Case Name: BOENHARDT v. LOCH et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-18
Citations: 113 N.Y.S. 747
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOENHARDT v. LOCH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 113
Pages: 747–751

Head Matter:
BOENHARDT v. LOCH et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 18, 1908.)
1. Charities (§ 48 )—Enforcement—Distribution of Funds.
Where funds were contributed and placed in the hands of a committee to be used for the relief of sufferers in a steamboat disaster, whatever may have been the precise intention of the donors as to the use of the funds, one of the sufferers in such disaster cannot require the capital of the fund to be distributed to himself and other sufferers from the disaster.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Charities, Cent. Dig. § 78; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]
2. Charities (§ 48*)—Enforcement—Right of Beneficiaries—Exhaustion of Fund. ,
In an action to compel the distribution of a fund contributed for the. relief of sufferers from a disaster, where the part of the fund specifically designated for the use of such sufferers had been paid out, one claiming as a sufferer could not compel the distribution of any part of the- remaining funds to himself.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Charities, Cent. Dig. § 78; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]
Ingraham, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Albin Boenhardt against Jacob W. Loch and others. From a judgment of the Special Term (56 Mise. Rep. 406, 107 N. Y. Supp. 786) dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Charles Goldzier, for appellant.
Mantón M. Wyvell, for respondent Attorney General.
Charles A. Decker, for respondent Loch and others.
For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

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 these 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 this court in another action. '
In my opinion the judgment should be affirmed, with, costs to the respondents, other than the Attorney General.
PATTERSON, P, J., and CEARKE, J., concur.
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 'intérest in the fund.