Case Name: Susan Mount, as Administratrix with the Will Annexed of Maria B. Mount, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle, as Senior Bishop, and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with the Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904
Citations: 99 A.D. 433
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susan Mount, as Administratrix with the Will Annexed of Maria B. Mount, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle, as Senior Bishop, and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with the Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 433–443

Head Matter:
Susan Mount, as Administratrix with the Will Annexed of Maria B. Mount, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle, as Senior Bishop, and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with the Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle and Others, Respondents.
Trust for charitable purposes — a gift to a bishop of another State “in his corporate capacity and to his successor or successors in office” to erect therewith a church— it is insufficient for want of a beneficiary—chapter 701 of the Laws of 1893 does not apply to a trust of personal property to be executed outside the State of New York.
The will of a resident of the State of New York, and which was probated therein contained the following provision: “As a thankoffering 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 00/100 Dollars, in Trust, nevertheless, to erect therewith, at 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 00/100 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.”
Meld, that prior to the enactment of chapter 701 of the Laws of 1893, regulating gifts for charitable purposes, it was necessary, in order to create a valid charitable trust, that there should be not only a trustee, but a beneficiary capable of being designated and who could enforce the trust provision;
That' the trust provision here in question was void under this rule, for the reason that the trustee, assuming him to be sufficiently identified, was required to designate the beneficiary, and that until so designated the law would presume that no beneficiary existed;
That such trust was not saved by the act of 1893, for the reason that such act only relates to the execution of trusts within the State of New York, and has no application to a trust in personal property which is to be executed without the State of New York.
O’Brien and Latjghlin, JJ., dissented.
Appeal by the defendants, The Right Reverend Daniel S. Tuttle, as senior bishop, and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff and certain of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of May, 1903, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, construing a portion of the will of Maria B. Mount, deceased.
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 bequests: “Asa 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 00/TOO Dollars, in Trust, nevertheless, to erect therewith, at 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 00/100 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.
Julien T. Davies, Charles E. Hotchkiss and Charles H. Tuttle, for the appellant Tuttle.
William G. Low, for the appellants Wells and Funsten.
William H. Hamilton and Charles S. Martin, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Hatch, J.:
It is not to be gainsaid that prior to the act of 1893 to regulate gifts for charitable purposes (Laws of 1893, chap. 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 of M. E. Church, 14 N. Y. 380 ; Williams v. Williams, 8 id. 525; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 id. 584; Tilden v. Green, 130 id. 29; People v. Powers, 147 id. 104.) 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 thé 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 2d 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 that it shall be his duty to enforce such trusts by proper proceedings in the court. The case of Allen v. Stevens (161 N. Y. 123) 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 ey 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 of 1893 came into effect. In all the cases in which money has been transmitted from this State to foreign jurisdictions, 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), when its facts are considered, does not control here. The same may be said of Dammert v. Osborn (140 N. Y. 30), 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., concurred; O'Brien and Laughlin, JJ., dissented.