{
  "id": 8681750,
  "name": "ALEXANDER TAYLOR & AL. EX'ORS. vs. THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY & AL.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. American Bible Society",
  "decision_date": "1851-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "201",
  "last_page": "206",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "7 Ired. Eq. 201"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.C. 201"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 501,
    "char_count": 10930,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2815762617820576
    },
    "sha256": "25fe3edac490e67d1c61886dda91f2c4accdf58377b303f18b210f4445cbbdac",
    "simhash": "1:3b5ed30e44de78e0",
    "word_count": 1905
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:41:16.136784+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALEXANDER TAYLOR & AL. EX\u2019ORS. vs. THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY & AL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J. Mrs.\nHollister, by her last will and testament, devises as follows: \u201c I desire that at my decease, after my just debts are paid, my property may be divided in the following manner \u2014 to the Bible Society, Education, Colonization and Home ' Missionary Societies, each five hundred dollars.\u201d In a subsequent clause is the following bequest, \u201c as to my slaves, if I could any way effect it, I would emancipate them. I do not. wish to entail slavery upon them. George Physioc has been promised, if I ever sell him, to let him have a chance to buy himself; if this can be done I desire it may by his paying my estate a hundred dollars.\u201d The plaintiffs are the executors of the will, and the bill is filed to obtain from the Court an exposition of the two items above set forth, as to the parties meant in the first clause, and the effect of the last. The American Bible Society, the Trustees of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church in the'United States of America, the American Colonization Society, the Trustees of the Board of Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,and the legatees of Mrs. Hollister are made defendants. The answer of the \u201cAmerican Bible Society\u201d avers, that, by that name, the Society was incorporated by the Legislature of the State of M\u00e9w ( York in 1841, but that it is familiarly known by the name of '\u201cthe Bible Society\u201d to distinguish it from the numerous.auxiliary Societies, which have been formed in the several States, and different neighborhoods. They aver, that no Bible Society, other than auxiliaries of the American Bible Society, has been incorporated in North Carolina or existed in that State before the death of the Testatrix ; and that no other Bible Society is commonly known under that name, but the American Bible Society. They charge, that the testatrix, by her donation to the Bible Society, meant the American Bible Society. The answer of the Trustees of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America states, that they were duly incorporated by that name in tlie State of Pennsylvania; but that, among the members of the Presbyterian Church, of f\"whom the testatrix was one, it is c'ommonly known and spoken of, as trie Education Society : and that the object of the testatrix\u2019s bounty was their incorporated Society.\u2014 They aver, that there is no other Education Society subject to the control of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, but the one they represent- The answer of \u201c the Trustees of the Board of Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America\u201d sets forth, that that the Society is incorporated by that name, but that,, among the members of the Presbyterian Church, they are known by the name of the Presbyterian Home Missionary Society and so frequently designated; and that the testatrix was a member of the Presbyterian Church, and she meant her donation 'for their Society.\u201d The answer of \u201cthe f American Colonization Society\u201d states, that the Society is an incorporated body under that style and title; but that it is familiarly known as and called the Colonization Society* and is rarely spoken of as \u201c the American Colonization Society:\u201d That no other Colonization Society is known and spoken of under that name, but the American Colonization Society; and that the latter Society was the object of the testatrix\u2019s bounty. The other answers admit, that the testatrix was a member of the Presbyterian Church,, well acquainted with its various societies; but deny, that there is any emancipation of any of her slaves, and submit to such decree as the Court may make.\nThe cause is set for hearing on the bill, and answers-:\nWhere a cause is to be heard in Equity upon the bill and answers, the latter, when responsive-to the*former, are to be taken as true. The answers of the different societies s,et forth their several legitimate titles, or the titles by which they are incorporated, and under which they are at liberty to sue and be sued, to receive and to hold property either r.eal or personal. They admit, that they are not properly described in the will of Mrs. Hollister, but aver* that, in the several legacies given to the respective societies, the soeieti.es. they represent- were, meant. Let it be-supposed, then, that the testatrix in her donation to the \u201c Bible' Society,\u201d meant \u201c The American Bible Society,\u201d in her donation to \u201c The Education Society,\u201d meant \u201c The Trustees of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,\u201d that in her donation to \u201c The Colonization Society,\u201d she meant \u201c The American Colonization Society,\u201d and in her donation to the \u201c Home Missionary Society,\u201d she intended \u201c The Trustees of the Board of Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.\u201d Still the difficulty remains, does enough appear on the face of the will to authorize the Court to give'such effect to tho legacies? If permitted to express an individual opinion, I hare no doubt such was the intention of the testatrix, but at the same time, 1 admit, I lopk in vain to the will, for evidence of such fact. The principles, which must govern the case, are fully stated and discussed in the cases of Bridges and Pleasants, 4 Ire. Eq. 30, and Barnes v Simmons, 5 Ire. Eq. 392. The first was upon the will of Stephen Justice, wherein ho devised as follows : \u201c After my will is complied with, after the above directions, it is my will, that $1000, if there be so much remaining, be applied to foreign missions and to the poor saints.\u201d The answer states, that the testator was a pious and zealous member of the Baptist Church, and \u201c that by the term, poor saints, the.testator meant his Christian brethren, who might be in needy circumstances, and that the terms, \u201c home missions and foreign missions,\u201d apply to the efforts of the Baptist Church, to extend the knowledge of Christianity in foreign lands and in our own country. The cause was heard upon bill and answer. The Court say, it is a perfectly well known principle of law, that a Court cannot go out of a will to construe it. The paper must tell us the testator\u2019s meaning, or we can never find it out. , The Court further held, that, as the doctrine of cy. pres, does not have any existence in this country, the Courts can administer a fund upon no such arbitrary principles. Therefore, say the Court, a bequest to a religious charity inust, like others, be to some definite purpose and to some body or association of persons having a legal existence, and with capacity to take. The case of. Barnes v Simmons, was also heard upon bill and answer. The bill was filed against the defendant as executor of James Simmons, for the conveyance of two negroes, alleged to be devised to complainant, and, through a mistake of the writer of the will, otherwise disposed of. The executor admits the mistake. The Court there reiterate the principle, '\u2022 that written instruments, whether deeds or wills, are t\u00f3 be construed upon their own terms.\u201d \u201c That, at least there must be epough in them, in respect both to the person to take, and to the subject to pass by the instrument.\u201d If these cases be law, they are decisive of this. Upon what ground do the defendants place their claim to receive these different bequests ? Simply upon the intention of the testatrix, deduced from the alleged fact, that she was a zealous member of the Presbyterian Church, and that Church had societies of the different kinds mentioned in the will. But we look in vain into the will to see any such intention or any foundation for any such intention. In the language of the Court in Pleasant\u2019s case, we must find the intention in the paper or we can never find it. In the absence of all evidence furnished by the instrument itself, we cannot say the Bible Society means the American Bible Society, or that the Education Society means the Trustees .of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America \u2014 and so of the other societies mentioned. ,\nThe case does not present the question of a latent ambiguity. That only arises where several things or persons come completely within the description contained in the will. Here, it is not'pretended, that there are two societies of either kind mentioned in the will. On the contrary,, some of the answers positively deny it. But the attempt is, to substitute one body of men, who by law are competent to take, for another, which is not competent. We regret the necessity, which compels us to declare, that the several legacies, set forth in the first clause of the will, are void for uncei\u2019tainty in the description of the persons who are to take.\nThe executors pray the advice of the Court, as to the slaves of the testatrix, particularly as to George Physioc. We have no advice to give \u2014 all we can do is to give'a construction to the clause, relative to the slaves of the testatrix. She no where leaves them their freedom, or directs the executors to emancipate them. She says, if she could, she would emancipate, but she does not do it. As to> George, so far from giving him his freedom, she expressly directs a sale, and only permits him to purchase himself at a particular price.\nPer Curiam. Declared accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J. Mrs."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Bryan, for the plaintiff,",
      "J. II. Bryan, for the next of kin.",
      "Iredell, for the- Societies."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALEXANDER TAYLOR & AL. EX\u2019ORS. vs. THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY & AL.\nA testatrix, by her will,\u2019devised as follows: \u201cI desire that, at my decease, after my just debts are paid, my property maybe divided as follows, \u201cTo the Bible Society, Education, Colonization and Home Missionary Societies, each fivd hundred dollars.\u201d It was admitted by the claimants of the respective legacies,that the Bible and'Oolonizalion Societies were not described by their proper corporate names, though they were well known and usually called by the names used in the description \u2014 and so also as to the two other Societies.\nHeld, by the Court, that the descriptions not being correct pn the face of the will, so as to designate with certainty who were the objects of her bounty, the legacies are void for uncertainty in the description of the persons, who were to take.\nIn the same will is the following clause: \u201c As to my slaves, if I could any way effect it, I would emancipate them. I do not wish to entail slavery upon them. G. P. has been promised if I ever sold 'him, to, let him have a chance to buy himself. If this can be done, I desire it may, by his paying my estate one hundred dollars.\u201d Held, that ijy this clause there is no direction for the emancipation of any of them.\nThe case of jBridges v. Pleasants, 4 Ire. Eq. 30, Barnes v. Simmons, 5 Ire Eq. 392 cited and approved.\nCause transmitted to the Supreme Court from the Court of Equity of Craven County, at the Spring Term 1851.\nJ. W. Bryan, for the plaintiff,\nJ. II. Bryan, for the next of kin.\nIredell, for the- Societies."
  },
  "file_name": "0201-01",
  "first_page_order": 211,
  "last_page_order": 216
}