fers to previously pronounced religious or other doctrines or recognized schemes for distribution of moneys in charity; but if the testator refers only to his own verbal statements previously made regarding something which was not to come into existence until after his death, no charitable trust is created. Where the will fails to indicate the purpose of the charitable trust, the court will not supply that which the will omits.20

§ 1145. Uncertainty of Objects of Charitable Trusts.

Devises for ordinary purposes may fall through uncertainty in the object;27 but uncertainty is said to be one of the essentials of a gift to charitable uses, and does not defeat the intention of the testator.28 This exception in

26 Smith v. Smith, 54 N. J. Eq. 1, 32 Atl. 1069.

Where a testator, being a member of the Protestant Church, bequeathed certain property to trustees upon the following trusts, towit: "Five hundred dollars to fence the lot of ground on which the Mt. Pleasant Protestant Church stands and the graveyard belonging thereto, four thousand dollars to purchase a parsonage for the use and benefit of the Mt. Pleasant Protestant Church forever, two hundred and fifty dollars to buy books for the library of the Sunday-school at Union, two hundred and fifty dollars for the library of the Sunday-school at Centreville, Monroe County, West Virginia, two hundred and fifty dollars to establish a Sundayschool in Fairview schoolhouse and providing the same with a

library, three hundred dollars for the sole and exclusive use and purposes of the home missions of the Presbyterian Church at Union, West Virginia, forever," all of these bequests were held to be uncertain as to the beneficiaries, and therefore void.-Wilson V. Perry, 29 W. Va. 169, 1 S. E. 302; Fifield v. Van Wyck's Exr., 94 Va. 557, 64 Am. St. Rep. 745, 27 S. E. 446.

27 Wilderman v. Baltimore, 8 Md. 551; Needles v. Martin, 33 Md. 609; White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144.

28 Mitford v. Reynolds, 1 Phillim. 185; Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. Cas. 124; Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 177; Attorney General v. Comber, 2 Sim. & St. 93; Jones v. Habersham, Fed. Cas. No. 7465, 3 Woods 443; Russell v. Allen, Fed. Cas. No. 12149, 5 Dill. 235; Erskine v.

favor of charitable uses does not depend upon the statute of 43 Elizabeth, ch. 4, but was a part of the common law which continues in force in this country so far as conformable to our polity and adapted to our institutions.29 Neither does ambiguity in designating the beneficiary of a charitable gift defeat the bequest, if the beneficiary can be identified by parol.30 Where the name or description is erroneous, but there is no reasonable doubt as to the beneficiaries intended in the will, the mistake will not defeat the charity, whether the beneficiaries be individuals or a corporation.31

A gift for an "art institute," "worthy of the city," is not void for indefiniteness either because of an uncertainty as to what is meant by an art institute; and the expression "worthy of the city" is a matter which is capable of determination by the court, aided by proper testimony, with sufficient accuracy for the purposes of

Whitehead, 84 Ind. 357; Drew v. Wakefield, 54 Me. 291; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (96 Mass.) 539, 550; Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. (33 Mass.) 107, 26 Am. Dec. 645; Sohier v. Burr, 127 Mass. 221; Howe v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 45, 60 Am. Rep. 226, 3 S. W. 390; Harriman v. Harriman, 59 N. H. 135; De Camp v. Dobbins, 31 N. J. Eq. 671; Union Methodist E. Church v. Wilkinson, 36 N. J. Eq. 139, 141; Hesketh v. Murphy, 36 N. J. Eq. 304; Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525; Shotwell v. Mott, 2 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 46; Beekman v. Bonsor, 23 N. Y. 298, 80 Am. Dec. 269; Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366, 80 Am. Dec. 290; Raley v. County of Umatilla, 15 Ore. 172, 3 Am. St. Rep. 142. 13

Pac. 890; Philadelphia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. St. 9, 27, 84 Am. Dec. 470; Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Pa. St. 465, 3 Am. Rep. 558; Frierson v. General Assembly, 7 Heisk. (54 Tenn.) 683.

See §§ 1113, 1114.

29 Beall v. Fox's Exrs., 4 Ga. 404; Burbank v. Whitney, 24 Pick. (41 Mass.) 146, 35 Am. Dec. 312; Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 525; Griffin v. Graham, 8 N. C. 196, 9 Am. Dec. 619.

But see, Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y. 97.

30 First Baptist Church v. Robberson, 71 Mo. 326; Wilson v. Perry, 29 W. Va. 167, 1 S. E. 302.

31 Wilson v. Perry, 29 W. Va. 169, 1 S. E. 302.

the bequest, should it be found necessary to apply to the court for such determination.32

33

A trust may be created for the benefit of a class which may be to an extent uncertain, such as "the poor," "the children," and the like; but if the purpose is charitable, the trust will be enforced in equity. The decisions are conflicting since the courts do not all alike accept the English doctrine of charitable trusts, but the general rule may be stated that the gift will be held invalid as a charitable trust unless the beneficiaries are sufficiently designated so that the court can carry the purposes of the testator into effect."

32 Almy v. Jones, 17 R. I. 265, 12 L. R. A. 415, 21 Atl. 616.

33 Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. Jun. 399, 405; Nightingale v. Goulburn, 5 Hare 484; Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 177; Kendall v. Granger, 5 Beav. 300; British Museum v. White, 2 Sim. & St. 594, 596; Attorney General v. Aspinall, 2 Myl. & C. 613, 622; American Academy etc. v. Harvard College, 12 Gray (78 Mass.) 582; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (96 Mass.) 539; Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 292, 11 Am. Dec. 471.

In the District of Columbia a trust for the benefit of "the poor of the city of Washington and of the District of Columbia" was considered void for indefiniteness.District of Columbia v. Washington Market Co., 3 McArth. (D. C.) 559.

84 See 1114.

35 See, Mills v. Newberry, 112 Ill. 123, 54 Am. Rep. 213, 1 N. E. 156; Moran v. Moran, 104 Iowa 216, 65 Am. St. Rep. 443, 39 L. R. A. 204, 73 N. W. 617; Spalding V. St. Joseph's Industrial School, 107 Ky. 382, 54 S. W. 200; Wheelock v. American Tract Society, 109 Mich. 141, 63 Am. St. Rep. 578, 66 N. W. 955; Brennan v. Winkler, 37 S. C. 457, 16 S. E. 190; Nolte v. Meyer, 79 Tex. 351, 15 S. W. 276.

A residuary bequest to executors, "to be by them distributed to such persons, societies, or institutions as they may consider most deserving," was not consid ered a charitable trust and in consequence was too indefinite to be carried into effect.-Nichols V. Allen, 130 Mass. 211, 221, 39 Am. Rep. 445.

§ 1146. Corporations and Voluntary Associations as Trustees. A corporation may act as trustee of a charitable trust if the purposes of the trust are not inconsistent with its charter. On the question as to whether or not an unincorporated society, with a fluctuating membership, can take as trustee, the authorities are conflicting.37 Herein is one of the distinguishing features between charitable and private trusts, for a private trust, unless there be a competent trustee to take and hold the title, is void.38

§ 1147. Trust Will Not Fail for Lack of Trustee.

Where a trust for charitable uses is valid both as to purpose and objects, and the objects are in existence and capable of receiving the benefit and the purpose is one which can be fulfilled, such trust will not be allowed to fail because of the lack of a trustee. If in a gift to charitable uses no trustee is named, or the trustee appointed by the will is incapable of acting or of holding the legal estate, the title merely remains in abeyance, or is held by the testator's executors for the benefit of the beneficiaries, or å trustee will be appointed to carry out the

36 Phillips v. King, 12 Mass. 546; Chapin v. School District No. 2, 35 N. H. 445; Taylor's Exrs. v. Trustees of Bryn Mawr College, 34 N. J. Eq. 101; Protestant Episcopal Educ. Soc. v. Churchman's Representatives, 80 Va. 718.

37 For taking: Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Pa. St. 23; Dye v. Beaver Creek Church, 48 S. C. 444, 59 Am. St. Rep. 724, 26 S. E. 717; Burr's Exrs. v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241, 29 Am. Dec. 154.

Against taking: Philadelphia Baptist Assn. v. Hart, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 4 L. Ed. 499; Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 293, 301, 16 Am. Dec. 58; Acklen v. Franklin, 7 La. Ann. 395, 415.

38 Attorney General v. Tancred, Ambl. 351, Anon., 2 Ch. Cas. 207; Philadelphia Baptist Assoc. V. Hart, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 4 L. Ed. 499; Grimes' Exrs. v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198, 9 Am. Rep. 690; Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y. 97.

testator's purposes. 39 Except as the trustee may be designated in a testator's will, the power of appointing or substituting trustees rests wholly with the courts of chancery. Except as provided in the will, no trustee can substitute another in his stead unless with the approval of the court.40

A testator may vest in the trustee discretion to apply the fund among various charities or for certain charitable purposes. The testator, having expressed the intent that the gift be applied to charity, if the testator fails in his will to appoint a trustee or if the trustee appointed dies or is incapable of acting, the weight of authority is that a court of chancery may appoint a trustee and control the administration of the fund within the limits designated by the trustee. But in those jurisdic

39 Mills v. Farmer, 1 Mer. 55, 96; Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Ves. Jun. 36, 69; Attorney General v. Jackson, 11 Ves. Jun. 365, 367; John v. Smith, 102 Fed. 218, 42 C. C. A. 275; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397, 2 Sup. Ct. 327; Williams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299; Matter of Gay, 138 Cal. 552, 94 Am. St. Rep. 70, 71 Pac. 707; Eliot's Appeal, 74 Conn. 586, 51 Atl. 558; Grand Prairie Seminary v. Morgan, 171 Ill. 444, 49 N. E. 516; Klumpert v. Vrieland, 142 Iowa 434, 121 N. W. 34; Sears v. Chapman, 158 Mass. 400, 35 Am. St. Rep. 502, 33 N. E. 604; Attorney General v. Goodell, 180 Mass. 538, 62 N. E. 962; Campbell v. Clough, 71 N. H. 181, 51 Atl. 668; Jones v. Watford, 62 N. J. Eq. 339, 50 Atl. 180; In re John's Estate, 30 Ore. 494, 36 L. R. A. 242, 47

41

Pac. 341, 50 Pac. 226; Stevens' Es-
tate, 200 Pa. St. 318, 49 Atl. 985;
Hood v. Dorer, 107 Wis. 149, 82
N. W. 546.

40 Harvard College v. Theological Education Society, 3 Gray (69 Mass.) 280; Second Religious Society v. Harriman, 125 Mass. 321.

41 Mills v. Farmer, 1 Mer. 55, 96; Moggridge v. Thackwell, 3 Bro. C. C. 517; s. c., 7 Ves. Jun. 36; Baptist Church v. Presbyterian Church, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 635; Universalist Society v. Kimball, 34 Me. 424; Swasey v. American Bible Soc., 57 Me. 523;' Sohier v. Burr, 127 Mass. 221; Minot v. Baker, 147 Mass. 348, 9 Am. St. Rep. 713, 17 N. E. 839; Sears v. Chapman, 158 Mass. 400, 35 Am. St. Rep. 502, 33 N. E. 604; Missouri Historical Soc. v. Academy of Science, 94 Mo. 459, 8 S. W.