Case 3. A Wrongly Provident Pauper

Caius, a very poor old man, unexpectedly received by fortune a legacy of one hundred pounds sterling, but he resolved not to spend it for his own support, but rather to hand it over to his friend Julius so that after his death the latter would take care that Masses were celebrated for his soul. Afterward Caius entered a workhouse, alleging that he was destitute of the means of supporting himself, and there lived for a year at public expense.

After his death, Julius, in order to execute the trust, handed the money to a certain priest, who nevertheless doubted whether he could accept it all or not. Hence it is asked:

1. Did Caius in the case offend against commutative justice?

2. Was it lawful for Julius to execute the trust?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Did Caius sin against commutative justice in the case?

No; he did wrong in giving the legacy to a trust with instructions to apply it to have Masses said for him after his death. He should have spent it on his own support during life. Still the transaction was valid, much as if he had spent the legacy on drink or other pleasures; the wasteful expenditure would have been valid. After he has disposed of the money, however wrongfully, he goes to the workhouse, and there his support is given him not conditionally but absolutely, for in truth now he has nothing to live upon.

2. Was Julius allowed to execute the trust?

Julius should not have undertaken the trust, for the effect of it was to throw on the rates one who might have supported himself easily for another year at least. Julius therefore was guilty of co-operating in a fraudulent transaction. We have no data for deciding whether Caius and Julius were in good faith, probably they were; but we are considering merely the objective aspects of the case. After the death of Caius, of course, Julius was under an obligation of handing over the money for Masses according to the instructions of Caius.

3. The case. The priest could receive the money according to the intentions of Caius, who had the power to make a valid transfer of it to him, and who did so. If Caius was in debt at his death, the debts should be paid out of the legacy, but there are no indications that this was the fact.