Opinion
07-03-1925
PRICE et al. v. UNITED HEBREW CHARITIES et al.
George J. Plechner, of New Brunswick, for complainants. M. T. Rosenberg, of Jersey City, for defendant United Hebrew Charities. Theodore Backes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Proceeding by William H. Price and others, executors of the will of Amelia Marks, deceased, against the United Hebrew Charities and others, for directions to determine questions relating to turning over a trust fund, as directed in the will, to defendant named. Directions given.
George J. Plechner, of New Brunswick, for complainants.
M. T. Rosenberg, of Jersey City, for defendant United Hebrew Charities.
Theodore Backes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
BUCHANAN, V. C. By the will of Amelia Marks, deceased (a resident of New Brunswick, N. J.), it is provided as follows:
"Seventh: At the end of the period of ten (10) years, above mentioned, I give, devise and bequeath the principal sum of my said estate, then in the hands of my executors, with any or all accumulations of interest thereon, to the United Hebrew Charities, a corporation, whose present address is number 356 Second avenue, New York City, in trust, to keep the same safely invested, and to use the interest and income thereof, for the support and maintenance of the Jewish poor people of the city of New Brunswick, New Jersey."
The 10-year period has elapsed, the executors are ready to pay over the fund, but because the named trustee is a New York corporation, very properly have sought directions from this court to determine whether this should be done without security being given by the nonresident trustee. Since the trust is a charitable trust for the benefit of the public or a portion of the public, the Attorney General has been made a party defendant. The nonresident trustee by its answer declines to accept the trust, if required to give bond; its reason is that it thinks the trust funds should not be diminished to the beneficiaries by the annual premium on the bond.
It is conceded that there is no obligatory requirement of law that bond should be given. The provisions of the Orphans' Court Act, § 51 (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 3829) apply only to nonresident executors (where the testator has not absolved such from the duty of giving security). It is also conceded on the other hand that this court may, in its discretion, require the giving of such security. Cf. In re Satterthwaite (N. J. Prerog.), 47 A. 227 (which was the case of a private trust). No case has been discovered where security has been required by the court in such a case.
It appears, and is admitted, that the named trustee is a corporation of the highest standing, with a long record of efficient administration of charities in its particular denomination, involving many years and very great sums annually. All parties are desirous that it should act in the present instance. The Attorney General recommends that security be not required.
The testatrix obviously knew that the corporation was a nonresident, but imposed no testamentary requirement for security. Presumablyshe knew that there was no statutory requirement.
Under all the circumstances the trustee will not be required to furnish security. It will however be required to execute an irrevocable power of attorney to the secretary of state of this state, authorizing him to accept for it service of all process issued out of the courts of this state in cases or proceedings involving this trust, and the administration thereof, in order that the courts of this state may maintain jurisdiction over the same for the benefit of the beneficiaries who are residents of this state.