only, except the bowling alleys, which were open to the public at a fixed price, and the auditorium which was sometimes rented, were not used for charitable purposes within the meaning of a statute exempting such from taxation.68 § 1131. Home and Foreign Missions. Wherever the terms "home missions" and "foreign missions" are used, they are associated with the notion of a benevolent service for others. They are usually separate and distinct branches of work and are carried on by boards organized and sometimes incorporated for that purpose alone. Testamentary gifts to such boards or to missions are deemed for a charitable purpose.69 § 1132. Cemeteries, Churchyards, or Burial Grounds. The maintenance of a cemetery, churchyard, or burial grounds as a place of public burial to all persons alike is a charitable use, and a gift for the purpose of aiding in 68 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. 69 Re Kenny, 97 L. T. R. N. S. 130; Allan v. Allan, (1908) Sc. C. 807; Toronto Gen. Trusts Co. v. Wilson, 26 Ont. 671; Carter v. Balfour's Admr., 19 Ala. 814; Estate of Hewitt, 94 Cal. 376, 29 Pac. 775; Hitchcock v. Board of Home Missions, 259 Ill. 288, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1, 102 N. E. 741, reversing 175 Ill. App. 87; Johnson v. Mayne, 4 Iowa 180; Louisville v. Werne, 25 Ky. L. 2196, 80 S. W. 224; Rizer v. Perry, 58 Md. 112; Bartlett v. King, 12 Mass. 537, 7 Am. Dec. 99; Hinckley v. Thatcher, 139 Mass. 477, 52 Am. Rep. 719, 1 N. E. 840; McAlister v. Burgess, 161 Mass. 269, 24 L. R. A. 158, 37 N. E. 173; Bruere v. Cook, 63 N. J. Eq. 624, 52 Atl. 1001; affirmed in 67 N. J. Eq. 724, 63 Atl. 1118; Sheldon v. Chappell, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 59; Nauman v Weidman, 182 Pa. St. 263, 37 Atl. 863; Shields v. Jolly, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 99, 42 Am. Dec. 349; Frierson v. General Assembly, 7 Heisk. (54 Tenn.) 683; Missionary Soc. of M. E. Church v. Calvert's Admr., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 357. its establishment or maintenance is valid.70 There is, however, a distinction between a bequest to apply the income for the benefit of the churchyard as a whole, and one for the maintenance of a particular grave therein.1 A bequest to provide for the care, maintenance, or beautifying of a particular burial spot and monument where it is not for the public benefit, does not establish a charitable gift or use and is void as creating a perpetuity.72 In Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York there are statutes authorizing the creation of trusts to a 70 In re Vaughan, L. R. 33 Ch. D. 187, 55 L. T. N. S. 547; Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342, 41 L. Ed. 739, 17 Sup. Ct. 401; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 125 N. W. 324; Tate v. Woodyard, 145 Ky. 613, 140 S. W. 1044; Oldfield v. Attorney General, 219 Mass. 378, 106 N. E. 1015; Stewart v. Coshow, 238 Mo. 662, 142 S. W. 283; Bliss v. Linden Cemetery Assn., 81 N. J. Eq. 394, 87 Atl. 224; Mannix v. Purcell, 46 Ohio St. 102, 15 Am. St. Rep. 562, 2 L. R. A. 753, 19 N. E. 572; Kelly v. Nichols, 18 R. I. 62, 19 L. R. A. 413, 25 Atl. 840. 71 Forest Hill Cemetery Co. v. Creath, 127 Tenn. 686, 157 S. W. 412; Sheldon v. Stockbridge, 67 Vt. 299, 31 Atl. 414; Tacoma v. Tacoma Cemetery, 28 Wash, 238, 68 Pac. 723; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366, 57 Am. Rep. 278, 28 N. W. 353. North, J., in re Vaughan, 33 Ch. D. 187, 55 L. T. N. S. 547, says: "Then it is said that the keeping in repair the tombs in the churchyard is only the same thing as keeping in repair a tomb in the churchyard. I do not think so. A testator providing for the repair of a family tomb is only ministering to his own private feeling or pride, or it may be to a feeling of affection he has for his own relations; and it is not for the benefit of the parish at large that that particular tomb shall be kept in repair. But in respect to the repair of the churchyard as a whole, it is for their benefit." 72 Toole V. Hamilton, L. R. (1901) 1 Ir. 383; In re Vaughan, 33 Ch. Div. 187, 55 L. T. N. S. 547; Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342, 41 L. Ed. 739, 17 Sup. Ct. 401; Johnson v. Holifield, 79 Ala. 423, 58 Am. Rep. 596; Estate of Gay, 138 Cal. 552, 94 Am. St. Rep. 70, 71 Pac. 707; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352, 50 Am. Rep. 29; Piper v. Moulton, 72 Me. 155; Needles v. Martin, 33 Md. 609; Detwiller v. Hartman, 37 N. J. Eq. religious corporation to apply the income to the care of a burial lot.78 § 1133. Hospitals. A gift of property by will to found, establish or maintain a hospital is a valid charitable gift whether or not it violates the rule against perpetuities, for such rule does not apply. A gift to endow beds in a hospital in perpetuity obviously imports a charitable trust.75 74 The fact that a hospital charges those able to pay an amount sufficient to cover the per capita cost of maintenance does not change the hospital's standing as a charitable institution.76 Where the first concern of an 347; Smith's Estate, 5 Pa. Dist. 327; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 306, 19 L. R. A. 413, 21 Atl. 906; Fite v. Beasley, 12 Lea (80 Tenn.) 328; McIlvain v. Hockaday, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 81 S. W. 54; Knox v. Knox's Exrs., 9 W. Va. 124. 73 Conn. Gen. Stats., §§ 3939, 4456, 4459. III.-Hurd's Stat. 1905, p. 223. Mass. Stat. 1884. c. 186, § 1. N. Y.-Laws 1895, ch. 723, § 7. 74 Foy v. Foy, 1 Cox Ch. 163; Attorney General v. Belgrave Hospital, 1 Ch. 73, 79 L. J. Ch. 75, 101 L. T. N. S. 628; Edwards v. Smith, 75 L. J. Ch. 163, 27 Times L. R. 242; Butland v. Gillespie, 16 Ont. 486; Brigham v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 134 Fed. 513, 67 C. C. A. 393; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 27 L. Ed. 401, 2 Sup. Ct. 336; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557, 3 L. Ed. 279, 13 Sup. Ct. 503; Hayden v. Connecticut Hospital for Insane, 64 Conn. 320, 30 Atl. 50; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 III. 432, 48 N. E. 561, 49 N. E. 320; French v. Calkins, 252 Ill. 243, 96 N. E. 877; Dykeman v. Jenkins, 179 Ind. 549, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1011, 101 N. E. 1013; Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 61 N. W. 434; Webber Hospital Assn. v. McKenzie, 104 Me. 320, 326, 71 Atl. 1032; Burbank V. Burbank, 152 Mass. 254, 9 L. R. A. 748, 25 N. E. 427; Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309, 105 Am. St. Rep. 394, 72 N. E. 1008; Buchanan v. Kennard, 234 Mo. 117, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 50, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 993, 136 S. W. 415; Ely v. Ely, 163 App. Div. 320, 148 N. Y. S. 691. 75 Ely v. Ely, 163 App. Div. 320, 148 N. Y. S. 691. 76 People V. Purdy, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 386, 12 N. Y. Supp. 307, 126 N. Y. 679, 28 N. E. 249; Schloendorff v. Society of N. Y. organization is to bring relief to those afflicted or suffering, or in need or want, the question as to whether a recipient is able to pay is a mere incident of minor importance." § 1134. Libraries. A gift for the purpose of aiding in the establishment and support of a public library is a gift to a charity, and such gifts are looked upon with peculiar favor by the courts, which will take special care to enforce them.78 § 1135. Public Purposes. Gifts to and for a general public use or for lessening the burdens of government are charitable trusts and are not within the rule against perpetuities. Such gifts are valid and will be enforced and administered by the courts of chancery. Applying this rule, all gifts for municipal 79 Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 581, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 505, 105 N. E. 92. 77 Buchanan v. Kennard, 234 Mo. 117, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 50, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 993, 136 S. W. 415. 78 Estate of Budd, 166 Cal. 286, 135 Pac. 1131; Mason v. Bloomington Library Assn., 237 Ill. 442, 15 Ann. Cas. 603, 86 N. E. 1044; Franklin v. Hastings, 253 Ill. 46, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 135, 97 N. E. 265; Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 564, 7 L. R. A. 765, 25 N. E. 92. 79 Faversham v. Ryder, 18 Beav. 318, 5 De G. M. & G. 350; In re Pardoe, L. R. (1906) 2 Ch. 184, 75 L. J. Ch. 455, 94 L. T. N. S. 567; Farewell v. Farewell, 22 Ont. 573; Girard Trust Co. v. Russell, 179 Fed. 446, 102 C. C. A. 592, affirming 171 Fed. 161; Vidal v. Philadelphia, 2 How. (U. S.) 127, 11 L. Ed. 205; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397, 2 Sup. Ct. 327; Hamden v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350; New Castle Common v. Megginson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 361, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1207, 77 Atl. 565; Garrison v. Little, 75 Ill. App. 402; Henry County v. Winnebago Swamp Drainage Co., 52 Ill. 454; Haines v. Allen, 78 Ind. 100, 41 Am. Rep. 555; Tappan v. Deblois, 45 Me. 122; Jackson V. Phillips, 14 Allen (96 Mass.) 539; Burbank v. Burbank, 152 Mass. 254, 9 L. R. A. 748, 25 N. E. 427; Richardson v. Essex Institute, 208 Mass. 311, 21 Ann. Cas. 1158, 94 purposes,80 for the erection of public works and buildings,81 for the improvement and repair of highways and bridges,82 for laying out or improving or maintaining public parks, and for the reduction of national or state debts,84 have been sustained. But a devise of land, situ N. E. 262; Penny v. Croul, 76 Mich. 471, 5 L. R. A. 858, 43 N. W. 649; Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 210, 52 S. W. 414; Sargent v. Cornish, 54 N. H. 18; Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 292, 11 Am. Dec. 471; Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. St. 624, 6 Am. St. Rep. 745, 1 L. R. A. 417, 15 Atl. 553; In re Smith, 181 Pa. St. 109, 37 Atl. 114; Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 28 L. R. A. 510, 31 Atl. 824; Staines v. Burton, 17 Utah 331, 70 Am. St. Rep. 788, 53 Pac. 1015; Harrington v. Pier, 105 Wis. 485, 76 Am. St. Rep. 924, 50 L. R. A. 307, 82 N. W. 345. so Faversham v. Ryder, 18 Beav. 318, 5 De G. M. & G. 350, 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 367; Attorney General v. Carlisle, 2 Sim. 437, 29 Rev. Rep. 133; Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. Jun. 542, 31 Eng. Reprint 278; Vidal V. Philadelphia, 2 How. (U. S.) 127, 11 L. Ed. 205; Penny v. Croul, 76 Mich. 471, 5 L. R. A. 858, 43 N. W. 649. A municipal water supply may be a proper object of a public charity (Jones v. Williams, Ambl. 651), but it was held not to be such in Doughten v. Vandever, 5 Del. Ch. 51. A gift for improvements of a street was held valid in Attorney General v. Eastlake, 11 Hare 205, and in Vidal v. Philadelphia, 2 How. (U. S.) 127, 11 L. Ed. 205. 81 Mitford v. Reynolds, 1 Phila. 185, 41 Eng. Reprint 602; Stuart v. Easton, 74 Fed. 854, 21 C. C. A. 146; affirmed in 170 U. S. 383, 42 L. Ed. 1078, 18 Sup. Ct. 650; Cog geshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 292, 11 Am. Dec. 471; Staines v. Burton, 17 Utah 331, 70 Am. St. Rep. 788, 53 Pac. 1015. 82 Attorney General v. Shrewsbury, 6 Beav. 220; Forbes V. Forbes, 18 Beav. 552, 23 Eng. L. & Eq. 335; Attorney General v. Day, 1 Ch. 31, 69 L. J. Ch. 8, 81 L. T. N. S. 806, 64 J. P. 88; Hamden v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350; Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 28 L. R. A. 510, 31 Atl. 824. A devise to a town, directing "all the interest thereof to be laid out in repairing highways and bridges yearly, and not to be expended for any other use," is for a public and charitable use.Hamden v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350. 83 Burbank V. Burbank, 152 Mass. 254, 9 L. R. A. 748, 25 N. E. 427; Richardson v. Essex Institute, 208 Mass. 311, 21 Ann. Cas. 1158, 94 N. E. 262; In re Smith, 181 Pa. St. 109, 37 Atl. 114. 84 Newland v. Attorney General, 3 Meriv. 684, 36 Eng. Rep. 262; Ashton v. Langdale, 4 De G. & Sm. |