ated in the State of New York, to the government of the United States to assist in the discharge of national obligations, was held void since, under the New York statutes, such a devise could be made only to natural persons or to corporations authorized by law to accept such a devise; and although the government could take by devise, it was excluded by the New York statute.85

§ 1136. Prohibition and Temperance.

A bequest to trustees "to apply the same in such lawful ways as in their discretion they may deem best, in order to promote the adoption by the parliament of the Dominion of Canada of legislation prohibiting totally the manufacture or sale in the Dominion of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage," was held a good charitable legacy, being for a lawful public or general purpose and not contrary to morality or public policy.88 A bequest for the suppression of the manufacture, sale and use of intoxicating liquors is a valid bequest, the court saying: "Preventing the use of intoxicating liquors, regarded as a means of promoting individual and social welfare, may be deemed a proper subject of a charitable bequest, and whether the object shall be sought by the distribution of documents, or by lectures, or by other. reasonable and appropriate means, is a matter within the discretion of the trustees."'87 A bequest of three-fourths of an estate to trustees to expend "for temperance work"

402, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 80; Girard Trust Co. v. Russell, 179 Fed. 446, 102 C. C. A. 592, affirming 171 Fed. 161.

85 Will of Fox, 52 N. Y. 530, 11 Am. Rep. 751; affirmed United

States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24
L. Ed. 192.

86 Farewell v. Farewell, 22 Ont. 573.

87 Haines v. Allen, 78 Ind. 100, 41 Am. Rep. 555.

in the city of Milwaukee, is a valid bequest for a charitable use.88

§ 1137. Woman's Suffrage.

Whether or not a bequest for the attainment of woman suffrage violates the policy of the law and can be sustained as a valid charity, has been decided seemingly both in the affirmative and the negative. In an Illinois case, a bequest to trustees "to be used by them, according to their best judgment, for the attainment of woman's suffrage in the United States of America and its territories," was sustained as a valid charity. The court says: "Whether the attainment of the elective franchise by women, to the extent enjoyed by men, would be as beneficial in its results to society as its friends hope or believe, is not a question for us to consider. Upon this subject there are widely divergent opinions; but if the cause was dear to the heart of the testatrix, we see no reason why she should not be permitted to devote a portion of her estate to its advancement. She believed it to be for the benefit of women, and for that purpose and because of her interest in their welfare, and not from any selfish motive, she made the bequest in question."89

On the other hand, in a Massachusetts case, it was decided that a bequest to trustees "to secure the passage of laws granting women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men," was not a charity. The grounds on which this decision was reached appear to be that the bequest was to effect

88 Harrington v. Pier, 105 Wis. 485, 76 Am. St. Rep. 924, 50 L. R. A. 307, 82 N. W. 345.

89 Garrison v. Little, 75 Ill. App. 402.

a change in the existing laws which object could not be carried out except by changing the constitution.00 The Illinois appellate court, in commenting on this, says: "But even though a constitutional amendment be necessary before a complete right of suffrage may be conferred on women in this state, we see no reason for holding that the advocacy of a change of the organic law, in a proper way, and in the manner provided by that instrument itself, can be held as against public policy. In the evolution of the race new conditions arise which the earlier lawmakers could not anticipate or foresee."'"1

§ 1138. Medals and Prizes.

A bequest to be applied in providing medals for meritorious scholars in the high and grammar schools;92 a bequest to be applied in rewards of merit to poor pupils in parochial schools;93 and a bequest providing for prizes for essays on medical subjects,94 have all been sustained as good charitable bequests.

§ 1139. Benefit of Animals.

A gift or devise for the benefit of useful animals is for a charitable purpose. Thus a bequest to a city to erect a suitable fountain for the benefit of thirsty animals and birds;95 a bequest to park commissioners for a fountain with a drinking basin for horses;96 a bequest for the

90 Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (96 Mass.) 539.

91 Garrison v. Little, supra. 92 Bartlett, Petitioner, 163 Mass. 509, 40 N. E. 899.

93 Coleman v. O'Leary's Exr., 114 Ky. 388, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1248, 70 S. W. 1068.

94 Almy v. Jones, 17 R. I. 265, 270, 12 L. R. A. 414, 21 Atl. 616.

95 Estate of Coleman, 167 Cal. 212, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 682, 138 Pac. 992.

96 Estate of Graves, 242 III. 23, 134 Am. St. Rep. 302, 17 Ann. Cas. 137, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 283, 89 N. E. 672.

98

founding of an institution for the study and cure of maladies of quadrupeds or birds useful to man;97 a bequest to a society to promote prosecution for cruelty to animals; a bequest for the maintenance of starving and forsaken cats; a bequest for the publication of a paper by a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals;1 a bequest to a home for lost dogs;2 and for the suppression and abolition of vivisection, are all for charitable purposes.

It seems, however, that where the bequest is for the benefit of animals not useful to mankind, such as the feeding of English sparrows, the gift is not a charity.1 And, furthermore, a gift in favor of the testator's horses and dogs is obviously not a charity because it is intended for the benefit of the particular animals mentioned, and not for the benefit of animals generally."

§ 1140. Rule as to Perpetuities as Affecting Charitable Gifts.

A perpetual charitable use does not necessarily restrict the alienation of the property inasmuch as when needful, a court of equity will decree a sale thereof." The general rule is that charitable trusts are not subject to the prohibition against perpetuities, the very object of

97 London University v. Yarrow, 1 De G. & J. 72, affirming 23 Beav. 159.

98 In re Douglass, L. R. 35 Ch. Div. 472; In re Dean, L. R. 41 Ch. Div. 552; Minns v. Billings, 183 Mass. 126, 97 Am. St. Rep. 420, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 686, 66 N. E. 593.

99 Swifte v. Attorney General, (1912) 1 Ir. 133.

1 Marsh v. Means, 3 Jur. N. S. 790.

2 In re Douglass, L. R. 35 Ch. Div. 472.

3 Armstrong v. Reeves, 25 L. R. Ir. 325; In re Foveaux, (1895) 2 Ch. Div. 501; In re Joy, 60 L. T. N. S. 175.

4 Attorney General V. Whorwood, 1 Ves. 534.

5 In re Dean, L. R. 41 Ch. Div. 552.

6 Attorney General v. Mayor of Newark, 1 Hare 395, 400; Attor

a charity being that its benefits shall endure through all time. And constitutional and statutory provisions against perpetuities are held generally not to apply to bequests for charitable uses where the title vests immediately in the charity.