The will’s explicit reference to “a bed for indigent patients” makes this clear, as does the trust article naming BRMC as a beneficiary (which states that the residue of the trust shall be distributed “in equal shares to such of the following charitable organizations” so long as each organization then qualifies as a charity under the Internal Revenue Code). Viewed in this light, the question reduces to whether BRMC, in its new incarnation as a corporation whose sole purpose is to marshal its assets, liquidate them, and distribute the proceeds to creditors, is eligible to receive a charitable bequest. On this issue, the Massachusetts cases are silent and the authorities elsewhere are divided. Compare, e.g., In re Will of Kraetzer, 119 Misc.2d 436, 462 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1012-13 (N.Y.1983) (<HOLDING>), with, e.g., Montclair Nat’l Bank & Trust Co.
holding that a bankrupt hospital is not capable of implementing the purpose of a charitable bequest and that the hospital is therefore ineligible to receive the bequest holding that whether a hospital district included areas not benefitted by any services solely for purpose of raising revenue does not present a justiciable matter under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation holding that whether an action would have a conceivable effect on the bankrupt estate is determined at the time a lawsuit is filed holding that a charitable gift which could not be distributed because of the legatees unwillingness to carry out the testators charitable intent could inspire an application of the doctrine of cy pres so that the court could order the bequest paid to a different institution and thus effectuate the testators charitable intent