Case Name: In re NORTON. In re CRANE'S WILL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-03-22
Citations: 57 N.Y.S. 407
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re NORTON. In re CRANE’S WILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 57
Pages: 407–414

Head Matter:
(39 App. Div. 369.)
In re NORTON. In re CRANE’S WILL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 22, 1899.)
Charities— Validity op Devises—Statutes—Construction.
Laws 1848, c. 319, § 6, provides that devises to corporations organizes thereunder shall not be valid unless the will is executed two months before testator’s death. Laws 1862, c. 187, § 2, provides that corporations organized thereunder “shall * * * be subject to the liabilities and provisions contained in the eighteenth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes, so far as the same are applicable.” In 1862 there were* five so-called editions of the Revised Statutes in common use, but the term: “Revised Statutes” had a well-settled meaning in the state, which denotes the statutes published under that title pursuant to Laws 1828, c. 20, and the amendments to those statutes. Held, that a corporation organized under-the 1862 act is not governed by the provisions in the 1848 act though embodied in the first part of chapter 18 of two of the so-called editions of the Revised Statutes.
Hardin, P. J., and Spring, J., dissenting.
Appeal from surrogate’s court, Ontario county.
In the matter of the judicial settlement of the accounts of William D. Norton, executor of Mary Ann Crane, deceased. Caroline C. Murphy and others, next of kin of the testatrix, appeal from that part of the decree adjudging the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America to be entitled to one-half the residue of the estate of the testatrix under the will.
Affirmed.
Argued before HAEDIN, P. J., and FOLLETT, ADAMS, MCLENNAN, and SPEING, JJ.
J. H. Metcalf, for appellants.
C. A. Eichardson, for respondent Board of Foreign Missions.

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
November 17, 1893, Mary Ann Crane executed her last will and testament, by which she divided the residue of her estate between the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and she died January 10, 1894, within two months after making her will.
'"The only question involved in this case is whether the provision «contained in section 6 of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848, declaring ±hat devises, and bequests to corporations organized under that act -shall not be valid unless the will is executed at least two months Before the death of the testator, is applicable to the Board of For-<8ign Missions. It is settled that this provision does not apply to -corporations not organized under chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 and the acts amendatory thereof. Hollis v. Seminary, 95 N. Y. 166; In re Kavanagh's Will, 125 N. Y. 418, 26 N. E. 470. The rule declared in these cases is, of course, subject to the exception that. it does not apply to corporations organized under other acts which by direct reference make section 6 of chapter. 319 of the Laws of 1848 applicable to corporations organized under such other acts. The Board of Foreign Missions was specially incorporated by chapter ¡187 of the Laws of 1862, passed April 12, 1862, and the inhibition -contained in section 6 of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 is not applicable to this corporation and the bequest made in its behalf, unless chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 is so referred to in the act by which the Board of Foreign Missions' was incorporated that the inhibitory provision is made part of the later act. Thus far the litigants, agree. Is the time limit contained in section 6 of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 referred to in chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862, and made applicable to the Board of Foreign Missions? The -only reference in chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862 to any other statute is contained in the second section, of which the following is a -copy:
"See. 2. The said corporation shall possess the general powers, rights and privileges, and be subject to the liabilities and provisions contained in the eighteenth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes, so far as the same are applicable, • and also subject to the provisions of chapter three hundred and sixty of the Laws of Eighteen Hundred and Sixty."
It is contended in behalf of the next of kin that the words "subject to the liabilities and provisions contained in the eighteenth chapter -of the first part of the Revised Statutes, so far as the same are applicable," make chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 applicable to this corporation, because in 1852 a so-called, edition of the Revised Statutes was published (Banks' 4th Ed.), in which chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 was included as title 6 of - chapter 18 of the first part of the Revised Statutes, and in 1859 a so-called edition of the Revised Statutes was published (Banks' 5th Ed.), in which chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848 was included as title 7 of chapter 18 of the first part of the Revised Statutes. When chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862 was passed, there were five so-called editions of the Revised Statutes In common use,—the two above referred to, and the three editions •editéd by the revisers. The first edited by the revisers was published in 1829, the second in 1836, and the third in 1846, which was the .¡year of the adoption of the new constitution, after which general Saws relating more or less closely to various statutes contained in -the Revised Statutes, but which were not amendments to those statutes, were passed. The editors of the editions of the Revised Statutes published since 1846, except the" edition edited by Judge Ed monels and published in 1863, assumed to incorporate these general laws into the Revised Statutes, but by so doing they did not become a part of those statutes. Before determining what the term "Revised Statutes" means, as used in the second section of chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862, above quoted, it is well to have in mind the rule that words and terms having a precise and well-settled meaning in the jurisprudence of a country are to be understood in the same sense when used in its statutes, unless a different meaning is unmistakably intended. Ehrsam v. City of Utica, 37 App. Div. 272, 55 N. Y. Supp. 942, and cases cited. In 1862, as now, the term "Revised Statutes" had a well-settled meaning in the jurisprudence of this state, and denoted the statutes published under that title, pursuant to chapter' 20 of the Laws of 1828 and to the amendments subsequently made to those statutes. The general laws published since 1828 are not part of the Revised Statutes, and have never been recognized as such, so far as I know, by any judicial decision. Unless it appears that the legislature unmistakably intended that the term "Revised Statutes," as used in chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862, should refer to some other statutes than those bearing that name, it must be held that the reference in the statute of 1862 was to the Revised Statutes then existing, and not to general statutes published under that n.ame.
I am unable to find any evidence, in the act that the legislature intended to refer to general statutes instead of to the eighteenth chapter of the Revised Statutes. If the rule be declared that a mere reference in a subsequent statute to a chapter of the Revised Statutes includes all general acts printed in the parts of such chapter in the so-called editions of the Revised Statutes, why may not the repeal of chapter 18 of the first part of the Revised Statutes by chapter 687 of the Laws of 1892, by a general reference thereto, be held to repeal the general statutes printed as part of that chapter in the editions of the Revised Statutes then in use, which would effect a repeal of the chapter under which the next of kin claim the bequest to be invalid? During the last 15 years many chapters—the greater part of the Revised Statutes—have been repealed by reference "to the original chapters, and to hold that such reference embraces and affects all laws printed as part of such chapters in the so-called editions of the Revised Statutes would, I fear, produce great confusion in the statute law of this state. The decisions cited to sustain the contention of the appellants do not seem- to me in point. In People v. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451, an amendment to "section twenty-two of chapter twenty of title one of the first part of the Revised Statutes, fourth edition," was held effective as an amendment to section 22 as printed in such edition. Section 22, as printed in that edition, read:
"No supervisor of any town, or county treasurer, shall he appointed to hold the office of superintendent of the poor in any county in this state."
This section was no part of the Revised Statutes, but was a general law subsequently passed. Laws 1829, c. 352. In 1853 (Laws 1853, e. 80), the.following act was passed:
"Sec. 1. Section twenty-two, of chapter twenty, of title one, of the first part of the Revised Statutes, fourth edition, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: 'Sec. 22. No superviso? of any town, or county treasurer shall be elected or appointed to hold the office of superintendent of the poor, nor shall any superintendent of the poor be appointed to the office of keeper of the poor house in any county of this state.' "
Because this amendatory statute expressly referred to the fourth edition of the Revised Statutes, and because the amendatory act related clearly to chapter 352 of the Laws of 1829, it was held that chapter 80 of the Laws of 1853 was intended as an amendment of chapter 352 of the Laws of 1829. Both acts related to the same subject-matter, and the last act was plainly intended as an amendment of the first act. It is difficult to see how that case could have been otherwise decided. In Re Kavanagh's Will, 125 N. Y. 418, 26 N. E. 470, it was held that a provision in a special act incorporating a. charitable corporation, "Said corporation shall possess the general powers and be subject to the general restrictions prescribed in the third title of the eighteenth chapter of the Revised Statutes, and also subject to the provision of title seven of part one of chapter eighteen of the Revised Statutes in relation to devises and bequests by law," referred to chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848, which was printed in the so-called fifth edition of the Revised Statutes as title 7 of chapter 18. Here, as in the former case, unless the reference was to the seventh title of chapter 18 of the fifth edition, it was meaningless; and-it was held that the legislature intended to subject the corporation to the provisions of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848. The court said: "Unless the legislature, in section seven of this act, referred to that edition of the Revised Statutes by the language it used, then the language has no meaning whatever." The intention of the legislature was unmistakable. In the case at bar the reference in the act of 1862 to the eighteenth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes is not meaningless. Title 3 of that chapter is entitled, "Of General Bowers, Brivileges and Liabilities of Corporations," and contains 10 sections, all of which, except the fourth and fifth, are applicable to this corporation; and I am of the opinion that the reference in the second section of chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862 was to this title of chapter 18 of the first part of the Revised Statutes.
In looking through the Session Laws I find, in many of the special acts creating corporations, references to chapter 18 of the first part of the Revised Statutes, but I do"not believe that by these references the legislature intended to make the general laws printed in the editions of the Revised Statutes a part of the incorporating acts.' The late general term of the First department has decided the very question involved in this case. Kerr v. Dougherty, 17 Hun, 341, affirmed in 79 N. Y. 327. By a careful examination of the case and record it will be seen that the question was decided. In 1876 a testator made his will, and died within 23 days thereafter. It contained this clause: "(6) I give and bequeath to the Bresbyterian Board of Foreign Missions the sum of $5,000." The corporation mentioned in this clause is the one involved in the case at bar. The validity of this bequest and various charitable bequests was contested in the special and gen-, eral terms on the ground that they were void under the two-months' time limit contained in section 6 of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848, which the contestants asserted was applicable by reason of the ref erence in section 2 to the eighteenth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes. The special term held the sixth clause above quoted valid (79 N. Y. 331), which judgment was affirmed at general term, and no appeal was taken from .that part of the judgment. The case went to the court of appeals on questions arising between other parties. In Hollis v. Seminary, supra, the court, in referring to Kerr v. Dougherty, said: "Then, too, in the sixth clause of the will in that case, there was a bequest of $5,000 to the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions, a corporation organized by chapter 187 of the Laws of 1862. The act was silent as to the two-months limitation, and the bequest was held valid by the supreme court, and all parties acquiesced in the decision." 95 N. Y. 176. I think the decree of the surrogate's court is right, and that it might well be affirmed on the opinion of the learned surrogate, which is full and satisfactory.
The decree of the surrogate's court should be affirmed, with costs payable by the appellants to the respondent. All concur, except HARDIN, P. J., and SPRING, J., dissenting.