Wilber v. Owens
New Jersey Supreme Court
65 A.2d 843 (1949)
- Written by Melanie Moultry, JD
Facts
William Brokaw Bamford created a manuscript that discussed his views on philosophical and metaphysical issues. Bamford’s will included a trust that funded the completion and publishing of the manuscript’s findings. Bamford’s wealth was inherited. The manuscript’s introduction section discussed Bamford’s belief that individuals who inherited wealth should use their wealth to benefit humanity. Princeton University was a named beneficiary of the trust. Following Bamford’s death, Princeton’s vice chancellor examined the manuscript and found it to be irrational, unintelligible, and of no scientific value. However, the vice chancellor also found that Bamford had a general charitable intent. On this basis, Princeton University applied the doctrine of cy pres to fund the university’s scientific and philosophical research. The will’s executor, Charles P. Wilber (plaintiff), sued the trustees of Princeton University, including John Owens (defendants). Wilber claimed that Bamford lacked a charitable intent and intended only for the manuscript to be completed and published. The lower court found that: (1) Bamford had a charitable intent, (2) the trust was a valid charitable trust, and (3) Wilber was obligated to release the trust funds to Princeton for the advancement of its scientific and philosophical research.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hehrer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
