cy pres doctrine in Illinois

1991(Mason v. Bloomington Library Ass’n, supra; Kemmerer v. Kemmerer, 233 Ill. 327 ; 2 Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, see. 438.) It is not necessary that the mode prescribed be impossible of execution, but resort to the shelter of the cy pres rule is available if use in tbe designated manner is no longer feasible.

1962(Mason v. Bloomington Library Ass’n, supra; Kemmerer v. Kemmerer, 233 Ill 327, 84 NE 256 ; 2 Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, sec 438.) It is not necessary that the mode prescribed be impossible of execution, but resort to the shelter of the cy pres rule is available if use in the designated manner is no longer feasible.

1991(Board of Education v. City of Rockford, supra.) Courts of equity have exercised their power of administration when the funds in the trust have been found to be inadequate for the charitable purpose, (Bruce v. Maxwell, 311 Ill. 479 ,) when additional facilities of a similar nature have become available, and a literal execution would be wasteful, (Mars v. Gibert, 93 S. C. 455, 77 S. E. 131 ; Adams v. Page, supra) or when a different mode of execution would more completely fulfill the charitable purpose of the donor.

1963Where the clear intention of the donor is that a gift be devoted to a general charitable purpose and it cannot be administered in the exact way directed, the donor’s purpose will not be allowed to fail but the exact directions of the donor as to management may be regarded as merely directory, and, if necessary to preserve the trust or gift and carry out the leading purpose of the donor, under the - Cy Pres doctrine a court may apply it to a similar purpose by different means,— the doctrine only applies where there is a valid gift to charity generally and the exact directions of the donor canno

1968The cy pres doctrine should only be applied if the mode or manner prescribed in the instrument setting up the charitable bequest is not practical or feasible (Board of Education v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill 442, 24 NE2d 366, 371 ; Hardy v. Davis, 16 Ill App2d 516, 148 NE2d 805 ).

1946In Board of Education v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill. 442 , the Supreme Court approved the following definition of the cy pres doctrine as of “admirable clarity”: “If property is given in trust to be applied to a particular charitable purpose and it is or becomes impossible or impracticable or illegal to carry out the particular purpose, and if the settlor manifested a more general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, the trust will not fail but the court will direct the application of the property to some charitable purpose which falls within the general charitable intention

1991Mason v. Bloomington Library Ass’n, supra; In re Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, supra.” Since its early decision in Heuser v. Harris, 42 Ill. 425 , the Supreme Court of Illinois has never been remiss in doing everything possible to uphold and preserve charitable trusts by a liberal application of the cy pres doctrine.

1938The Supreme Court in passing upon a like question in Heuser v. Harris, 42 Ill. 425 , said: “The counsel for appellants claim that the court will not under the cy pres power make a disposition of this property different from that proposed by the testator.

1991In addition to the previously cited cases, see for example, Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Murr, 3 Ill.2d 107 , later appealed as Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Castle, 14 Ill.App.2d 495 ; City of Aurora v. Y.

1958We have found no authority, nor have we been referred to any, establishing that abutting owners are necessary parties in a cy pres proceeding and observe that the doctrine was applied in Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Murr, 3 Ill.2d 107 ; Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Society, 375 Ill. 220 , and Board of Education v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill. 442 , without such owners being joined.

1991(Board of Education v. City of Rockford, supra.) Courts of equity have exercised their power of administration when the funds in the trust have been found to be inadequate for the charitable purpose, (Bruce v. Maxwell, 311 Ill. 479 ,) when additional facilities of a similar nature have become available, and a literal execution would be wasteful, (Mars v. Gibert, 93 S. C. 455, 77 S. E. 131 ; Adams v. Page, supra) or when a different mode of execution would more completely fulfill the charitable purpose of the donor.

1940(Board of Education v. City of Rockford, supra.) Courts of equity have exercised their power of administration when the funds in the trust have been found to be inadequate for the charitable purpose, (Bruce v. Maxwell, 311 Ill. 479 ,) when additional facilities of a similar nature have become available, and a literal execution would be wasteful, (Mars v. Gibert, 93 S. C. 455, 77 S. E. 131 ; Adams v. Page, supra;) or when a different mode of execution would more completely fulfill the charitable purpose of the donor.

1981In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. City of Quincy (1970), 357 Mass. 521 , 258 N.E.2d 745 , the deviation from the primary charitable gift which was permitted although the tmst contained an alternate charitable use by the college, was to permit a girls preparatory school established by the primary gift and long in operation to admit girls from all communities although the trust instrument provided that the school accept only girls from Quincy.

1981In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. City of Quincy (1970), 357 Mass. 521 , 258 N.E.2d 745 , the deviation from the primary charitable gift which was permitted although the tmst contained an alternate charitable use by the college, was to permit a girls preparatory school established by the primary gift and long in operation to admit girls from all communities although the trust instrument provided that the school accept only girls from Quincy.

1981In Rice v. Stanley (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 209 , 327 N.E. 2d 774 , the factual situation was almost the same as here and the reviewing court held that a community health facility should be built and operated with funds left in trust for the building and operating of a hospital, a use which, there as here, was deemed not to be feasible.

1981In Rice v. Stanley (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 209 , 327 N.E. 2d 774 , the factual situation was almost the same as here and the reviewing court held that a community health facility should be built and operated with funds left in trust for the building and operating of a hospital, a use which, there as here, was deemed not to be feasible.

1973Charities, § 45, p. 68: “The cy pres doctrine is applicable only where the donor had a general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, and it does not apply where the gift is to a specific object or organization with no indication of a general intent to devote the property to some charitable cause, plan, or scheme.” (See also: Bogert Trust and Trustees 2d, § 46, p. 422; Quimby v. Quimby, 175 Ill.App. 367 ; Chicago Daily News Fresh Air Fund v. Kerner, 305 Ill.App. 237 ).

1962Quimby v. Quimby, 175 Ill App 367, and Chicago Daily News Fresh Air Fund v. Kerner, 305 Ill App 237, 27 NE2d 310 .

1963In carrying into execution a bequest to an individual or particular named legatee, the mode in which the legacy is to take effect is of the substance of the legacy; but when the bequest is to charity, generally, a court of chancery will consider charity as the substance, and if the particular mode pointed out fails it will provide another mode by which the charity may take effect; if the bequest be for charity, generally, it matters not how uncertain the persons or objects may be, or whether they are in esse or not, or whether the particular legatee be a corporation capable by law of taking or

1913The cy pres doctrine is illustrated by the case of Mason v. Bloomington Library Ass’n, 237 Ill. 442 , where a new association could be substituted for the purpose of carrying the trust into execution, and in other similar cases.

2012Township of Jubilee v. State, 2011 IL 111447, ¶ 23 , 355 Ill.Dec. 668 , 960 N.E.2d 550 .

2012Township of Jubilee v. State, 2011 IL 111447, ¶ 23 , 355 Ill.Dec. 668 , 960 N.E.2d 550 .

2012Township of Jubilee v. State, 2011 IL 111447, ¶ 23 , 355 Ill.Dec. 668 , 960 N.E.2d 550 .

1991(Community Unit School Disk v. Booth, 1 Ill.2d 545 ; Scott on Trusts, (1956 ed.) vol.

1991In addition to the previously cited cases, see for example, Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Murr, 3 Ill.2d 107 , later appealed as Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Castle, 14 Ill.App.2d 495 ; City of Aurora v. Y.

1988Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. v. Sever (1946), 393 Ill. 81, 93 , 65 N.E.2d 385 .

1988Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. v. Sever (1946), 393 Ill. 81, 93 , 65 N.E.2d 385 .

1986In Graham Hospital Association v. Talley (1975), 29 Ill.

1985The question of the extent to which the court will permit or direct the trustee to apply the trust property to charitable purposes other than the particular charitable purpose designated by the settlor where it is or becomes impossible or illegal or impracticable to carry out the particular purpose involves the doctrine of cy pres, which is dealt with in section 399.’ Restatement (Second) of Trusts sec. 381, comment a, at 273 (1959).” ( 83 Ill. 2d 488, 496-97 , 416 N.E.2d 231 .) The distinction between these two equitable doctrines was also recently noted by the Court of Appeals of New York in

1985The question of the extent to which the court will permit or direct the trustee to apply the trust property to charitable purposes other than the particular charitable purpose designated by the settlor where it is or becomes impossible or illegal or impracticable to carry out the particular purpose involves the doctrine of cy pres, which is dealt with in section 399.’ Restatement (Second) of Trusts sec. 381, comment a, at 273 (1959).” ( 83 Ill. 2d 488, 496-97 , 416 N.E.2d 231 .) The distinction between these two equitable doctrines was also recently noted by the Court of Appeals of New York in

1985See Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary Society (1940), 375 Ill. 220, 234 , 30 N.E.2d 657 ; Burr v. Brooks (1979), 75 Ill.

1985Supp. 2d 900, 452 N.E.2d 1228 .

1985The question of the extent to which the court will permit or direct the trustee to apply the trust property to charitable purposes other than the particular charitable purpose designated by the settlor where it is or becomes impossible or illegal or impracticable to carry out the particular purpose involves the doctrine of cy pres, which is dealt with in section 399.’ Restatement (Second) of Trusts sec. 381, comment a, at 273 (1959).” ( 83 Ill. 2d 488, 496-97 , 416 N.E.2d 231 .) The distinction between these two equitable doctrines was also recently noted by the Court of Appeals of New York in

1973Charities, § 45, p. 68: “The cy pres doctrine is applicable only where the donor had a general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, and it does not apply where the gift is to a specific object or organization with no indication of a general intent to devote the property to some charitable cause, plan, or scheme.” (See also: Bogert Trust and Trustees 2d, § 46, p. 422; Quimby v. Quimby, 175 Ill.App. 367 ; Chicago Daily News Fresh Air Fund v. Kerner, 305 Ill.App. 237 ).

1971(Holden Hospital Corporation v. Southern Illinois Hospital Corporation, 22 Ill.2d 150 , 174 N.E.2d 793 ; Kelly v. Guild, 42 Ill.App.2d 143 , 191 N.E.2d 377 .) Moreover, trustees cannot without the aid of a court make the cy pres doctrine applicable to an estate in their charge. 14 C.J.S.

1971(Holden Hospital Corporation v. Southern Illinois Hospital Corporation, 22 Ill.2d 150 , 174 N.E.2d 793 ; Kelly v. Guild, 42 Ill.App.2d 143 , 191 N.E.2d 377 .) Moreover, trustees cannot without the aid of a court make the cy pres doctrine applicable to an estate in their charge. 14 C.J.S.

1971(Holden Hospital Corporation v. Southern Illinois Hospital Corporation, 22 Ill.2d 150 , 174 N.E.2d 793 ; Kelly v. Guild, 42 Ill.App.2d 143 , 191 N.E.2d 377 .) Moreover, trustees cannot without the aid of a court make the cy pres doctrine applicable to an estate in their charge. 14 C.J.S.

1971(Holden Hospital Corporation v. Southern Illinois Hospital Corporation, 22 Ill.2d 150 , 174 N.E.2d 793 ; Kelly v. Guild, 42 Ill.App.2d 143 , 191 N.E.2d 377 .) Moreover, trustees cannot without the aid of a court make the cy pres doctrine applicable to an estate in their charge. 14 C.J.S.

1968The parties to this cause agree that in the construction of a will, the court should seek to ascertain the intention of the testatrix (Dillman v. Dillman, 409 Ill 494, 502, 100 NE2d 567 ; Bartlett v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins.

1968The cy pres doctrine should only be applied if the mode or manner prescribed in the instrument setting up the charitable bequest is not practical or feasible (Board of Education v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill 442, 24 NE2d 366, 371 ; Hardy v. Davis, 16 Ill App2d 516, 148 NE2d 805 ).

1968The cy pres doctrine should only be applied if the mode or manner prescribed in the instrument setting up the charitable bequest is not practical or feasible (Board of Education v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill 442, 24 NE2d 366, 371 ; Hardy v. Davis, 16 Ill App2d 516, 148 NE2d 805 ).

1961In support of this contention the appellee, Galesburg Cottage Hospital relies strongly upon the decisions of our reviewing courts in the following cases: Woman’s Union Missionary Society of America v. Mead, 131 Ill. 338 , 23 N. E. 603 ; Dean v. Northern Trust Company, 266 Ill. 205 , 107 N. E. 186 ; Hitchcock v. Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church, 259 Ill. 288 , 102 N. E. 741 ; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432 , 48 N. E. 561 ; Barnhart v. Barnhart, 415 Ill. 303 , 114 N.E.2d 378 , and Dailey v. Dailey, 224 Ill.

1961In support of this contention the appellee, Galesburg Cottage Hospital relies strongly upon the decisions of our reviewing courts in the following cases: Woman’s Union Missionary Society of America v. Mead, 131 Ill. 338 , 23 N. E. 603 ; Dean v. Northern Trust Company, 266 Ill. 205 , 107 N. E. 186 ; Hitchcock v. Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church, 259 Ill. 288 , 102 N. E. 741 ; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432 , 48 N. E. 561 ; Barnhart v. Barnhart, 415 Ill. 303 , 114 N.E.2d 378 , and Dailey v. Dailey, 224 Ill.

1961In support of this contention the appellee, Galesburg Cottage Hospital relies strongly upon the decisions of our reviewing courts in the following cases: Woman’s Union Missionary Society of America v. Mead, 131 Ill. 338 , 23 N. E. 603 ; Dean v. Northern Trust Company, 266 Ill. 205 , 107 N. E. 186 ; Hitchcock v. Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church, 259 Ill. 288 , 102 N. E. 741 ; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432 , 48 N. E. 561 ; Barnhart v. Barnhart, 415 Ill. 303 , 114 N.E.2d 378 , and Dailey v. Dailey, 224 Ill.

1961In support of this contention the appellee, Galesburg Cottage Hospital relies strongly upon the decisions of our reviewing courts in the following cases: Woman’s Union Missionary Society of America v. Mead, 131 Ill. 338 , 23 N. E. 603 ; Dean v. Northern Trust Company, 266 Ill. 205 , 107 N. E. 186 ; Hitchcock v. Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church, 259 Ill. 288 , 102 N. E. 741 ; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432 , 48 N. E. 561 ; Barnhart v. Barnhart, 415 Ill. 303 , 114 N.E.2d 378 , and Dailey v. Dailey, 224 Ill.

1961In support of this contention the appellee, Galesburg Cottage Hospital relies strongly upon the decisions of our reviewing courts in the following cases: Woman’s Union Missionary Society of America v. Mead, 131 Ill. 338 , 23 N. E. 603 ; Dean v. Northern Trust Company, 266 Ill. 205 , 107 N. E. 186 ; Hitchcock v. Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church, 259 Ill. 288 , 102 N. E. 741 ; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432 , 48 N. E. 561 ; Barnhart v. Barnhart, 415 Ill. 303 , 114 N.E.2d 378 , and Dailey v. Dailey, 224 Ill.