Court Opinion

ID: 9699072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:09:05.896669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:45.609981
License: Public Domain

*604Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Ckiee Justice Bell:
Anna Hazen died in 1936. Her last will offered to the City of Philadelphia a certain piece of real estate comprising 1-1/3 acres, “for a public park, on condition that no buildings shall be erected thereon other than those required for the comfort of the people, and also that the garden and trees shall be preserved as far as possible. . . .” The City accepted the land, now known as Howell Park, and the deed was duly recorded.
The City, in violation of the clear language of the trust, now seeks to use the park for a Little League Baseball field which would comprise (not counting foul balls) approximately 2/3rds of the entire tract. It is likely, indeed it is almost a certainty — and certainly there is nothing in the majority opinion to prevent it— that larger and older boys will soon be using the grounds for baseball and other sports and the entire park will be effectively taken over for recreational games or uses, and the donor’s “public park” will be abandoned or obliterated.
Moreover, there are 15 trees on this park land and of these 15, the City proposes to cut down and remove the 4 largest trees. Furthermore, the evidence showed that a number of industrial plants have moved into the neighborhood of this park, which would obviously offer the workers, as well as nearby residents, a place where they could enjoy rest, comfort and relaxation, as well as the beauty of this park. A public park is almost as different from a recreation playground as day is from night, even though, in the large parks, such as Fairmount Park, a tiny part of it is set apart for football or baseball or tennis courts or swimming pools. This is very different from turning almost an entire park into a recreation sports center. It is common knowledge that the City of Philadelphia has been derelict in providing recreation areas and recreation facilities for its youth, but this does not justify it in *605taking property which is devoted to a trust use and diverting it to a different use which the City leaders deem more utilitarian: McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, Vol. 10, §28.52; Nichols v. Commissioners of Middlesex County (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts), 166 N.E. 2d 911. A worthy objective— which little league baseball certainly is — does not justify a destruction of a trust or a diversion of the trust property or trust.purpose, any more than it justifies ignoring or distorting or rewriting the Constitution.
What benefactor will wish to leave his property in trust for a worthy purpose when he knows that it can be diverted at the whim of a City official to a use and purpose other than that for which he devised it?