Case Name: Matter of the Probate of the Will of Mary Murray, Deceased, Otherwise Known as Mary Totten
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-02
Citations: 34 Misc. 39
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of the Probate of the Will of Mary Murray, Deceased, Otherwise Known as Mary Totten.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 39–40

Head Matter:
Matter of the Probate of the Will of Mary Murray, Deceased, Otherwise Known as Mary Totten.
(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,
February, 1901.)
Suspension of power of alienation — Trust.
A clause giving the residuary estate of a testatrix to her executor, in trust “ to invest, keep invested and pay the principal and income thereof towards the purchase of a plot in Calvary, or other cemetery, Calvary being my choice, and to the erection of a monument and the care of said plot and monument as my said executor may see fit to make payments therefor ”, improperly suspends the power of alienation.
Peeceedings upon probate of a will.
David Thornton, for executor.
M. J. Sneudaira and Andrew F. Murray, lor contestant.

Opinion:
Thomas, S.
In the proceeding to prove the will of the deceased, the validity of the residuary clause is asked to be deter mined. This clause is in the following words: " Eleventh. All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate I give, devise and bequeath to my executor in trust to.invest, keep invested and pay the principal and income thereof towards the purchase of a plot in Calvary, or other cemetery, Calvary being my choice, and to the erection of a monument and the care of said plot and monument as my said executor may see fit to make payments therefor." By this provision the testatrix attempted to create a trust which should bind her residuary estate for an indefinite period of time, not measured by any specified lives, and for a purpose not religious, educational, charitable or benevolent, for the benefit of indefinite unknown persons who might be employed by her executor or his successor at his discretion. Such a trust is void. Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y. 312; Matter of Raab, 42 App. Div. 141; Allen v. Stevens, 161 N. Y. 122. It is not a direction to the executor concerning the expenditure of a specified sum of money for an interment of a kind approved by the decedent, and in accordance with her means, and so not within Matter of Fraser, 92 N. Y. 239. The executor will, of course, be charged with a duty to attend to the proper interment of the testatrix, but the clause in question is not divisible into parts, and is entirely void.
Decreed accordingly.