In re Crane (12 A.D. 271, 1896)

. Barrett, J. i

The bequest to the city of Hew York, contained in the seventh clause of Mrs. Crane’s will, was absolute. As to the right of the city to take, there can be no question. It enjoys the common-law right of taking personal property by bequest. . (Ang. & Ames on Corp.' § 177; Dillon on Mun. Corp. [4th ed.] § 566, and cases there cited.) It enjoys the same right by statute. It is authorized by both its ancient and modern charters, and by the laws of the State, to “ take, hold, receive, enjoy and have * * * goods, chattels and all other things of what kind or quality soever.” (Dongan Charter, § 6; Montgomerie Charter, § 1; Laws of 1732, chap. 584 [Van Schaack’s ed.]; Laws of 1873, chap. 335, § 119; Const, of 1777, § 36; Const, of 1821, art. 7, §§ 14, 15; Const, of 1846, art. 1, § 17; Const, of 1894, art. 1, § 16; Consol. Acf [Laws of 1882, chap..410], § 26.)

The gift, therefore, of the residue of Mrs. Crane’s estate was inherently valid. (Le Couteulx v. City of Buffalo, 33 N. Y. 342.) But this gift is followed by a request that it be expended, if such expenditure is sanctioned by law, for a particular purpose, namely, “ in the: erection of