Case Name: Howland et al. v. Union Theological Seminary and another
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1851-07
Citations: 5 N.Y. 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: Howland et al. v. Union Theological Seminary and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 191–218

Head Matter:
Howland et al. v. Union Theological Seminary and another.
Construction of Will.
By a general residuary clause, a testator directed the rest and residue of his estate, real and personal, whatsoever and wheresoever, to he divided between certain relatives ; by a codicil, he republished his will, and reciting the death of one of the residuary devisees, without issue, made a different division of such residue; by another codicil, he revoked the bequest of one of such shares, and gave the portion of his estate bequeathed to the person named, to an ecclesiastical institution: held, that the latter took all that had been given by the will to the relative so disinherited, and that the testator did not die intestate as to any portion of liis estate.
If the intent of the testator be plainly expressed, the courts must give effect to it, without regard to the motives by which he may have been governed in the disposal of Ms property.
Howland v. Union Theological Seminary, 3 Sandf. 82, reversed.
* Appeal by tlie Union Theological Seminary from the decree of the Superior Court of the city of New York, giving a construction to the will of James Roosevelt, deceased, and directing a distribution of his estate in accordance therewith. (Reported below, 3 Sandf. 82.)
This was a bill in equity filed in the supreme court, in April 1848, by Gardner G. Howland, Isaac Roosevelt and Harriet Roosevelt, acting executors of James Roosevelt, deceased, against the Union Theological Seminary of the city of New York and the Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley, praying for a decree giving a construction to the will of the testator, and declaring the rights of the defendants under it.
James Roosevelt died on the 6th February 1849, having first made his last will and testament, bearing date the 2d September 1841, for the construction of which, and of the several codicils thereto, this suit was brought. He appointed the complainants, together with James IT. Roosevelt and John Aspinwell, and the survivors and survivor of them, the executrix and executors of his said will; the complainants, however, alone qualified, and took out letters testamentary, in April 1849. The testator left surviving Harriet Roosevelt, his widow, Isaac Roosevelt, a son, Susan R. Roosevelt, a daughter, and Carlton Bayley, Richard Bayley, Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley, William C. Bayley, and Maria E. Bayley, the children of Grace Bayley, deceased, who was a daughter of the testator, his only heirs-at-law and next of kin.
By the first clause of his will, the testator gave to his wife, Harriet, certain real and personal estate, absolutely ; by the second clause, he gave her the use of certain other real and personal estate for life, and an annuity of $5000, to be paid out of a portion of his estate to be set apart for that purpose. And he authorized and directed his executors to set apart and reserve so much of his estate, as they, in their discretion, with the consent of his said wife, should deem proper and sufficient to produce a clear income, adequate to the payment of such annuity, to be held and managed as a trust-fund for the payment thereof; and upon the decease of his said wife, to dispose of the same as there-inafter mentioned.
By the third clause, he authorized and directed his executors to set apart and reserve such other part of his estate, as they should deem proper and sufficient to produce a clear annual income of $800, *to be held and managed as a trust-fund, the income of which he directed to be applied to the use of his daughter, Susan, during her life; and upon her decease, the said trust-fund to be disposed of as thereinafter mentioned. By the fourth clause of his will, he made a like provision for raising an annuity of $300 for Anna Maria Eoosevelt, the widow of his son, Eichard V. Eoosevelt, deceased, the principal to take the same direction, after her decease.
The fifth clause of the will was a general residuary one, in the following words: “As to all the rest and residue of my estate, real and personal, whatsoever and wheresoever, I give, devise and bequeath the same, in three equal parts, to be divided as follows, viz., one-third part to my son, Isaac, in fee simple, one-third part to the trustees hereinafter mentioned, for the use of my son, James Barclay, and the remaining one-third part, in five equal shares, to be subdivided to James Eoosevelt Bayley, Eichard Bayley, Carlton Bayley and William Bayley, in fee simple, one share each, and the remaining share to the said trustees, for the use of Maria E. Bayley, children of my deceased daughter, Grace Bayley.”
' *By the sixth clause, the testator directed as follows: “ And I do hereby authorize and direct my executors, as soon as conveniently may be, after my decease, after having set apart so much of my estate as may be necessary for the payment of the above-mentioned annuities to my wife, daughter and daughter-in-law, and the legacies hereinafter mentioned, and after paying all my debts and funeral expenses, to make a schedule and estimate, to the best of their knowledge and ability, of all the rest and residue of my estate, real and personal, and thereupon to proceed and make division, partition and distribution of the same to my said residuary legatees, mentioned in item fifth of this will, according to its provisions, and according to the several rights of the parties, quantity and quality relatively considered; taking, however, into consideration the advances which shall have been made, in my lifetime, to the said Isaac, James Barclay, Grace Bayley, and her children, as they shall respectively stand charged therefor in my estate book, which advances shall be taken (but no interest shall be charged thereon) as parts of my estate, and shall form a part of the whole share of him or her to whom or for whose benefit, or for the benefit of whose parent, such advances shall have been made.”
The seventh clause of the will was in the following words: “ Upon the decease of my said wife, Harriet, I give, devise and bequeath the dwelling-house, coach-house and grounds, in the city of New York, mentioned in the second item of this will; and upon the decease of my said wife, and of my daughter, Susan, and daughter-in-law, Anna Maria Roosevelt, respectively, I give, devise and bequeath all those parts of my estate which shall be set apart as above directed for the payment of their respective annuities; unto the same persons, in the same proportions and shares, and subject to the same trusts as my residuary estate (so called), as mentioned and set forth in item fifth of this will. And I do direct a like division, partition and distribution thereof to be made; if practicable, on the happening of each of the last above-mentioned events. And upon such decease of Sa^ W^6’ ^ ^ve> ^ev*se aEl^ bequeath the said house, farm, stock of cattle, farming utensils and appurtenances, situate, lying and being in the town of Poughkeepsie aforesaid, and in the second item in this will mentioned, unto my grandson, James Roosevelt (son of Isaac), his heirs and assigns for ever, if he be living, at the time of her decease, and if not, then to his lawful issue, and if there be no such issue, then to the same persons, in the same proportions and shares, and subject to the same trusts, as my residuary estate (so called), and I do direct a like division, partition and distribution of the same.”
^g^h and ninth clauses of the will contained provisions which have little or no bearing on the questions involved in this appeal (they are referred to in the dissenting opinion); and gave the executors a power of sale, for the purpose of distribution. By a codicil, dated the 5th March 1842, the annuity given to the testator’s wife was increased to $6000.
*On the 16th August 1843, the testator made a second' codicil to his will, in the following terms: “ "Whereas, I, James Roosevelt, by the fifth item of the annexed will and testament, have directed all my residuary estate to be divided into three equal shares, and distributed accordingly; and whereas, since the execution and publication of said will, my son, James Barclay, to whom one of the said shares (or to whose use) was given, has departed this life, leaving no lawful issue: Now, I do by this writing, which I hereby declare to be a codicil to my said will, to be taken as a part thereof, declare and direct, and it is my will, that my said residuary estate, instead of being divided into three shares, and distributed as aforesaid, that the sainé be divided into two equal shares and distributed as follows, viz., one share to my said son, Isaac, and the other share to the said children of my said deceased daughter, .Grace Bayley, in the same manner, and subject to the same restrictions and trusts in respect to the said Maria E. Bayley, in respect to the share she will receive by this codicil, as declared in said fifth item, in regard to her. And I do hereby devise and bequeath the said residuary estate accordingly, expressly subject, however, to any and all codicils to my said last will, bearing date and published previously to this date, which may be in existence at the time of my decease. And it is my desire, that this codicil be annexe*? to and made a part of my last will and testament, to all intents and purposes.”
*On the'8th March 1844, the testator made a third codicil to his will, which raised the principal question discussed on this appeal, as follows: “Whereas, in the fifth section "of my last will and testament, bearing date the 2d day of September 1841,1 have devised and bequeathed to James R. Bayley, one of the sons of my daughter, Grace, deceased, a portion of my estate; and whereas, the said James R. Bayley, once a minister of the gospel in the Protestant church, has renounced the faith of his fathers, and is now a priest in the Roman church; and as I deem it neither just nor right that any part of the property which God has given me should be instrumental in building up a faith which I think erroneous and unholy, I do, therefore, by this codicil, which I hereby declare to be a part of my said last will and testament, to all intents and purposes, and to be taken as such, annul and make void ^16 af°resaid *bequest and devise to the said James R. Bayley, and do give and bequeath the portion so given him by my last will and testament, to the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, incorporated by act of the legislature, passed March 27th, 1839, and to their successors and assigns.”
The complainants set forth in their bill that they had set apart so much of the personal estate as, in their judgment, was sufficient to produce the several annuities given by the will; that one year had elapsed since the granting of letters testamentary; and that they had paid all the debts existing against the estate, and the pecuniary legacies given by the will. *That they were desirous of making a final settlement of the estate so far as it could be done; but that the Union Theological Seminary claimed the one-tenth part of the residuary estate remaining after the reservation of the several funds set apart to produce the annuities given by the will; and, after the death of the annuitants, one-tenth part of the funds so reserved. *That x the Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley claimed that he was entitled to the one-tenth part of the said residuary estate claimed by the Union Theological Seminary, or some part of the same; alleging that the third codicil of the will referred to a part of said will which bad been revoked, and was, at the time of the execution of said codicil, no longer in existence; and that the third codicil was, therefore, inoperative. That he also claimed, that if he was not entitled to the one-tenth part of said residuary estate, or some portion thereof, yet, that the principal of the funds set apart to produce the annuities was not affected by the third codicil; and that he would be entitled to one-tenth thereof, on the decease of the annuitants,, respectively; or, if not entitled to the one-tenth part thereof, that the said James Roosevelt died intestate as to one-third part of said funds, and that the said James Roosevelt Bayley was entitled to the one-fifteenth of such third part as one of the next of kin and heirs-at-law of the said James Roosevelt. deceased.
The Union Theological Seminary, by their answer, claimed the one-tenth part of the testator's residuary estate, and denied that the Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley was entitled to any portion thereof.
*The Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley answered, ° admitting the statements of the bill, and insisting that “ the third codicil to the will, on its face, was founded on the erroneous supposition and apprehension by the testator, that such parts of his property as should be given by him to this defendant would go to the building up a faith which he deemed erroneous, whereas, it would only have accrued to the maintenance and support of this defendant, who had been treated by him with marked affection as a grandchild; and for this reason, as well as from the persecuting and proscriptive purpose expressed therein, that codicil ought not to be extended, by any implication or construction, beyond the terms and expressions thereof.” He also insisted upon his claim to a portion of the estate as set forth in the complainant’s bill'.
*The cause was transferred from the supreme court to the superior court of the city of New York, by virtue of the act of 24th March 1849; and was there brought to a hearing upon the bill and answers, on the 2d July 1849, before Duek and Campbell, JJ., -Judge Mason having been of counsel in the case, whilst at the bar.
On the 22d September 1849, a decree was made (Dues,, J., delivering the opinion of the court), whereby it was decided, that by the true construction of the will and codicils, the term “residuary estate” in the fifth section of the will, meant and intended the estate remaining after setting aside out of the general estate , of the testator sufficient of personal or real estate, or of both, the net annual income of which would produce the several annuities mentioned in the will, excluding also from the said residuary estate the *dwelling~ house and grounds in the city of New York, and the plate of the testator, other than that marked with the initials of Harriet (the widow), and the house, &c., in the town of Poughkeepsie, devised to the widow for her life, and that by the said fifth section, James Roosevelt Bayley would have taken the one-fifteenth .part of the residuary estate, as so defined and restricted, including as part of said residuary estate, the advances made by the testator, as specified in the sixth section of the will.
That under the seventh section, the said James Roosevelt Bayley was entitled to one-fifteenth part of the dwelling-house, &c., in the city of New York, devised to the widow for her life, subject to such life-estate; and also to one-fifteenth of that portion of the estate set apart to produce the annuities, as the life-interests of the annuitants might, from time to time, be determined.
That by the second codicil to the will, James Roosevelt Bayley became entitled to the one-tenth of one-third part of the residuary estate, as above defined and restricted, which had, by the fifth section of the will, been devised to, or in trust for James Barclay Roosevelt, son of the testator, who had died subsequently to the said will; and that the testator, by reason of such death in the lifetime of the testator, died intestate as to one-third part of the portion of the estate set aside to produce the several annuities, and as to one-third part of the real estate in the city of New York, devised to his widow for life, and as to one-third part of the family plate mentioned in the ninth clause of the will.
That by the third codicil, the devise to James Roosevelt Bayley, contained in the fifth section of the will was revoked, and that the defendants, the Union Theological Seminary, became, by that third codicil, entitled to one-fifteenth part of the residuary estate, in the said fifth section mentioned, as above defined and restricted, which had been devised to the said James Roosevelt Bayley, and no more; and that the said James Roosevelt Bayley was liat’ ^ said third codicil, ^deprived of the one-fifteenth part of the real estate and funds devised to him by the seventh section of the will, nor of the one-tenth part of the one-third part of said residuary estate, devised to him by the second codicil of said will, nor of his share of the family plate mentioned in the ninth section of the will. The decree also contained directions for the division and distribution of the estate, in accordance with the principles so declared.
In concluding his opinion upon this great case, Judge Duer said: — “This opinion has been extended to an unusual, and it may be thought, an unnecessary length; but we have been actuated by the hope, that the reasons which we have labored to explain, when duly weighed, will be found satisfactory to the parties, and will thus put an end to a litigation that, we are sure, all the mem- • bers of the family must sincerely regret. That the defendant, his grandson, will acquiesce in our decision, we cannot doubt; and we think that, without travelling beyond our province as judges, we may express the hope, that the Trustees of the Seminary will be content with that portion of the estate which, under our decision, they will be entitled to receive. Even should they, under the advice of counsel, be unable to admit the propriety of our decision, there are many reasons, not simply of expediency, but such as the true spirit of our religion, it seems to us, will not fail to suggest, that may lead them to abstain from any further prosecution of their claims. The conduct of the Rev. Mr. Bayley, in abandoning the Protestant faith of his ancestors, none of us who are Protestants can approve; hut this error, which all of us must trust will prove venial, is not to be named with the guilt he would have incurred, if, holding the opinions he does, he had remained in the church to which he belonged. He is not to be blamed, but commended, that, in order to save himself from this guilt, he has followed, at the sacrifice of his interests, the dictates of his conscience; and, God forbid! that such a step should ever be thought to dissolve the bonds of kindred or of Christian fellowship.”
Notwithstanding this powerful appeal by the learned judge to the Christian feelings of the parties, it was hardly to be expected, that the trustees of a Protestant ecclesiastical seminary would exercise such an act of magnanimity in a contest for the property of a Catholic priest; and the Union Theological Seminary, accordingly, took this appeal.
Wood, for the appellants.
Lord, for the respondent, Bayley.
Jamos Roosevelt Bayley, the grandson disinherited by this codicil, was the eldest son of Guy Carlton Bayley, M. D., a celebrated surgeon and physician, who rose to the head of his profession in the United States, and ¡t brother of Mother Seton, the foundress of the Sisters of Charity in this country. James Roosevelt Bayley was born in the city of New York, on the 23d August 1814; he was educated at Washington (now Trinity) college, Hartford, Connecticut; after leaving college, he turned his attention to medicine, but, at the end of a year, gave up all thought of following that profession, and entered upon a course of study for the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal church, under the learned Dr. Jarvis, of Middletown, Connecticut, of whom he always spoke with kindly consideration. After his ordination as a presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal church, he became rector of Harlem, then (1840-41) a fashionable suburb of New York; but feeling himself drawn away from the religious tenets of his associates, he resigned this comfortable and lucrative position, and proceeded to Rome, where, after considerable study, and a spiritual retreat, he was received into the Catholic church, by E. Esmond, a Jesuit, on the 26th April 1842. Two days after, he was confirmed by Cardinal Eranzoni, in the rooms of St. Ignatius, at the Gesil, and left Rome, to study theology in the Snlpitian Seminary, at Paris. Bishop Hughes, wishing to ordain him at home, recalled him to New York, and raised him to the priesthood, on the 2d March 1844. After officiating for a time as parish priest, in Staten Island, he became secretary to Archbishop Hughes, and occupied that position, until consecrated as Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, on the 31st October 1853. By a papal brief, dated the 20th July 1872, he was translated, very unwillingly on his part, to the archiepiscopal see of Baltimore, and received the pallium, on the 12th October following, from the hands of the Bishop of Philadelphia. Having been in feeble health for some years, Archbishop Bayley went to Europe, in April 1877, in hopes of deriving benefit from the Vichy waters ; but his health not improving, he returned to this country, but got no further than Newark, where he died, on the 3d October 1877. He was buried at Emmittsburg, beside the remains of his revered aunt, Mother Seton, in the cemetery of the Sisters of Charity, at St. Joseph’s. Archbishop Bayley was a man of a kind and genial nature, of exceeding frankness of character, but withal very positive in any matter involving a question of right. He believed, to tire end of his life, that Ms grandfather had disinherited Mm, under a delusion as to a question of fact, by whom instilled into Ms grandfather’s mind, he knew not. He had been a favorite grandcMld, and keenly felt the injustice of the will. That a secular priest or bishop in the Catholic church is as free to accumulate and transmit property as any other person, is well known, but the testator evidently thought otherwise. Every one, at the present day, is aware, that the late pope Pius IX. bequeathed a large fortune to Ms relatives, amounting to many millions of dollars, which had accumulated during his long pontificate, and no man protended that the church had any claim upon it.

Opinion:
*Gakdineb, J.
The fifth section of the will of the testator contains this provision: "As to all the rest and residue of my estate, real and personal, whatsoever a,nd wheresoever, I give and devise and bequeath the same, in three equal parts to be divided, as follows: one-third part to my son, Isaac, one-third for the use of my son, James Barclay, and one-third, in five equal shares to he subdivided, to the children of my deceased daughter, Mrs. Grace Bayley, or to trustees, for their benefit." The respondent was one of the children of Mrs. Bayley. The language of this devise and bequest is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all the estate of the testator, of which no specific disposition was made by the will in question.
In August 1842, the year following the execution of the will, the testator published his second codicil. It recites, that the testator, by the fifth clause of his will, had directed all his residuary estate "to be divided into three equal shares, and distributed accordingly." It then states the death of James Barclay Roosevelt, one of the residuary devisees, without issue, and directs that "the said residuary estate of the testator, instead of being divided into three shares, and distributed as aforesaid, shall be divided into two shares, and be distributed, one share to Isaac, and the other to the children of Grace Bayley." The residue thus disposed of is admitted to be the same as that provided by the fifth clause a^ove merhh>ned; but the respondent insists, that the testator did not intend to include in such residue the trust funds and reversions created by the second, third and fourth clauses of his will. The answer to this suggestion is, that the language of the fifth section is sufficiently broad, as we have seen, to constitute it a general residuary clause, extending to all the property of the testator, whether in possession or expectancy, not otherwise appropriated. The testator has, in effect, so denominated it in the second codicil ; for he there refers to the fifth item, as containing directions for the disposition, not of a particular residuum, but " of all his residuary estate." We have, therefore, the language of the testator, and his construction of its meaning, and both are opposed to the limitation claimed by the respondent.
The second codicil became a part of, and was a republication of, the will, not only by operation of law, but according to the express directions of the testator, and the two must he construed together as one instrument. (Barns v. Crowe, 1 Ves. Jr. 486, Sumner's ed. and note; Mooers v. White, 6 Johns. Ch. 375; Westcott v. Cady, 5 Id. 344, and cases there cited.) The effect of the codicil was to modify the fifth section, by changing the proportion of the residuary estate which fell to the share of Isaac, and the children of Grace Bayley, respectively, from one-third to one-half, without changing the subject of the devise, or the persons of the devisees. The testator did not, as supposed by the counsel of the respondent, add to the one-third of the residuary estate given to the children of Grace Bayley, by the fifth section, the one-half devised to his son James by the same clause. On the contrary, the testator limited his action to a single subject, the residuary estate, as an entirety. He, accordingly, declared, in the second codicil, that it was his will, that his residuary estate, instead of being divided into three shares, and distributed to three devi-sees, according to the fifth section, shall be divided into two shares, and distributed to the two there designated. The latter provision became a substitute for, and ^thereby repealed, the former. Otherwise, we must assume, that the testator * believed that he could .divide and distribute the whole of the same fund, at the same time, in three parts, to three, and in two parts to two beneficiaries.
The sixth and seventh clauses of the will, upon which so much reliance has been placed by the respondent, are consistent with the view, that the testator recognised the fifth section as a general residuary clause, and, consequently, that he did not contemplate intestacy, or. in fact, die intestate as to any part of his property.
The sixth clause directs that the particular residuum, in the possession and under the control of the executors, at the death of the testator, after setting apart so much of the estate as might be necessary to pay annuities, legacies and debts, shall be divided among the "residuary legatees mentioned in item fifth of this will, according to its provisions."
The seventh section, in like manner, directs the distribution of the reversionary interest in the property and trust-funds created by the previous clauses, as the lives of the devisees, legatees and cestuis que trust should terminate, respectively, " unto the same persons, in the same proportions, as set forth in the fifth item." It is true, that the reversion in the farm, &c., at Poughkeepsie, was thereby granted to a grandson, or his issue, in case he or they should survive the wife of the testator, to whom a life-estate had been limited in the same property. If the contingency happened, the residuary estate would be so much diminished; if not, the reversion went to form a part of the general residuum, and, with that, be distributed in conformity with the provisions of the fifth section.
The main object of the sixth and seventh clauses above mentioned, was to compel a distribution of the different portions of the estate of the testator, from time to time, and whenever a division would give to the beneficiaries the possession and beneficial use of the shares allotted to them, respectively. The sixth, accord-relates to property in possession of *the executors, exclusive of trust-funds, &e.; the seventh, to that in expectancy. And the two, constituting, in the language of the will, " the whole residue and remainder of the estate" (after satisfying special gifts), were, at the prescribed periods, to be distributed among the persons, in the proportions, and subject to the trusts, declared in the fifth or general residuary clause. The views suggested, if correct, dispose of the question before us.
In March 1844, the third codicil was made and pub lished. The testator therein declared " that by the fifth section, he had devised and bequeathed to James E. Bayley (the respondent), a portion of his estate" — that the beneficiary "had renounced the faith of his fathers," and he then proceeds "to annul the aforesaid bequest and devise," and gives to the appellants the portion so given by his last will and testament to the respondent.
If the testator had died after the second, but before the publication of the third codicil, what share of his estate would have passed to James E. Bayley, by the fifth section of the will, modified as it then was, by the second codicil ? Not a fifteenth, as originally given, but three-thirtieths of the residuary estate. The learned •court whose decision we are reviewing, say "that the codicil operated as an enlargement of the devise and bequest contained in the 5th section of the will." Such is our opinion; so thought the testator; and when he-alludes to a portion of his estate there devised to the respondent, he refers to the portion augmented by the operation of the second codicil. And when he directs that the appellants shall take the portion so-given by'his last will and testament, he means all that was given by the instrument, of which the codicil was an indispensable part.
The respondent would separate the gift bestowed by the fifth section, prior to the publication of the codicil, from what he terms the "increase" granted by the second of them.
*The effect of this construction is, first, to divide the second codicil from the original will, of which the testator declared, " it should be a part, to all intents and purposes." Secondly, it assumes, that the testator, having enlarged the devise in the fifth section, by the second codicil, through accident or design, reinstated that section as it stood originally, for the purpose of depriving this devisee of the share there given, leaving him the "increase" bestowed by the second codi cil to dispose of at pleasure. In a word, that the testator intended to deprive this beneficiary of a fifteenth, and leave him a thirtieth part of his residuary estate, to build up a faith which the donor deemed " erroneous and unholy," and this in the face of the express declaration that he did- not deem it "just that any part of the property which God had given him" should be thus appropriated. Such was not the will nor the language of the testator.
Whatever may be thought of his motives in excluding the respondent from the list of beneficiaries, we must give effect to his intention, if plainly expressed. The respondent was undoubtedly honest in changing his religion — the testator may be presumed to be equally conscientious in adhering to his own. It is enough, that he was the sole judge whether any part of his property "should be at the disposition of a Catholic clergyman, or be applied to sustain a seminary professing to teach the doctrines in which the testator was a believer, while living, and in the faith of which, he probably died.
The decree of the superior court must therefore be reversed, in the particulars appealed from, and a decree entered in conformity to the views above suggested.