By decision of the full bench of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the Gordon McKay Fund litigation, the agreement between the University and Technology in regard to the Fund was declared invalid. The endowment is founded under the will of the late Gordon McKay '96, and when eventually paid over to the University, will probably amount to over $30,000,000. Under the agreement the University suspended its instruction in applied science and devoted three-fifths of the income of the endowment to the maintenance of the engineering department of Technology.

The decision is made on a petition to have the court ratify the agreement. It means that the University, after abolishing the Lawrence Scientific School to merge its scientific courses with those of Tech. will have to re-establish a school of applied science under the direct administration of its overseers and probably in buildings located in the group at Harvard Square. However, the University authorities have not yet given out any definite statement as to what course of action will be followed in this matter. In the disposition of the fund through the operation of this agreement with Tech., the University has not violated the terms of the will to open itself to forfeiture of its benefits in any manner.

The court, in its decision, says: "We are constrained to instruct the plaintiff corporation that it cannot lawfully carry out this agreement between it and the Institute, as far as respects the property received by the University under the deeds of trust and the will of Gordon McKay.

"In substance, the plan agreed upon between Harvard and the Institute of Technology devotes three-fifths of the endowment to an engineering school, which is not only located at the Institute but is conducted and controlled by the Institute instead of by the University. We cannot assent to the assertion of counsel that 'the school of applied science on the Charles River embankment is a Harvard school, a department of Harvard University'."

"The income of the McKay endowment must be administered according to the intention of the founder, Gordon McKay, even though it be at variance with our views of policy and expediency.

"In our opinion this intention of Gordon McKay is not in fact carried out in the agreement in controversy, as we have construed its provisions in their practical operation."