Case Name: Glase Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1956-01-12
Citations: 384 Pa. 118
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 333
Parties: Glase Estate.
Judges: Before Stearns, Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 384
Pages: 118–123

Head Matter:
Glase Estate.
Argued November 30, 1955.
Before Stearns, Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
Robert E. Mails, with him Malls, Malls & Malls, for appellant.
E. Ober Eess, with him Francis Ballard, and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, for appellee.
January 12, 1956:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell,
Testator died in 1916 leaving by his Will one-fourth of the residue of his estate (which has a present value of approximately $50,000.) after the death of the life tenant to the "Home for the Training in Speech of Deaf Children Before They Are of School Age". This Home was known as the Bala School. It was a boarding school which was founded in 1891, with a maximum capacity of 60 students. Children between the ages of 2 and 8 years were admitted to the Home, which was supported by appropriations from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Bala School was closed in 1935 because the Legislature failed to appropriate any more money to support it. The life tenant died in 1953. The question here involved is which of the two claimants most nearly carries out under the doctrine of cy pres the testator's testamentary intent? Philadelphia v. Heirs of Girard, 45 Pa. 9; Williams Estate, 353 Pa. 638, 643, 46 A. 2d 237; Kensington Hospital for Women Case, 358 Pa. 458, 463, 58 A. 2d 154.
The Orphans' Court en banc agreed with the Master and the Auditing Judge and awarded the fund to the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf "to be used in maintaining and developing its services and training for deaf children of pre-school age". Ten other schools filed claims, but only the "Friends of the Deaf" filed exceptions or took this appeal.
The Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, which is located at 7500 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, was founded in 1820. It is a private boarding school managed by a Board of Directors and receives pupils between 3 years and 21 years old. Of the 484 students, 95 are residents of Philadelphia, and only 13 are day pupils. 33 pupils are under 6 years of age and are designated as pre-school pupils. It receives aid by way of appropriations from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is non-sectarian and is a boarding school which has served the community admirably during its long existence. It uses exclusively the oral method of teaching and it has facilities for taking care of chil dren of pre-scliool age. When the Bala School closed in 1935, three-fourths of its pupils transferred to the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf.
Friends of the Deaf is a nursery day school which was founded in 1940. It is a splendid non-sectarian institution with an average enrollment of 13 to 15 pupils, all of whom are of pre-school age. Friends of the Deaf base their claim mainly on the contention that preschool age means under 4 years of age, plus the fact that it claims that the modern and wisest method of teaching and training deaf pupils is at a very early age — two to four — and at home, rather than at boarding school. It also emphasizes parent participation in the education of deaf children and promotes continuance of the parent-child relationship in the home.
Since the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf has the facilities and is willing, if necessary, to teach young pupils under 4 years of age, it is not necessary to decide whether pre-school age is, as appellant contends, under 4 years, although no authority was cited to support its contention.
From a review of the record it would seem to us, as it did to the Court below, that the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf more nearly carries out the testator's object and intent than does Friends of the Deaf. However, the test is not what we would have decided if we had been sitting as a trial Court — the test is whether the lower Court has mistaken or misapplied the law or committed a manifest abuse of discretion: Kensington Hospital for Women Case, 358 Pa., supra; Commonwealth v. Pauline Home, 141 Pa. 537, 546, 21 A. 661. Cf. also, Johnson Will, 370 Pa. 125, 130, 87 A. 2d 188; Ranck Estate, 381 Pa. 332, 337, 112 A. 2d 105.
We find no error of law and no manifest abuse of discretion. Decree affirmed; each party to pay its respective costs.