The Regents Lose

The Opinión in Full- The evidence in this cause tends witb more or less conclusiveness to establish the following etate of facts : Henry C. Lewis of Coldwater, Michigan, for many years prior to 1884, was engaged in making an Art C'ollection. HO was inspired by no commercial motive, but expended his time and money ion tlhese Unes, as a matter of personal gratification and pride, and in the pursuit of this pleasure he made several visite to Europe. He was a so-called self-made man, and his purchaise af works of art, was often a mistake and probably an imposition. This is emphatically true of his earlier selections. As the years went on, his observation and experience enabled (him to acquire some information and to make marked advancexnent in his knowledge of matter of art. His later ncquisitloms were of a much higher eharacter and often posBessed u'nquestianed merlfe. Much of his collection, wonld be neither instructivo to the amateur or interestIng to a persom. of culture. Later on, lie carne to recognize the crude and inferior nature of certain portions of his collectioin, but he seemed disinclined 'to discard them, and preferred to retain all of Ws Art .Collection1 as otidencing tiis o"wn historical growth and deTelopment in art. On his return from his first visit to Europe in 1868, he brought the nuleus of his Art Collection and placed it witfliin his scwnewhat spacious pesidence, which he occupied until his death. Some time in 1870 Mr. Lewis erected tJh first part of his Bol called Art Gallery. It was of brick, Jocated some twenty-two feet from his residence, and was connected therewith by a covered wooden passage-way resting upon brick piers. Some time thereafter, the gallery was enlarged to its present size. It has o-nly sky lights and no Windows. After thie erection of the Art Gallery, in general, the works of art had their allotted location therein. Purchases were made, designed Tor the residence and others for the Art Gallery proper, and a.s a rule they so remained without material change. In 1875 Mr. Lewis published a pamphlet lentitled "The Lewis Art Gallery Catalogue of Paintings and Statuary." In 1883 a supplement was prtnted. In these catalogues, his entire Art Collection. without dlscrimination as toi location, was described and numbered, embracing a-U rwitfhin the residence as well as all within the Art Gallery, and mcluding wortliless as well as valuable pictures, paintings and statuary. Thereafter, oin Saturday of each week, the Art Gallery was open to the public without fees. That part of the Art Collection within lus residence was never open to the public, except by special pennission or invitatiom. The Art Collection within the residence embraced not only paintings and statuary but also' bric-a-brac, curios, vases, and otJier works of, art, some of wnich at least -were appropriate If not designed for a private residemce rnlther than for a public Art Gallery, and included In somé instances famlly portraits. The different rooms within the house had their own color and to some extent contained a correspondlng Art Collection. The collection within the Gallery embraced omly paintings and gtatuary and comprised as near as may be, about nine-tenths of the fcntire works of art both in iiuantity and value. Tbere were choice paimtings nnd statuary in the residence as well as in the Gallery. Mr. Lewis estimated hte Art Works at $250,000. Thie was probably a eomewhat exaggerated valuation. On re 16th day af .Tuly, 1884, Mr. Lewils was at Clifton Springs In the state of New York, an invalid. On that day he executed and dellvered to his wiíe. Alma A. Lewis, a Wil of sale, contaiming among other things this languiage, " - and also all household stuff, goods and furnishings of every name and kind in my residence in Coldwater to have and to hold the same f orever." Mr. Dennis, who prepared tMs Wil of sale, testifies that It -was the intention of Mr. Lewisi by tMs bill of sale, to1 .transfer to hls wife amang other things, all of the Works 'Of Art included within their residence. In less than a month thereafter, on August 14th, 1884, four days before his death at Clifton Springs, aforesaid, Mr. Lewis executed his last will and testament ; the legal lnterpretation of which, is the object and scope oí this judicial proceeding. In the first clause of this will, after giving the homestead (which included tihe Art Gallery baiildi-ng) to hls wife, and his horses etc., he uses the rollowing language, In further gift to his wiie : "Also all iurniture, carpets, silver, glass and china ware and cther things used in our dweil ing "hjouse, but not includingmy books and papers, nor any Art AYorks, but my library, Art Works, Art Gallery and grO'imds shall remain as they are at the timo of my decease during tibe lifetime of my wife, and subject to her use and control, unless she shall otlierwise direct." In the sixth clause of his will is the following language : "I gh-e to the TJniversity of Michigan at Ann Arbor In the State of Michigan, all my paintings and statuary and all jny nrt works of eTery kind and nature which are ccmtalned within my Art Gallery or building." An annuity of $3,000 was also given to his wife. There were no children and the remainder of his property was distributed among friends, relatives and heirs at law. Om Nov. 15, 1884, Mrs. Lewis elected to accept the proivsions of the will. She continued to occupy the residence and tö control the Art Building and the entire Art Collection, miTil her death, which occurred on the 7th day of May, 1895. The estáte of Henry Lewis has been closed. In its settlement, an inyentoTy was taken of the Art Collection contained in the Art Gallery, tuit not o' that containeJ in tha residence. The latter was treated as the property of Mrs. Lewis, and she so regarded It. During her life-time she sold and gave away a ow paintings, tmt they were of inconsklerable value. She left a will giving the residence and all of its c.ointents of every name and fleeerlptlota to her nephew the defendant Boot. Evidence was introduced tending to prove that Mr. Lewis regarded and valued his Art Collection as a whole, as an en'tirety ; that he usually spoke of it as his Art Gallery, aad embraced in such term his complete Art Works ; that it was his manifest intention to keep intact his entire collection during his own life andi during thei life of his wife, and at ier death then the entire collection was to be given to thé public. On the other hand evidence tending to establlsti the fact that he always distinguished between the works of Art in hls residence and those within the Art Gallery, and that he often expressed the purpose and intention to leave to his wife 'as her own property his residence and all -the works of Art therein. [Continued on 6th pagel THE REGENTS LOSE, CContinued from lst Page.) It appears by the evidenoe that there was no continuity or special relation existing between the collection within the residence and that within the 'Art Gallery ; that neither was fessential to the uaiity of the other. It is in the Hght of the f orgoing f acts that a cottistructkm of the will must be made. The precise questian is presented, whether' the works of Art within the residence are, by virtue of the will, the property of the UniTersity, or wliether Mrs. iLewis obtained tftle thereto by virtue of the Bill of Sale, and "held and transmitted the same fco Mr. Root. It appears that Mrs. 1ewis ivas a very wortihy woonan and never doubte-d but that the works of Art within ■her residence were her own property. During tne period that Bhe survived her husband a few paintlags were taken from th Gallery and placed witfliin the residence. A list oí tihese, however, was preserved and at her death they vere all voluntaTily surrendered to the Universlty as foiinimg a part oí the Art Gallery. ' If it was clear tJhat Mrs. Lewis obtained titlo to the Art Collection within her rosiidfence by virtue of the afOTösaid Bill of Sale, and tbat Mr. Liewis su'bsequently by his will gave this identical property to the Univer'sity, the solution of the problem im this oase would not be difiicult. Inasmueh as she elected to1 accept the provisioins of the will, she would be boimd by lts conditions. If fehe took its benefactioiis and gifts, she albo assumed its burdeos, and if the will eave to th-e University that part of the Art Collection within her resiCence, even thooigh she had previously acquired title thereto through her bill of sale, &hö would neevrtheless, by accepting the provisions of the will, be deemed thereby to have waivOd and surrendered all claim thereto, and the property would pass to the TJnivensity. But tfhe real dlfficulty is not thue escapeé. "We are confronted with the question did Mr. Liewis by his last will and testament Intend to bequeath the "WorkB of Art witlhin his resideoce to t!he tJniveiBity. The counsel for the Universlty ly concede tlhat if the TJniversity takes title to the Art Collection within the resideace, ib is by virtuo of the sixtli clause in the will as above quoted. lts language is, "I give and bequeatli tö the TJniversity of Michigan at Arm Arbor in the state oí Michigan, all my patntings and statuary and all my Art Works of eevry kind and nature which are conbained within my Art Gallery ar building." This language seems to me to be simple and plain, and I have not teen impressed with its doubt, amtiguity or obscurity. If it had been the intention oí Mr. Lewis to embrace in this gift the woirks of Art within his residence, I am unable1 to understand why he should have confined and restï-icted the gift, "to my Art Gallery or and unless the other clauees of thei ■will or extraneous f acts and circumstances are peiinitted to enlarge the scope of thesp words of gift, it seems to me that it is irresistibly fatal to1 the claim of the complaiaants. ■ Dotíbt, íhowever, is cast upon the foregoing conclusión by. reason of the language used in the first clause of the "will as nre In lefore quoted, -whicü apparently excludes from his proposed gift to his wite tis books, paper? and "Art Works." His books and all things pertaining to his library werO given by the will to the Putclic Mbravy of the City oí Coldwater, and they were all within his resideuce. Among these books was a oollectiom of more than one hundred and fifty volumes, containing the ongravings of Hogarth and Dore, from thO original platea and it Is contended by the defendant that reference was had to these Works of Art by tthe term "Art Works" This view Is disputed by the complainante.. Ib is true that the intention of thp testa tor is to be obtained fromi a cyonsideration of tlhe entirO will ; but when there are clau'ses apparently inconsistent with each other, the rule In thie comstruction of wills directa thiat the lattar clause shall prevalí, as beiing the lat expression of the will of tbe testator. I regret that after a careful consideration of th will and all the evidenoe aliunde, there should remain any douibb respecttog the intentions of Mr. Lewis. .Suc'h a doubt-, however, does exist. There is room for an honest difference of judgment, but In my opinión fihero Is no reasonable escape from the plaim language ol the slxth clause oí this instrument, which descerïbes and limite the University gift to those Axt Vork "which are contained witihin my Art Gallery Or building." The ooïnplainante could not well have otherwise dlecharged their trust, than by a submissi-om of this question to a Judicial Tribunal. It may pertaps be well to remember, that tfhis gift oï the contente of hia.Axt Gallery by Mr. Lewis to tbe UniTersity, in point of intrinsic Talue is unprecedented in taie liistory of the institution, and ttoat especially in Tlew of his somewliab moderate estáte ít was a prineely and munlflcent tequest. Under stteli circumstances, to enforce or resolve a doubb against ttoe lieirs Of Mr. Lewis, -wcwld seem to impinge upon tttie wise, generous and catJaolic policy whlch has so eonspicausly distinguished the Universlty during tihe last quarter of a ceiitury. I tlhink the Bill oí Oomplaint ehould b& düsmiesed. E. . 3HKNE, Circuit 0 udge. May 30, 1896.