Court Opinion

ID: 9809488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:15:11.944892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:35.757373
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting. The defendant declines to take the deed and pay $12,000 purchase money, alleging a defect of power in tbe plaintiff to execute a good title. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that it can, and it is not relieved of that burden because this is a “controversy submitted without action.” McKethan v. Ray, 71 N. C., 165.
The conveyance from the late Dr. A. J. DeRosset and *398wife to the plaintiff states that the parties of the first part “for the purpose of aiding in the establishment of a home for Indigent Widows and Orphans, or in the promotion of any other charitable or religious objects to which the property hereinafter conveyed may be appropriated * * * ” execute the conveyance to the trustees of St. James’ Parish. This is not the expression of a motive but of the purposes, the uses to which the property “may be appropriated,” and besides is not merely a specific purpose but a consideration and object of the deed. The doctrine of cypres does not prevail in this State and the trustees must carry out the trust. If they do not, or if the above trust “in the promotion of any charitable or religious objects” is so vague and uncertain that a court cannot decree the specific performance of such trust, then there is a resulting trust in favor of the grantors, or, since they are dead, in favor of their heirs at law or de-visees. It affirmatively appears that the property for years' past has not been used for a “Home for Indigent Widows and Orphans” and the proceeds of its sale, if collected, are to be used “for the promotion of charitable and religious objects.”
The heirs at law or devisees of the grantors are not parties to this proceeding and cannot be bound by any decree herein, and as the defendant contends that upon the record it cannot be adjudged that the plaintiffs can make him an indefeasible title, he ought not to be compelled by the court to pay down $12,000, when if the defendant’s contention as to the construction is correct, the parties entitled to the property are not parties to this action. The cause should be remanded that proper parties may be made. The defendant in his brief relies upon McKethan v. Ray, supra, which holds that upon a case agreed the court is not authorized to pass upon the validity of a title without making the heirs at law and devisees parties to the action, and that an action submitted without *399controversy bas no other or further effect than to dispense with summons and pleadings.
Until the heirs at law and devisees are made parties, it can serve no purpose to discuss the language of this deed. In Finlayson v. Kirby, 121 N. C., 106, this court ex mero moiu remanded the case that additional parties should be made, saying that it would be useless to pass upon the matters of law “until all interested persons have had an opportunity to be heard.” It however has been held in many cases in this State, some of which are cited in Keith v. Scales, 124 N. C., (relied on by defendant) at pp. 515, 516, that such a trust as is herein stated is void for uncertainty, as, among others, Holland v. Peck, 31 N. C., 255, where the property was given “to be disposed of by the Conference, as they shall in their Godly wisdom judge to be most expedient or beneficial for the increase and prosperity of the Gospel.'” This was held too indefinite to be executed. But it was far more definite than the words here used — “or in the promotion of any charitable or religious objects.” Besides, other cases cited in Keith v. Scales, the whole matter is so fully and thoroughly discussed in the famous Tilden Will Case (Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y., 29) that it is unnecessary now to cite others, especially as our decision cannot possibly guarantee the defendant a good title, in the absence of all the parties really in interest. The defendant is not seeking protection against the plaintiffs. Their deed would be an estoppel upon them. He wishes a decree that would give him a good title against the heirs at law and devisees of their grantor.
In Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y., 29 (s. c., 14 L. R. A., 1) the purpose expressed was that if, as here, the first purpose named was not executed, the trustees were authorized to apply the fund “to such charitable educational purposes” as they might deem “most widely and substantially beneficial to mankind.” It was held that the whole' gift was uncertain and invalid because not enforcible at the suit of any benefi*400ciary. This cause attracted universal attention from the profession and the public, being the construction of the will of Samuel J. Tilden, who had been an eminent lawyer and candidate for the Presidency; the amount involved was very large; the decision was by one of the most eminent courts in the country, the Court of Appeals of New York, affirming the court below; and the cause was argued by a large number of the leading lawyers of the Union, among them, James C. Carter, Joseph H. Choate, Smith M. Weed, Lyman D. Brewster and Geo. D. Comstock. Among the Judges were Rufus W. Peckham (now upon the U. S. Supreme Court) and Alton B. Parker. There was a most thorough research and discussion, no authority nor argument being omitted by the counsel and the court. No research could possibly add to the light thus shed, upon the point before us, by the discussion and decision in that case. By the rulings there sustained as settled law, the deed in the present case is necessarily void because “there is ho beneficiary who by suit can enforce execution of this trust” for the “promotion of any other charitable or religious objects.”
In that opinion it is said (at p. 45) : “If there is a single postulate of the common law, Established by an unbroken line of decisions, it is that a trust without a certain beneficiary who can claim its enforcement is void, and the objection is not obviated by the existence of a power in the trustees to select a beneficiary unless the class of persons in whose favor the power may be exercised has been designated by the testator, with such certainty,that the court can ascertain who were the objects of the power. The equitable rule that prevailed in he English Courts of Chancery, known as the cypres doctrine and which was applied to uphold gifts for charitable purposes when no beneficiary was named, has no place in the jurisprudence of this State.” And the same is true in North Carolina. The subsequent letter of Dr. De-Rosset, as to the legal effect of his deed, can have no effect. *401Mr. Tilden, would likewise have said Ms gift was valid, and so would any other grantor whose grant, gift or devise has been held invalid because against the above well settled principles and policy of the law. We must administer the law and not our desire for the maintenance of a laudable but defectively expressed gift or devise for “charitable purposes.”
Tilden v. Green is very generally recognized as conclusive authority and is so cited by this court in Keith v. Scales, 124 N. C., 515.