by will, to promote education, is a charity. . . . . Such a gift to a charitable use is to receive a most liberal construction; and if the trustees pervert the fund to other uses, or even if they refuse to accept or execute the trust, the charity itself shall not fail, nor will the property revert to the donor. But it will be competent for a court of chancery to direct, in the former case, that the trust shall be executed, and in the latter that new trustees shall be appointed, in whom the legal estate shall vest, to be holden in trust for the purposes of the charity." And this principle was extended, in another case,144 so far as to appoint a trustee to carry into effect a bequest to the "Marine Bible" Society, there being no society of that name in existence, but it appearing that at, or shortly before, the time of making the will, there had been a voluntary association in being, by the name of "The Boston Young Men's Marine Bible Society," the object of which was to distribute "Bibles among destitute seamen," but which had been dissolved shortly before the death of the testator, the court being satisfied, from the surrounding circumstances, that this was the society intended by the testator. The trustee in this case was directed to apply the avails of the charity in the purchase of Bibles, to be distributed among destitute seamen, and in defraying the expense of the distribution, as nearly as might be, in conformity with the constitution of the society which the donor had in mind.

61. The objects coming within the scope of chancery jurisdiction over charity in this country are numerous, and somewhat diverse. Chancellor Kent, in an early case,145 held that a legacy of a sum of money to a town, for the purpose of erecting a town-house, for transacting town business, was valid as a charitable bequest. Adopting Lord Camden's definition of a charity.146

144 Winslow v. Cummings, 3 Cush. 358.

145 Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Ch. 292.

146 Jones v. Williams, Amb. 651. This was a bequest for supplying water for the use of the inhabitants of a town. His lordship said, "The supplying of

66

a gift to a general public use, which extends to the poor as well as the rich." And in Pennsylvania a bequest, to be applied under the direction of the Society of Friends, to the monthly meeting of Philadelphia for the northern district, as a fund for the distribution of good books among poor people in the back part of Pennsylvania, or for the support of a free school or institution, in or near Philadelphia," (which was not an incorporated society,) was maintained as a good bequest to charity.147 So of a bequest for free schools: And where the trustees are not properly named the court will supply them.148 So also of a devise of land for the site of a free school, for the benefit of poor children, and a lecture-room for public worship, and a lot for a dwelling-house for the minister of a certain church.149 And in tracing the reports of charity cases in this country it will be found that the majority of such cases are for the maintenance of institutions of a religious, or semi-religious, character. That is true of all these religious societies in the country, like Bible Societies, Prayer Book and Missionary Societies, Tract Socie

water is necessary, as well as convenient, for the poor and the rich." And the courts in the State of New York seem to have proceeded upon the ground, that the statute of Elizabeth was never in force in that state, but that, independent of that statute, the Court of Chancery had an original jurisdiction to enforce the performance of trusts for pious and charitable uses, when the devise or conveyance in trust was made to a trustee capable of taking the legal estate. Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige, 77. The including of pious trusts among charitable uses is somewhat of an extension of the original meaning of the latter term, as used in England, where pious and charitable uses are by no means coextensive. But in this country religious and pious uses embrace the chief department of charity, and hence the terms have become nearly interchangeable. But a reference to the objects enumerated in the statute of Elizabeth, which forms the basis of all charitable uses in England at the present day, will show that almost none of them are what we may properly call pious or religious uses. Ante, pl. 11.

147 Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Penn. St. 23.

148 McBride v. Elmer, 2 Halst. Ch. 107.

149 Baldwin v. Baldwin, 3 Halst. Ch. 211.

ties, Societies for the support of superannuated ministers, Education Societies for supplying the ministry, and numerous other societies, which exist in connection with almost all the religious denominations in the country, and which disburse almost all the funds given, either inter vivos, or by way of testamentary disposition, by the members of those different denominations and others connected with their congregations, friendly to their extension; all these very numerous societies absorb a large proportion of the charitable funds in the country, and almost all the charity suits in the country concern some of these societies, or else have reference to education in some form. While on the other hand many of the objects named in the statute of Elizabeth as charitable, such as repairing highways, ports, havens, bridges, relief of the poor, houses of correction, taxes, &c., have been given up exclusively to state or municipal control, and many others there enumerated do not exist here to any appreciable extent; while religion, which in England is scarcely regarded as an object of charitable trust, being chiefly under legal supervision and control, is here the leading one in that respect. Thus it is said, in a late case in Pennsylvania: 150 "Nothing is better

150 The Evangelical Association's Appeal, 35 Penn. St. 316, 319. But in Virginia, (Seaburn v. Seaburn, 15 Gratt. 423,) the doctrine of the English courts in favor of indefinite bequests to charity is repudiated. And in a recent case in Maryland, (Wilderman v. Baltimore, 8 Md. R. 551,) it was held in regard to a bequest for the relief and support of the indigent and necessitous poor persons who may, from time to time, reside within the precinct of a certain ward in the city of Baltimore, that there is no jurisdiction in chancery to set up a charity so vague that the cestui que trust can only be designated by the arbitrary discretion of the trustees. But this is true to a great extent of all charitable provisions for necessitous poor persons, and the decision goes upon the admitted ground, that courts of chancery in that state have no jurisdiction over charitable trusts.

In Tennessee, in Franklin v. Armfield, 2 Sneed, 305, charity is defined to be a gift to a general public use, such as the maintenance of schools, academies, and universities, and other lawful educational institutions, without reference to the wealth or poverty of those who might be benefited thereby, and such gifts are

settled than that religious societies, whether incorporated or not, have capacity to take and hold charitable bequests." The bequest there in question was, to a religious denomination called the Evangelical Association, and embracing members in the different states, and in Canada, and with no direction how it should be applied, except what was inferrible from the general nature and objects of the association, and still it was maintained by the court upon that ground alone. Citing many cases, in the American courts, where such had been the rule adopted,151

not deprived of their character of charitable trusts, because the descendants of the founder and of his brothers and sisters, and such of the poor children of the county as the trustees might select, are named as cestuis que trust.

151 Magill v. Brown, Brightly, 347, where bequests to Friends' Yearly Meeting were maintained as good gifts to charity, upon the ground that the legatee's character sufficiently indicated the purpose of the bequest. See Blenon's Estate, Brightly, 338, where the character of the legatee was held to determine the nature of the gift. And in Price v. Maxwell, 28 Penn. St. 23, a bequest to the West Town Boarding-School was held a charity, on the ground that the donees were a charitable association. Gifts to promote education held charitable. Chapin v. School District, 35 N. H. R. 445. So also to a minister in the city of Boston to distribute in charity in the usual mode it is done by ministers in that city. Derby v. Derby, 4 R. I. R. 414. A devise to a theological seminary for the education of pious young men, or to endow a professorship, is a good charity. Trustees v. Kellogg, 16 N. Y. Court of App. 83. So of a bequest to a school to form a fund for the salaries of teachers. Price v. Maxwell, 28 Penn. St. 23. So also a devise to the Society of Friends' School, which was established by the members of that denomination, to educate their own children in the religious principles of the society, as well as in the ordinary branches of school education, was held a good charitable trust. Price v. Maxwell, supra.

In the last case, Lewis, Ch. J., said, "if we were to attempt a definition which would embrace all gifts for charitable uses, we should adopt the language of the eminent patriarch of our profession, Mr. Binney, as expressed in his argument in Vidal v. The City of Philadelphia, 2 How. (U. S.) 127. Whatever is given for the love of God, or for the love of your neighbor, in the catholic and univer

-

sal sense, given from these motives and to these ends, free from the stain or taint of every consideration that is personal, private, or selfish,' — is a gift for charitable uses, according to that religion from which the law of charitable uses has been derived. 'The love of God is the basis of all that is bestowed for his

Denio, Ch. J., said, in Owens v. The Missionary Society of M. E. Church,152 Trusts in favor of education and religion have

honot, the building up of his church, the support of his ministers, the religious instruction of mankind. The love of his neighbor is the principle that prompts and consecrates all the rest.' The currents of the two great affections finally run together, and they are at all times so near that they can hardly be said to be separated."

This is certainly a very beautiful and just sentiment, but it gives a prominence to that department of benevolence, the support of the Christian Church and her ministers, which, while it is very grateful to the devout feelings of an earnest Churchman and Christian like Mr. Binney, or Ch. J. Lewis, or the present writer, be it said with all humility, after all, finds less substantial verification, in the history of charitable uses, as marked by the decided cases, either in this country or in England, than seems requisite to give much point to the beautiful Christian spirit evinced by the language quoted. But there are many marked indications, in the decided cases in America, that Christian benevolence, expended in the maintenance and dissemination of the Church and her doctrines of every denomination of Christians, is regarded as not only coming within the range, but as constituting one very leading purpose, of charitable trusts, by no means the exclusive purpose.

Thus in Bartlet v. King, 12 Mass. R. 537, it was decided that a bequest to trustees for the benefit of a voluntary, unincorporated association, the object of which was the propagation of Christianity among the heathen, was a valid charity or trust for "pious and charitable uses," although there was at the time no court in the commonwealth possessing the requisite powers to compel the execution of the trust.

And in Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. 107, it was decided that a bequest "to the cause of Christ, for the benefit and promotion of true evangelical piety and religion," and directing the same to be paid to certain persons named, "placing full confidence in their piety, judgment, and integrity, immediately to be by them sacredly appropriated to the cause of religion as above stated; to be distributed in such divisions, and to such societies, and religious charitable purposes as they may think fit and proper," created a valid charitable trust within the spirit of the statute of 43 Eliz. ch. 4, which was in force in the Commonwealth.

And in numerous other cases, in almost all the American states, it has been repeatedly determined, that bequests to the American Board of C. F. M., to the American Bible Society, to the American Tract Society, the American Colo

152 4 Kern. 380, 409.