noting the distinction between a public trust and its beneficiary
How later courts described this case
- noting the distinction between a public trust and its beneficiary
- statute providing for creation of public trusts will not be construed as permitting a grant of a franchise in violation of Article XVIII, §§ 5(a), 7
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Petitions for Rehearing.
On considering petitions for rehearing, on account of the presentations made by the parties and by those appearing as amici curiae, we think we should repeat for emphasis, that the rules here adopted and the statements made in our opinion and decision all specifically apply and are meant to apply to this so-called trust on account of the character of its formation and composition as set out in the majority opinion.
This trust is quite extensive in area, in number of different beneficiaries, and in the possibility of numerous additional beneficiaries with possible conflicts and incompatibilities in plans and purposes. It is the first such trust this court has considered, and is a case of first impression. It is quite different from the single beneficiary trusts considered by us in former cases. Any consideration of cases involving trusts with a single beneficiary is not necessary to a decision of the issues herein involved.
As to the character of trust here attempted to be set up, and restricting our decision thereto, we adhere to our decision adverse to such trust, and deny all petitions for rehearing.
DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
JACKSON, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., dissent.