Wentworth v. Wentworth

4 Citing cases

  1. Merchants c. Bank v. Curtis

    97 A.2d 207 (N.H. 1953)   Cited 23 times

    This decision was bitterly assailed by Gray in his treatise (appendix G) since he thought it was a dangerous thing to tamper with this ancient English rule "which is concatenated with almost mathematical precision." Gray, supra, s. 871. Nevertheless, Edgerly v. Barker, supra, has been followed in subsequent decisions in this state and continues to remain in good standing here. Wentworth v. Wentworth, 77 N.H. 400; Flanders v. Parker, 80 N.H. 566; Gale v. Gale, supra; Amoskeag Trust Company v. Haskell, 96 N.H. 89, 91. See Quarles, The Cy Pres Doctrine: Its Application to Cases Involving the Rule against Perpetuities and Trusts for Accumulation, 21 N. Y. U. L. Q. Rev. 384 (1946). In England the same result has been achieved by legislation.

  2. Carter v. Berry

    243 Miss. 321 (Miss. 1962)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Carter v. Berry, 243 Miss. 321, 140 So.2d 843, 95 A.L.R.2d 791 (1962), the Mississippi Supreme Court took a similar position.

    He concludes: "It appears that the cy pres doctrine, for a long stretch of years, has been applied in Perpetuity and Income Accumulation cases and found to work satisfactorily by England, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania; that it was applied in Kentucky in a case involving the will of a New Hampshire testator; and that the doctrine has been approved and made use of by the Supreme Court of the United States." New Hampshire has consistently followed its 1891 decision in Edgerly v. Barker. Wentworth v. Wentworth, 77 N.H. 400, 92 A. 733 (1914); Flanders v. Parker, 80 N.H. 566, 120 A. 558 (1923); Gale v. Gale, 85 N.H. 358, 159 A. 122 (1932); Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Haskell, 96 N.H. 89, 91, 70 A.2d 210, 71 A.2d 408 (1950); Merchants National Bank v. Curtis, 98 N.H. 225, 97 A.2d 207 (1953). Leach and Tudor think the Rule adopted in Edgerly v. Barker is sound, and "difficulties have not arisen".

  3. Gale v. Gale

    159 A. 122 (N.H. 1932)   Cited 10 times

    In Edgerly v. Barker, supra, where the testator had placed limitations on the trust estate slightly in excess of those permitted by law, and it appeared that there was a primary intent that the devise take effect even though the precise limitation stated could not, it was held that there was a good limitation of so much of restriction as the law permits. This doctrine was approved in Wentworth v. Wentworth, 77 N.H. 400, and Flanders v. Parker, 80 N.H. 566. The Barker case is decisive of the present controversy. In the former case the intent to fix the limitation allowed by law was implied.

  4. Gagnon v. Wellman

    99 A. 786 (N.H. 1917)   Cited 1 times

    Since this is so, the bequest will not fail even if the plaintiffs' contention that the parish church cannot be known by the testator's name is sound; for it is the court's duty, whenever a testator's intention can be ascertained and is legal, to effectuate it. This is as true when the scheme the testator devises for that purpose breaks down, or is for any reason illegal, as when his scheme is both legal and workable. Adams Academy v. Adams, 65 N.H. 225; Edgerly v. Barker, 66 N.H. 434; Haynes v. Carr, 70 N.H. 463; Haywood v. Spaulding, 75 N.H. 92; Adams v. Page, 76 N.H. 96; French v. Lawrence, 76 N.H. 234; Smart v. Durham, 77 N.H. 58; Fernald v. Church, 77 N.H. 108; Wentworth v. Wentworth, 77 N.H. 400. If, therefore, the parish finds that the church cannot be known as the "Camille Gagnon Church," it will be its duty to apply to the court for relief, and the court will formulate a plan for administering the trust, by which the property can be used in such a way that it will at one and the same time "prove a lasting benefit to the people of said parish" and perpetuate the testator's memory and that of his family for many generations. Case discharged.