Clark v. Campbell
133 A. 166 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a private trust to be valid, the beneficiaries must be definite or ascertainable. A bequest in trust for the benefit of a testator's "friends" is invalid because the term is conceptually indefinite and does not designate an ascertainable class of beneficiaries.
Facts:
- A testator's will included a ninth clause concerning various articles of personal property, such as books, pictures, antiques, and hunting equipment.
- This clause gave the property to his trustees "in trust to make disposal by the way of a memento... of such articles to such of my friends as they, my trustees, shall select."
- The will justified this by stating the trustees were competent to make the selection due to their familiarity with the testator's property, wishes, and friendships.
- Any property not distributed to friends under this clause was directed to be sold, with the proceeds becoming part of the residuary estate.
Procedural Posture:
- The trustees of the deceased's estate filed an action in the trial court seeking instruction on the validity and proper execution of the ninth clause of the testator's will.
- The trial court reserved and transferred the legal question regarding the validity of the trust to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire for a final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a clause in a will creating a private trust that grants trustees the discretion to distribute personal property to the testator's "friends" fail for lack of definite and ascertainable beneficiaries?
Opinions:
Majority - Snow, J.
Yes. A bequest in a will that creates a private trust for the benefit of a testator's "friends" is invalid because the class of beneficiaries is too indefinite to be ascertained. The common law requires that a private trust must have a definite beneficiary or a class of beneficiaries capable of being clearly identified who can come to court and enforce the trust. Unlike terms such as "relatives" or "family," which courts can construe narrowly to mean statutory next-of-kin, the term "friends" has no precise legal or common meaning and describes relationships of varying and subjective degrees. Granting trustees total discretion to select beneficiaries from such a vague class constitutes an impermissible delegation of the testator's own will-making authority, which violates the policy of the Statute of Wills. Because the trust is ineffectively declared, it fails, and the trustees hold the property in a resulting trust for the residuary takers of the estate.
Analysis:
This decision firmly upholds the traditional common law requirement of an ascertainable beneficiary for a private trust to be valid. It draws a critical distinction between classes that can be objectively limited by courts, such as "relatives," and conceptually amorphous classes like "friends." The ruling prevents testators from delegating their testamentary power to trustees, thereby reinforcing the formal requirements of the Statute of Wills. This case serves as a foundational example in trust law of how a trust fails for indefiniteness and illustrates the creation of a resulting trust as the equitable remedy for such a failure.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Campbell