Twenty-Third Street Baptist Church v. Cornell
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re 375 Park Avenue Associates, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- In re the Estate of Lord (New York Surrogate's Court 1941)
- Rouech v. St. Jude's Church (Wis. 1939)
- American University v. Todd (Superior Court of Delaware 1938)
- Eastern States Agricultural & Industrial League v. Estate of Vail (Vt. 1924)
- Blanton v. Forrest City Manufacturing Co. (Ark. 1919)
- Brown v. Marion Commercial Club (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)
- Myers v. Dean (New York Court of Common Pleas 1895)
- In re James' Estate (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Brunner-Booth Fotochrome Corp. v. Kaufman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- In re the Estate of de Brabant (New York Surrogate's Court 1949)
- Jones v. Union Central Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1943)
- I. & I. Holding Corp. v. Gainsburg (N.Y. 1938)
- Trustees of Baker University v. Clelland (8th Cir. 1936)
- In re the Estate of Barker (New York Surrogate's Court 1936)
- Rouff v. Washington & Lee University (Tex. App. 1932)
- In re the Final and Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1932)
- Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown (N.Y. 1927)
- New Jersey Orthopædic Hospital v. Wright (N.J. 1921)
- Bundrant v. Boyce (Ind. Ct. App. 1910)
- Sager v. Gonnermann (New York County Courts 1906)
- Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Weidinger (N.J. 1906)
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Butterfield (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Davis v. Bronson (N.D. 1891)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is an insuperable barrier to a recovery by the plaintiff that the subscription of Mrs. Weeks to the fund for the erection of a new church building was merely an ■executory gift, unsupported by any consideration. The doctrine settled in the recent case of Presbyterian Church v. Cooper (112 N. Y. 517) is decisive upon the facts here presented. Since the subscriptions of several furnished no ■consideration for the promise of any one; since the dece *605 dent did not request the corporation to build a new edifice, and the church did not promise that it would; since no endeavor to obtain subscribers was occasioned by the expressed wish or direction of testatrix, but began and was continued irrespective of it; since these facts exclude the existence of a consideration at the date of the promise; the plaintiff is compelled to rely and does rely upon one originating later. The contention is, that the church corporation erected, its new edifice and incurred the large .cost of its construction in reliance upon these subscriptions, and so in the end, if not in the beginning, a consideration arose to support the promise. That may happen where the expenditure can be said to have proceeded with the knowledge and assent of the subscribers; but here, before any expenditure was made, or any work was begun, Mrs. Weeks died. Her gift was unexecuted at her death and revoked by that event; and no after action of the church corporation could change or affect the result. Her executors could not create a new liability where none existed before, and had no authority to bind the estate by any assent to the work of construction, or convert an invalid promise of’ the testatrix into an enforceable liability of her estate. The promise died when she died, and was merely a good intention which did not survive her.
This view of the case makes it needless to discuss the other questions with which the argument was largely occupied.
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.