From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moran v. Kelley

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Mar 26, 1924
124 A. 67 (Ch. Div. 1924)

Opinion

No. 53/695.

03-26-1924

MORAN v. KELLEY et al.

Perkins & Drewen, of Jersey City, for complainant. John Wahl Queen, of Jersey City, for defendants.


Bill for construction of a residuary clause of a will by Margaret Moran, guardian of Margaret Kelley, against Mamie Kelley and another, administrators with the will annexed of William J. Kelley, deceased. Validity of residuary clause sustained.

Perkins & Drewen, of Jersey City, for complainant.

John Wahl Queen, of Jersey City, for defendants.

LEWIS, V. C. The testator, William J. Kelley, by his last will and testament, after making certain bequests, devised and bequeathed all the residue of his estate to his two cousins, Mamie Kelley and Annie Kelley, in trust, however, that they should, when said residue was paid to them after his death, employ said sum or sums to have masses said for the happy repose of his soul.

This bill is filed by the guardian of the testator's daughter, who contends that the bequest, provided for in the residuary clause, is invalid. The defendants, however, who are the persons named as trustees in the trust created by the residuary clause, and who are also the administrators with the will annexed of the testator, assert that the provision is valid as a charitable use, and should be sustained.

It is to be noted that the bequest is to definite persons, in trust for a specific purpose, and creates a use intended for the benefit of the testator specifically. Such a use, when possessing those elements of definiteness, is sustained, generally, by the American authorities (6 Cyc. 920); and a similar bequest was sustained by Vice Chancellor Emery in this court in Kerrigan v. Tabb, 39 Atl. 701, which is cited with approval by Vice Chancellor Stevenson in Brown v. Condit, 70 N. J. Eq. 440, 61 Atl. 1055, and by Vice Chancellor Stevens in White v. Newark, 89 N. J. Eq. 5, 103 Atl. 1043. See, also, Kerrigan v. Conelly, 46 Atl. 227, where the same principle was sustained by this court.

I will therefore advise a decree sustaining the validity of the residuary clause in question, and directing the administrators with the will annexed of William J. Kelley, deceased, to pay over the residuary estate to the trustees named therein.


Summaries of

Moran v. Kelley

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Mar 26, 1924
124 A. 67 (Ch. Div. 1924)
Case details for

Moran v. Kelley

Case Details

Full title:MORAN v. KELLEY et al.

Court:COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Mar 26, 1924

Citations

124 A. 67 (Ch. Div. 1924)

Citing Cases

Sedgwick v. National Savings Trust Co.

We have no doubt that a trust for the saying of masses for one's soul or for the souls of others — if…

Gallagher v. Venturini

The rule against perpetuities is not violated by any of these paragraphs, since the bequests made thereby, if…