In Re the Estate of Coleman
Before: Sloss
Synopsis
APPEAL from a decree of the Superior Court of Sacramento County distributing the estate of a deceased person. Peter J. Shields, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
SLOSS, J.
The will of Florence A. Coleman contained the following provision:
“I give and bequeath to the city of Sacramento the sum of thirty thousand dollars to be used in erecting a suitable fountain for the benefit of thirsty animals and birds, to be placed in a prominent place, accessible to all. This I give in memory to my beloved husband, W. P. Coleman, deceased.”
At the close of administration, the executors petitioned for distribution, and the court made its decree, distributing the sum of thirty thousand dollars (less a necessary abatement) to the city of Sacramento to be used for the purposes declared in the will.
The residuary legatees and devisees "appeal from the decree.
[214]
The main question presented is whether the gift is one to a charitable use. If it is not, the provision suspends the power of alienation beyond the limits allowed by our law, and is void for that reason. (Civ. Code, sec. 715;
Estate of Hinckley,
58 Cal. 457;
Estate of Gay,
138 Cal. 552, [94 Am. St. Rep. 70, 71 Pac. 707];
Estate of Sutro,
155 Cal. 727, [102 Pac. 920].) On the other hand, it is thoroughly settled that the code provisions respecting suspension of the power of alienation have no application to charities and charitable uses.
(Estate of Hinckley,
58 Cal. 457;
Estate of Sutro, 155
Cal. 727, [102 Pac. 920].)
The terms “charity” and “charitable use” have frequently been defined by the courts. “A charitable use,” it is said in
Estate of Lennon, 152
Cal. 327, [125 Am. St. Rep. 58, 14 Ann. Cas. 1024, 92 Pac. 870], “is a gift for the benefit of persons, either by bringing their hearts and minds under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies of disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting to establish them for life, by erecting or maintaining public buildings, or in other ways lessening the burdens or making better the condition of the general public, or some class of the general public, indefinite as to names and numbers. In short, it is a gift to a general public use.” (See, also,
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)