The Lewis Will Case

Judge E. D. Kinne bas rendered a decisión iu the famous Lewis will case by which no more of the works of art will come to the university nnless the decisión shonld be reversed by the supreme ccurt. The opinión iu f uil is given below : The evidence in this causo tends witla more or less conelusiveness to establish the following state of facts : Henry C. Lewia of Coldwater, Michigan, íor many years prior to 1884, was engaged in inaking au Art Collection. He was lnsplr.ed by no commercial motive, but expended nis time and rnoney ion tfliese Unes, as a matter of personal gratlficatlon and pride, and in the puirsuit of this pleasure Ue made sereral visite to Europe. He was a sot-called sclf-mado man, and Iris purchase of works of art, was oíten a mistake and probably an Imposltiön. This is emphatically true of bis earller selection'S. As the years went on, nis observation and experience enabled Qiim to acqnire Bome 'nformation and to make marked advancement in lus knowledge of mattere of art. His later acquisitions were of a mtfeh higlier cliaracter and oíten posBessed ivnquestimied merit. Much oí his collection, would Te neither instructiTe to the amateur or interesting to a persom of culture. Xiater on, 1e came to recognize the crude and inferior nature of ccrtain portions of his collection, but he seemed dlslnclined to discard tlvem, and preferred to ï-etain all c-f his Art Colleetion as evidencing tis own histoiical growth and developmeait in art. On his return from hi? first Tisit to Europe in 1868, he brought the nucleus of his A.rt Collection and placed :t within his somewhat pncious resiuence. which lie cccupieil until iiis death. ome time in 1870 Mr. Lewis erected the first part oí his so called Art Gallery. It was of brick, located some twenty-two feet from his resitlence, and was eoimected therewith by a covered wooden passage-way upon brick piers. Some linie frhereafter, the gallery was ealarged to its present size. It lias oiïly sky lights and no Windows. Af ter the erection of the Art Gallevy. in general, the works of art had their allotted location therein. Purchases were made. designed ïor t-he residence anti ethers for the Art Gallery proper, and as a rule they so remained without material ehange. In 1875 Mr. Lewis pu-blislied a pamplilet entitled "The Léwis Art Gallery Catalogue of Paintings and Statuary." In 1SS3 a supplement was printed. In tliese catalogues, hls entire Art Collection, without discrimination as to1 location, was dese.ribed and numbered, embracing all wit'hin the residence as well as all within the Art Gallery, and tacluding wortTUess as wcll asTaluable pictures, paintings and statuary. Thereafter, on Saturday of eacli week, the Art Gallery was open to the public without fees. That part of the Art Collection within hifi re-idènce was never open to the public, except by special pennission or invitatioai. The Art Collection within the residence embraced not only paintings and statuary but also bric-a-brac, curios, Tases, and obher works of art, some of which at least were appropriate if not designed for a private residence rather than tor a public Art Gallery, and included in some instances family portraits. The different rooms within the house had their own color anl to some extent coutained a corresponding Art Collection. The collection within the Gallery embraced cxnly paintings and statuary and comprised as near as may be, about nine-tenths of the tntire worlas of art both in nuamtlty and value. There were choice paintings and statuary im the residence as well as im the Gallery. Mr. LewLs estimated Iris Art Works at $250,000. Tuis was probably a soniewhat exaggerated raluatton. On ie lötli day of July, 1884, Mr. Lewiis was at Cliiton Sprlngs in the state oí New York, an invalid. Ou that day he executed and delivered :o his wi:e. Alma A. Lewis-, a bilí oí sale, containing among other thlngs this language, "-and also all houseliold stuff, goods and íurnishings of every manie and kind in my residence in Coldwater to have and to Uold tlie sameíorerer." Mr. Dennis, who prepared this bilí oí sale, testilies that it was the iiitentioii of Mr. Jüewisi by this bilí of sale, to .transfer to his wife among other thmgs, all of the Works 'OÍ Art included withiu their residence. Iu less tlian a month thereafter, ido August 1-ith, 1884, four days befare his death at Clifton Sprlngs, aíoi-esaid, Mr. Lewis executed his laso will and testament ; the legal interpretation oí which, is the object mul scope oí this judicial proceeding. In the first clause oí tliis will, alter giving the homostead (which ineluded tlie Art Gallery building) to lus j wifo, and his horses etc., lie uses tbc follo'xving language, in further s'E to his wiie : "Also all iurniture, carpets, Hilver, glass and china ware and otlier things used in our d welling house, but not including my books and papers, nor anr Art Wo-rks, bilt my Ifbrary, Art Works. Art. Ooilery and grounds shall remain as they are at the time of my decease during the lifetime oí my wiie, and subject to her use and control, unless she shall otherwise direct." In the sixth clause of his will is the languagc : "I give to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor In the State of Michigan, all my patatinga and statuary and all my nrt worbs of every kind and nature which are contained wlthin my Art Gallery ot" building." An annuity o-f $3,000 was also giren to hls wife. There were no cluldren and tlie remainder of hls property was distributed nmong iriends, relativos and heirs a-t law. On Nov. 15, 1884, Mrs. Lewis elected to accept the proivsions of the will. She continued to occupy the resldence and to control the Art Building and the entire Art Collection, unTil her deatli. whlch occurred on the 7th day of May. 1895. The estáte oí Henry Lewis has been closed. In its settlement, an inventory was taken of tlie Art Collection contained in tlie Art Gallery, bilt not o: tliat contaite 1 in the residence. The latter was treated as the property of Mrs. Lewis, a.nd shc so vegarded it. During her life-timo slie sold and ga.Te away a few tw1 they i wei'e 0Í inconsiderable value. She leffc a will giving ïo residenee and all of its comtents-of every name and descriptkmi to lier nephew the defendant Root. Evidence was introduced tending to prove t'hat Mr. Lewis regarded and valued liis Art Collection as a -vhole, as an entirety ; that he usually spoke of it as htó Art Gallery, aml embraced In such term his complete Art AVorks ; tliat it was his manifest intention to keep intact nis entire collection during his own liie and during the llfe of his wiie, and at tier death then tlie entire collection was to be given to the public. On tlie other hand evidence tending to Ostablish the fact that he álways distinguished between the works oi Art in hls residence and those withiu the Art Gallery, and that lie oiteií expressed tlie purpose and intention to leave to his wiie as her own property his residence and all the works of Art therein. It .appears by the evidence that there was no continuity or special relation existing between the eollection withiu the residence and that withiu the "Art Gallery ; that neither was essential to the unity of the other. It is in the light of "the f orgoing facts that a caustruction of the will must be made. The precise question is presented, whether the works of Art wlthin the residence are, by virtue of the will, the property of the University, or whether Mrs. Lewis obtained title thereto by virtue of the Bill of Sale, and held and transmitted the same to Mr. Root. It appears that Mrs. Lewis was a very worttiy woman and never doubted but that the works of Art within lier residenee were her own property. Duriug the period that she survived her husband a few painttogs were taken from the Gallery and placed wibhin the residence. A list of these, however, was preserved and at her death they were all voluntarily surrendered to the university as roTuvoig a part of the Art Gallery. If it was clear that Mrs. Lewis obtained title to the Art Collection within lier residence by virtue of the aforesaid Bill of Sale, and tihat Mr. Lewis subsequently by his will gave this identical property to the University. the solution of the problem in this case would not be difficult. Inasmuoh as she elected tO' accept the provisions oí the will, she would he botmd by its conditions. If ehe took its benefactiona and gifts, she also assumed its burdens, and iï the will gave to the University that part of the Art Collection within her residence, even though she had previously acquired title thereto through her bilí oí sale, she would neevrtheless, by accepting the provisions of the will, be deemed thereby to have waived and surrendered all claim thereto, and the property would pass to the University. But the real difficulty is not thus escaped. We are confronted with the questio-n did Mr. Lewis by his last will and testament iutend to bequeath the Works of Art within his residence to the University. The counsel for the University frankiy concede that if the University takes title to the Art Collection within the resideaiee, it is by vlrtue ; sixth clause in the will as above quóted. lts language is, "I gire and bequeatli to the Unlv.ersity o! Michigan at Ann Arbor m tlie state of Michigan, all my pain tinga and statuary and all my Art Works of eevry kind and nature which are ccmbaiaed wlthin my Art Gallery or building." This language seems tO' me to be simple and plain, and I have not been ünpressed with its doubt, nmbiguity or obseurity. If it had tieen the intention of Mr. Lewis to embrace in this gift the woirlss of Art wïthia his residence, I am uaable to understand wby he slio-uld have eonfined and restricted the gift, "to my Art Gallery or and unless the other clauses of the1 will or extraneous facts and circumstances are pennltted to enlarge the cope of thesp words of gift, it seems to me tliat it is irresiistibly fatal to the claim of the complaiuants. Doubt, however, is cast upou the íoregoing conclusión by reason oí fhE lauguage used in the first clause of the will as here in before quoted, which apparently excludes ironi his proposed gift to his wife his books, paper? and "Art "Works." His books and all things pertaining to liis library were given by the will to the Public Library of the City of Coldwater. and they were all -vitliin his residence. Among these books was a collection of more than one hundred and fifty TOlumes, containing the cngravings of Hogarth and Dore, irom the original plates and it i3 contended by the defendant that reference was had to these Work of Art by the term "Art AVoi-ks" This view is disputed ly the complaiuants. It is true taat tüe intention of tlif testator is to be obtalned íronv a consideration of the entirO will ; lut when there are clauses apparently inconsistent with each other, the rule in the coiistruction of willa directa' that the latter clause shall prevail, as being the last expression of the will of the testator. I regret that alter a careíul consideration of the will and all the evidence aliunde, there should remain any doubfc respecting the intentions of Mr. Lewis. Sucli a doubt, however, does exisfc, Tiiere is room !or nu ivouest diiference of judgment, Lut lu my opinión there is no reasonable escape from the plain language of the sixth elause oi this instrument, which desceribes and limite the University gift to those Art Works "which are eontained within my Art Gallery or building." The complainants could not well have otherwise dfecharged their trust, than by a submission of this question to a Judicial Tribunal. It may perhaps le well to remember, that ttiis gift oí the contenta oí his Art Gallery by Mr. Lewis to the University, in point of intrinsic value is unprecedented in the history of the institutioo, and that especially in view of his somewhat. moderate estáte it was a prineely and munificent bequest. Under such circumstances, to enforce or resolve a doubfc against the heirs of Mr. Lewis, would Keem to impinge upon ttlie wise, generous and catliolic policy which has so conspicously distinguished the Univerity during fhe last quarter of a century. I ttnnk the Bill of Oomplaiut Bhould be dismfesed. Circuit Juüge. May 30, 189G.