Case Name: Albin Boenhardt, Appellant, v. Jacob W. Loch and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-18
Citations: 129 A.D. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albin Boenhardt, Appellant, v. Jacob W. Loch and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 355–361

Head Matter:
Albin Boenhardt, Appellant, v. Jacob W. Loch and Others, Respondents.
First Department,
December 18, 1908.
Trust — distribution of funds collected to aid sufferers in disaster—wben suit by beneficiary does not lie.
One who suffered in a steamboat disaster cannot maintain an action to compel the holders of a fund which was collected to aid the sufferers to distribute a balance remaining among the plaintiff and such other survivors as still suffer from the results of the accident, where it cannot be determined what the donors intended should be done with the money, and it is reasonably certain that they did not intend such distribution.
Ingraham, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Albin Boenhardt, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 7th day of April, 1908, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, dismissing the complaint.
Charles Goldzier, for the appellant.
Manton M. Wyvell, for the respondent Attorney-General.
Charles A. Decker, for the respondents Loch and others.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
I am of the opinion that the complaint was rightly dismissed, for the plaintiff is clearly not entitled to the relief he seeks, which is that the capital of the relief fund now in the hands of the defendants be distributed to him and to such other sufferers from the Slocum disaster as may still survive and still suffer from the results of that accident. We may not be able to say precisely what the donors of the fund intended should be done with the money, but we may feel reasonably certain that they did not intend such a distribution as plaintiff asks for. The evidence, unless we may accept as evidence a referee's report in another action between different parties, gives no information as to the terms upon which the fund was contributed, and affords no ground whatever for relief. If we accept the referee's report, it appears that there were four funds to which contributions were made. One of tin le consisted of moneys specifically designated " For sufferers." Much more than the amount thus designated had been paid out. I see no necessity for instructing the defendants as to the performance of their duties respecting the money still in their hands, as that has already been done by the Supreme Court in another action. (See Loch v. Mayer, 50 Misc. Rep. 442.)
In my opinion the judgment should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents other than the Attorney-General.
Patterson, P. J., and Clabke, J., concurred; Ingraham, J., dissented.
Laughlin, J.:
I vote for affirmance upon the ground that the moneys were donated for the purpose of temporary relief only, and not to create a pension fund for the sufferers, and that, therefore, plaintiff.has now no interest in the fund.