Commonwealth v. Pauline Home

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth v. Pauline Home, 141 Pa. 537 (Pa. 1891)
21 A. 661; 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1100
McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Steerett, Williams

Commonwealth v. Pauline Home

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The appellant does not contend that the contributors to the Pauline Temporary Home have any legal right to direct the application of the fund after its use as originally contemplated has ceased. Its contention was that their wishes and recommendation should have weight with the court in determining the question of its future application. Conceding much force to this position, we have nothing before us to show that the court below did not give proper regard to their suggestions. It is true the fund was not awarded to the appellant. It was claimed by a number of charitable institutions. They are all meritorious, and deserving of aid, but we cannot say the court erred in awarding the fund to the Children’s Aid Society. The object of said society appears to be nearer in accord with that of the Pauline Temporary Home than that of any other of the societies named. The matter was very much in the discretion *546of the court below, and we would not reverse, unless for a clear abuse of discretion. No such abuse appears in this case.

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
COMMONWEALTH v. PAULINE HOME
Cited By
7 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Where an institution, incorporated for charitable purposes, has ceased its operations, sold its property, and holds the proceeds subject to the order of the court, [see § 10, act of April 26,T855, P. L. 331,] the wishes and recommendation of the contributors are not absolutely controlling upon the decree that the court may make. 2. While the wishes and recommendation of the contributors should have weight with the court, a decree awarding the fund to an incorporated society, whose objects appear to be nearer in accord with that of the original corporation than are those of the appellant, will not be reversed unless for a clear abuse of discretion.