N.Y.S. 195
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOUNT v. TUTTLE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 91
Pages: 195–202

Head Matter:
(99 App. Div. 433)
MOUNT v. TUTTLE et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 23, 1904.)
1. Wills—Trusts—Designation of Beneficiary.
A bequest in trust to T., Protestant Episcopal Missionary Bishop of Utah and Idaho, his successors, etc., to erect a church at such place within his episcopal jurisdiction as he or his successors should elect, with a further sum bequeathed to build a rectory for the rector of said church, was invalid under the law's prior to 1893 for its failure to designate a beneficiary.
2. Same—Trust Act of 1893.
Said trust was not aided by Acts 1893, p. 1748, c. 701, providing that no charitable trust otherwise valid shall be deemed invalid by reason of the indefiniteness of the beneficiary, and authorizing the Supreme Court to control such trusts; as said act only relates to execution of trusts within the state.
O’Brien and Laughlin, JJ., dissenting.
The question presented upon this appeal arises under the last will and testament of Maria B. Mount. The will was executed on the 22d day of December, 1880, and the testatrix died on the 3d day of October, 1899, unmarried, and without issue, a resident of the city and county of New York. The will was admitted to probate by the surrogate of the county of New York on the 20th day of November, 1899, the testatrix leaving real and personal property. By the will the testatrix made the following bequest: “As a thank-offering to Almighty God for all his benefits to me, I give, devise and bequeath unto the Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle, Bishop of Utah, the Protestant Episcopal Missionary Bishop for Utah and Idaho, in his corporate capacity, and to his successor or successors in office, the sum of Twenty Thousand °°/ioo Dollars, in Trust, nevertheless, to erect therewith, af such place within the limits of his Episcopal Jurisdiction, as he, his successor or successors, shall select, a Protestant Episcopal Church building to God’s glory, and the further sum of Five Thousand 00/ioo Dollars, In Trust nevertheless, to erect therewith in the same place, a rectory for the rector or clergymen in charge of said church, to be the property of the aforesaid Protestant Episcopal jurisdiction.” The plaintiff, as administratrix with the will annexed brought this action to secure a determination as to the validity of this bequest, making the Attorney General a party defendant, who appeared and answered, asking that the bequest be declared valid, and that the court make such determination as to its enforcement as should be proper. The court adjudged the bequest void, and from that determination this appeal is taken.
Appeal from. Special Term, New York County.
Action by Susan Mount, administratrix, against Daniel S. Tuttle and others, to determine the validity of a bequest in trust by plaintiff’s decedent. From a judgment holding the trust invalid, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and HATCH, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and'LAUGHEIN, JJ.
Julian T. Davies (Charles E. Hotchkiss and Charles. H. Tuttle, of counsel), for appellant Tuttle.
William G. Low, for appellants Wells and Funsten.
William-H. Hamilton and Charles S. Martin, for respondent.

Opinion:
HATCH, J.
It is not to be gainsaid that prior to the act of 1893 to regulate gifts for charitable purposes (Laws 1893, p. 1748, c. 701), in order to constitute a valid trust provision for a charity, there must not only be a trustee but a beneficiary capable of being designated, and who could enforce the trust provision. Owens v. Missionary Society, 14 N. Y. 380, 67 Am. Dec. 160; Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 584; Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 29, 28 N. E. 880, 14 L. R. A. 33, 27 Am. St. Rep. 487; People v. Powers, 147 N. Y. 104, 41 N. E. 432, 35 L. R. A. 502. In the present case it is doubtful whether a trustee is sufficiently identified, but, assuming that is not so, then, in order to carry out the terms of the trust created by the will under consideration, such trustee is required to designate the beneficiary; and until so designated the theory of the.law was that no beneficiary exists. The very elements of a valid trust therefore fail in this case, unless the act of 1893 controls. I am of opinion that it does not aid the matter, for its provisions only relate to the execution of trusts within the state of New York, and the statute can have no application whatever to the administration of trusts outside of the state. The statute does not confer power upon the Supreme Court to name a beneficiary, or enforce a trust over which it can have no control. The gift once removed from the state of New York, it would be impossible to have it administered by the courts of this state. The second section of the act of 1893 provides that the Supreme Court shall have control over gifts, grants, bequests, and devises in all cases provided for by section 1; that the Attorney General shall represent the beneficiaries in all such cases, and it shall be his duty to enforce such trusts by proper proceedings in this court. The case of Allen v. Stevens, 161 N. Y. 123, 55 N. E. 568, was one in which the fund was in this state for administration, and was placed by the statute under the protection of the Supreme Court, which could enforce it on the application of the Attorney General, and which could, notwithstanding an apparent indefiniteness and vagueness as to beneficiaries, select such beneficiaries under what is considered to be the re-establishment of the cy pres power by the act of 1893. As I consider that act as only operating in the manner indicated, the law remains, as to trusts created within this state and not to be executed here, as it was before the act óf 1893 came into effect. In all the cases in which money has been transmitted from this state to foreign jurisdiction, there was a beneficiary named, and the subject of the right of that beneficiary to receive under the law of the jurisdiction to which the fund was remitted was held to be a matter which must not be considered by our courts. The case of Cross v. United States Trust Co., 131 N. Y. 330, 30 N. E. 125, 15 L. R. A. 606, 27 Am. St. Rep. 597, when its facts are considered, does not control here. The same may be said of Dammert v. Osborn, 140 N. Y, 30, 35 N. E. 407; and I think a careful reading of those cases will sustain this statement. In them the fund was here for administration.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.