§ 1141. The Same Subject: Where Gift Vests in the Future. Where the gift to charity is to take effect in the future, the cases are distinguishable. If the gift is conditioned. to take effect upon the happening of an event certain to occur within limited time, the rule against perpetuities does not apply. The rule is the same where the gift is to vest upon the performance of some condition, it being valid if the condition is fulfilled within a reasonable time. But if the gift depends upon some uncertain contingency, it violates the rule against perpetuities and is void.10

The rule against perpetuities has no application where the property passes, upon an event certain, from one charity to another.11 But this rule does not extend to cases where an immediate gift in favor of private individuals is followed by an executory gift in favor of char

Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1011, 101 N. E. 1013.

In California, Const. art. 20, § 9, and in Nevada, Const. art. 15, § 4, the provisions against perpetuities do not apply to those created for eleemosynary purposes.

10 Attorney General v. Chester, 1 Bro. C. C. 444; Sinnett v. Herbert, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 232; White's Trusts, L. R. 33 Ch. Div. 449; In re Gassiot, 70 L. J. Ch. 242; In re Clarke, L. R. (1901) 2 Ch. 110; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 7 L. Ed. 617; McDonogh v. Murdoch, 56 U. S. 367, 14 L. Ed. 732; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 96 U. S. 303, 24 L. Ed. 732; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352, 50 Am. Rep. 29; Almy v. Jones, 17 R. I. 265, 12 L. R. A. 414, 21 Atl. 616.

Compare: De Wolf v. Lawson, 61 Wis. 469, 50 Am. Rep. 148, 21 N. W. 615.

"A gift in trust for a charity not existing at the date of the gift, and the beginning of whose existence is uncertain, or which is to take effect upon a contingency that may possibly not happen within a life or lives in being and twenty-one years, is valid, provided there is no gift of the property meanwhile to be for the benefit of any private corporation or person."-Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397, 2 Sup. Ct. 327.

11 Christ's Hospital v. Grainger, 1 Macn. & G. 460; In re Tyler, L. R. (1891) 3 Ch. 252, 60 L. J. Ch. N. S. 686, 65 L. T. N. S. 367, 40 Week. R. 7.

ity, or an immediate gift in favor of charity is followed by an executory gift in favor of private individuals.12 Thus, a gift to a private person with a remainder over to a charity to vest upon a contingency which may not occur within the period allowed by law for limitations upon alienation, would tend to create a perpetuity in the first taker. 13

§ 1142. Testamentary Gifts to Charity Liberally Construed.

By the law of England, from before the Statute of Charitable Uses of 43 Elizabeth, ch. 4, A. D. 1601, and by the law of these United States except where it has been restricted by statute or judicial decision, trusts for charitable uses are applied under circumstances where trusts for private use would fail. Charitable trusts, being for objects of permanent interest and benefit to the public, may be perpetual in their duration and are not within the rule against perpetuities. Instruments creating them should be considered so as to give them effect, if possible, and to carry out the general intention of the donor even if the particular form and manner pointed out by him can not be followed. Charitable trusts may and must be for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, for if all the beneficiaries are personally designated, the trust lacks the essential element of indefiniteness, which is one of the characteristics of a public charity. If the

12 In re Bowen, L. R. (1893) 2 Ch. Div. 491; Worthing Corporation v. Heather, (1906) 2 Ch. 532, 75 L. J. Ch. N. S. 761, 22 Times L. R. 750, 95 L. T. N. S. 718, 4 B. R. C. 280.

13 Pewterers' Co. V. Christ's Hospital, 1 Vern. 161; Commissioners of Charitable Donation II Com. on Wills-50

and Bequests v. De Clifford. 1 Dru. & War. 245; Attorney General v. Gill, 2 P. Wms. 369; Attorney General v. Hall, Kelynge, W. 13; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (92 Mass.) 1, 7; In re John's Will, 30 Ore. 494, 36 L. R. A. 242, 47 Pac. 341, 50 Pac. 226; Smith v. Townsend, 32 Pa. St. 434; Leonard v. Burr, 18 N. Y. 96.

donor describes the general nature of the charitable trust, he may leave the details of its administration to be settled by trustees under the superintendence of a court of chancery.1 And if the property, under the will, may be devoted to either of two objects at the discretion of the trustee, should one be illegal and the other valid, the trust will be sustained as to the object which is legal and the property will be devoted solely to such use.15

It has always been the policy of the law to uphold charitable bequests and to give effect to them whenever possible,16 and the words "charity" and "charitable" must receive a liberal interpretation in construing whether or not certain institutions are comprised within the meaning of "charitable institutions."'17 If the words of a charitable bequest are ambiguous or contradictory, they are to be so construed as to support the charity, if possible.18 Charitable uses are favorites with courts of equity. The construing of all instruments where they are concerned is liberal in their behalf.19 And the mere fact that

14 Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397, 2 Sup. Ct. 327.

15 Sorresby v. Hollins, 9 Mod. 221; Curtis v. Hutton, 14 Ves. Jun. 537; Lewis v. Allenby, L. R. 10 Eq. 668; In re Hedgman, L. R. 8 Ch. Div. 156; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (96 Mass.) 539, 556; St. Paul's Church v. Attorney General, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N. E. 231; Staines v. Burton, 17 Utah 331, 70 Am. St. Rep. 788, 53 Pac. 1015.

16 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; Franklin v. Hastings, 253 Ill. 46, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 135, 97

N. E. 265; Jackson v. Phillips, 14
Allen (96 Mass.) 539.

17 State v. Board of Control, 85 Minn. 165, 88 N. W. 533.

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

Gifts to charities may be good which if they had been made to individuals would be void.-Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 586, 30 L. Ed. 734, 7 Sup. Ct. 689; Succession of Tilton, 133 La. 435, 63 So. 99.

19 Mills v. Farmer, 19 Ves. 483, 487; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303, 24 L. Ed. 450; Magill v. Brown, Brightly N. P. (Pa.) 346.

a charity is also intended as a private memorial does not impair its public character or legal validity.20

§ 1143. Purpose of Trust Must Not Be so Indefinite That Chancery Can Not Correct Abuse.

The purpose of a charitable trust must not be so indefinite that a court of chancery can not so determine its purpose as to be able to correct an abuse thereof. If there is nothing to restrain the discretion of the trustees or to guide the judgment of the court, the trustees could apply the fund for a purpose ever so remotely connected. with the objects of a trust which are indefinitely stated, and the court could not substitute its judgment for that of the trustees. Such a trust must fail.21 But although the purpose of a charitable trust must be stated, it is not necessary that the testator do more than outline its general nature; the details of administration may be left to the trustees who are, of course, subject to the jurisdiction of the court. 22 However, if the gift is not for a purpose strictly charitable and the trustee may, in his

20 Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 27 L. Ed. 401, 2 Sup. Ct. 336; Richardson v. Essex Institute, 208 Mass. 311, 21 Ann. Cas. 1158, 94 N. E. 262.

21 Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. (U. S.) 55, 13 L. Ed. 44.

See § 1148.

A devise to the "Vermont State Convention" was held a sufficient designation of "The Vermont Baptist State Convention."-Vermont Baptist State Conv. v. Ladd's Estate, 59 Vt. 5, 9 Atl. 1. But it has

been ruled in Massachusetts that a devise to the missionary "case" of the "Methodist Episcopal Church," although it was assumed. that "case" was intended for "cause," could not be executed in favor of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a corporation organized under the laws of New York.-Missionary Soc. of M. E. Church v. Chapman, 128 Mass. 265.

22 Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397, 2 Sup. Ct. 327.

discretion, apply the fund to an indefinite purpose, the gift will fail.23

§ 1144. Purpose of Trust Must Be Stated in Will.

If the testator intends to create a trust for charitable uses, he must state the purposes thereof in his will. Wills must be in writing; this is the manner in which the testator must express his intention. The courts can not add words to a will or create an intention not therein expressed or necessarily implied. A testamentary gift to one in trust for charitable and benevolent purposes not outlined, but which the will recites were stated to the trustee, can not be administered as a definite charitable gift. A reference in the will, however, to previous verbal instructions, may be held merely descriptive if the will contains directions as to the purposes of the trust.25

24

There is a distinction where the language of the will refers to the plans of some organization, such as the manner in which a designated university is conducted, or re

23 Morice v. Bishop of Durham,

9 Ves. Jun. 399; Hunter v. Attorney General, L. R. (1899) A. C. 309.

A bequest to "objects of liberality and benevolence" has been held invalid.-Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. Jun. 399.

A bequest for "charitable and philanthropic purposes" has been held bad on account of the word "philanthropic."-In re Macduff, L. R. (1896) 2 Ch. Div. 451.

But a gift "to the service of God" has been held good. In re Darling, L. R. (1896) 1 Ch. Div. 50.

A bequest to "such charitable or

public purposes as the trustee may think proper" has been held invalid on account of the word "public."-Blair v. Duncan, L. R. (1902) A. C. 37.

24 Wilcox v. Attorney General, 207 Mass. 198, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 859, 93 N. E. 599.

25 Wells V. Doane, 3 Gray (Mass.) 201.

See, also, Gill v. Attorney General, 197 Mass. 232, 83 N. E. 676; Molly Varnum Chapter, D. A. R. v. Lowell, 204 Mass. 487, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 707, 90 N. E. 893; New England Sanitarium v. Stoneham, 205 Mass. 335, 91 N. E. 385.