Legacies to pious uses are those which are destined to some work of piety, or object of charity, and have their motive independent of the consideration which the merit of the legatee might procure to them. They are viewed with special favor by the law, and with double favor because of their motives for sacred usages, and 'their advantage to the public weal.50 The legal maxim is that "the law favoreth charity." Another legal maxim is "ecclesiæ magis favendum est quam persona," which translated means that "the church ought to be more favored than a person." The idea of a perpetuity is of the very essence of such a grant.51

At common law, lands may be granted to pious uses before there is a grantee to take. In the meantime the fee will lie in abeyance. It will vest when the grantee exists.52

Abandonment of a pious use involves two elements: First, an intent to abandon permanently, and secondly, the physical fact of nonuser for religious purposes. These two elements must conjoin and both be operative at the same time or else there is no abandonment.53

unconventional doctrines on the subjects of theology and morals, the direction being considered only a negative recommendation.Manners v. Philadelphia Library Co., 93 Pa. St. 165, 39 Am. Rep. 741.

A trust for an infidel society can not be construed to be of a charitable nature.-Zeisweiss James, 63 Pa. St. 465, 3 Am. Rep. 558.

II Com. on Wills-49

V.

50 Succession of Vance, 39 La. Ann. 371, 2 So. 54; Succession of Tilton, 133 La. 435, 63 So. 99.

51 Strother v. Barrow, 246 Mo. 241, 151 S. W. 960.

52 Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch (U. S.) 292, 3 L. Ed. 735; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303, 24 L. Ed. 450.

53 Strother v. Barrow, 246 Mo. 241, 151 S. W. 960.

§ 1128. Churches.

While it is true that by the statute of Elizabeth 54 no mention is made of gifts to churches, the omission "was intentional, in order to avoid confiscations in case the Reformation went backward."55 Repairs to churches are enumerated and by analogy gifts to churches may be included, and it is universally held that such devises or bequests are valid charitable uses.56 Such gifts will be sustained even though the church is unincorporated and not capable in law of holding and transmitting property.57

A gift by will of the parsonage, together with the land upon which it is situated, to a church society so long as it is used for a parsonage, vests the church with a base or qualified fee to said land, terminable upon an event that may or may not happen, and until the happening of the contingency or event, the trustees or governing body of

54 See § 1115.

55 2 Perry, Trusts, § 701.

56 Sears v. Attorney General, 193 Mass. 551, 9 Ann. Cas. 1200, 79 N. E. 772; Estate of Douglass, 94 Neb. 280, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 447, 143 N. W. 299; Jordan v. Universalist etc. Trustees, 107 Va. 79, 57 S. E. 652.

A devise to the vestrymen of a church, an unincorporated religious body, for the use and benefit of such church, is a good charitable devise.-Biscoe v. Thweatt, 74 Ark. 545, 4 Ann. Cas. 1136, 80 S. W. 432.

A devise of property to a church

in trust is a gift "to" the church within Rev. Laws, ch. 37, § 9.Chase v. Dickey, 212 Mass. 555, 99 N. E. 410.

A bequest "I leave to the rector of the Jesuits' College at Mungret, in aid of the school there, for the training of pupils intended for the church, the sum of

£500," is not invalid as being contrary to the policy of the Roman Catholic relief act (10 Geo. IV. ch. 7).-Roche v. M'Dermott, L. R. (1901) 1 I. R. 394, 1 B. R. C. 949.

57 Biscoe v. Thweatt, 74 Ark. 545, 4 Ann. Cas. 1136, 80 S. W. 432; Burke v. Burke, 259 III. 262, 102 N. E. 293.

the church may hold and use the property for the purpose for which it was donated.58

§ 1129. Christian Science.

A will providing a trust "for the purpose of more effectually promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science as taught by me" is considered as a gift to a public charity and for a general public use.59 "Even if Mrs. Eddy's scheme were merely educational, if it were such that she might legally publish and promote it in her lifetime, there would be no legal objection to gifts by herself or others to extend and promote it by publishing her writings, or by other lawful means, after her death."'60

58 Mendenhall V. First New Church Soc., 177 Ind. 336, 98 N. E. 57; Estate of Douglass, 94 Neb. 280, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 447, 143 N. W. 299.

59 Chase v. Dickey, 212 Mass. 555, 99 N. E. 410; Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 393, 83 Atl. 916.

These cases have reference to the will of Mary Baker Eddy.

In Chase v. Dickey, 212 Mass. 555, 99 N. E. 410, the court says: "Christian Science, as a denomination of Christianity, may be assumed to be no more difficult of ascertainment than many other sects. It is argued, however, that because the testatrix confined her benefaction to the spread of Christian Science as taught by her, there is thereby involved an inquiry into oral utterances of such vagueness and dependent upon such uncertainty of recitals by

hearers that indefiniteness in a legal sense must be inevitable. Certainly this can not be presumed in advance of a determination of what her teachings in fact were. It is not to be assumed that they are more difficult of ascertainment than those of most other sects of Christendom, nor that a court of equity would encounter any insurmountable difficulty in administering the trust."

60 Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 393, 83 Atl. 916, wherein the court says: "The allegation that Christian Science is not a religion, but a system of faith-cure for disease, does not help the plaintiff, whether the extension and promotion intended is of a religion, or of a system of therapeutics, or a combination of the two,-whether it aims to benefit mankind by ensuring their happiness in a future

§ 1130. Christian Associations for Young Men or Women.

The question whether Young Men's Christian Associations or Young Women's Christian Associations,61 the purposes of which are the improvement of the spiritual, mental, social, and physical condition of young men and young women, and which include educational classes, reading rooms, and the like, for which fees are charged but no profits are made, are charitable institutions within the meaning of the statutes, has been seemingly decided both negatively62 and affirmatively.63

state, or by rendering their existence more tolerable in this world -it is equally a gift for general public use."

V. Women's

61 Philadelphia Christian Assoc., 125 Pa. St. 572, 17 Atl. 475.

62 State v. Assessors, 52 La. Ann. 223, 26 So. 872; Trustees of Young Men's Christian Association v. Paterson, 61 N. J. L. 420, 39 Atl. 655; affirmed in 64 N. J. L. 361, 45 Atl. 1092.

In State v. Assessors, 52 La. Ann. 223, 26 So. 872, the court says: "It is claimed that the building owned by the association is exempt because it is to be deemed used for charitable purposes. The argument is that caring for the social, moral, and spiritual condition of men is charity in the broadest sense, and that a place provided by the association where young men can assemble for religious exercises and be secluded from temptation is a charity and a blessing. We wish we could yield to this reasoning. It demonstrates

to

the capacity of the association to aid in the intellectual improvement of young men, and the usefulness of the association in promoting religious purposes. But, in our opinion, the argument fails to bring the association and its rooms within the exemption granted in the constitution property actually used for charitable purposes. We are dealing with a question of exemption under the imperative rule, so often affirmed, of strict construction. If the property of the association is to be exempt because of the tendency of the association to advance the intellectual and moral condition of young men, it would be the beginning of a latitudinous construction that far exceeds the bounds the constitution imposes."

63 Commonwealth V. Young Men's Christian Association, 116 Ky. 711, 105 Am. St. Rep. 234, 76 S. W. 522; Little v. Newburyport, 210 Mass. 414, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 425, 96 N. E. 1032; Carter v. Whitcomb, 74 N. H. 482, 17 L. R. A.

Such question has generally arisen in the claiming of exemptions from taxes or in inheritance tax cases, and not regarding bequests left to such institutions. In a Massachusetts case, the question arose as to the liability for personal injuries, and the court said: "The report shows that while much of the work of the defendant corporation is of a charitable nature, its purposes are also social, and include the giving of lectures and theatrical and other entertainments for the benefit of its members, the provision of a gymnasium and of athletic sports for promoting their health, and the sale of food at a coffee or lunch counter. In these respects the defendant is not a charitable corporation, but one established for the peculiar benefit of its members."'64 And in New York it has been held that the Young Men's Christian Association is not a religious corporation within the meaning of section 221 of the tax law exempting such corporations from the transfer tax on testamentary gifts, but is an educational corporation within the meaning of that section.66

In New Jersey a testamentary gift to help form a Young Men's Christian Association is good as a charity and will be applied not only to assist in the formation, but also in the maintenance of the association.67 However, the same court held that the buildings of such an association where the use of the reading room alone was free, and all other parts were for the use of members

(N. S.) 733, 69 Atl. 779; Young Men's Christian Association V. Donohugh, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 12.

64 Chapin V. Holyoke Young Men's Christian Association, 165 Mass. 280, 42 N. E. 1130.

65 Matter of Watson, 171 N. Y.

256, 65 N. E. 1109, reversing 70 App. Div. 623, 75 N. Y. Supp. 1134.

66 Matter of Moses, 138 App. Div. 525, 123 N. Y. Supp. 443.

67 Goodell v. Union Assoc. etc. of Burlington Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 32.