## Facts

- William Brokaw Bamford’s will created the “Exton-Bamford Research Fund,” directing that a stated principal amount be held in trust and the income used for scientific and philosophical research connected with Princeton University’s Department of Philosophy, as its trustees determined.
- The will described an intended use of the fund: to continue, complete, and publish for popular understanding the results of Bamford’s manuscript, “Random Scientific Notes seeking the Essentials in Place and Space.”
- The will included alternative arrangements if initial trustees declined, including a gift to the League of Nations, and, upon refusal, to Princeton University’s trustees for similar purposes on acceptable terms.
- The executor filed an action seeking judicial construction of the tenth paragraph and directions concerning administration of the trust.
- The trial court found the manuscript irrational, unintelligible, and without scientific value, and concluded that completing and publishing it was impossible.
- Despite the failure of the specific manuscript plan, the trial court found a general charitable intent and ordered cy pres administration by paying the trust corpus to Princeton University’s trustees for research uses.
- John Owens appealed, arguing the bequest’s controlling purpose was publication of the manuscript and that cy pres was unavailable absent general charitable intent.

## Issues

1. Whether the tenth paragraph manifested a general charitable intent sufficient to create a valid charitable trust despite failure of the specific manuscript-centered plan.
2. If a valid charitable trust existed, whether cy pres permitted redirecting the fund to scientific and philosophical research at Princeton when completion and publication of the manuscript was impossible.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the decree.
- The court held the will expressed a general charitable intent and created a valid charitable trust.
- The court upheld application of cy pres and approved directing the corpus to Princeton University’s trustees to invest and use the income for scientific and philosophical research in the Department of Philosophy as they judged appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- A testamentary gift for research and the advancement of education and learning for public benefit is a charitable use and may be administered as a charitable trust.
- A charitable trust does not fail merely because the testator’s chosen method or project is defective, unworkable, or lacks merit, if the instrument shows an overarching charitable purpose.
- When a testator has general charitable intent and the specified mode of carrying it out becomes impossible or impracticable, a court in equity may apply cy pres to direct the property to a substitute charitable use approximating the donor’s general purpose.
- Evidence bearing on general charitable intent includes the scale of the charitable gift, stated public-benefit objectives, and alternative charitable recipients or mechanisms suggesting the property should remain devoted to charity if obstacles arise.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the research fund as a charitable trust because the will showed a general intent to devote property to public-benefiting research and learning, and it applied cy pres to redirect the failed manuscript-publication scheme to scientific and philosophical research at Princeton University consistent with that general purpose.


Wilber v. Owens, 2 N.J. 167, 65 A.2d 843 (N.J. 1949)