taxes.

The signification of charity in courts of equity is derived chiefly from this statute, and those purposes are considered charitable which the statute enumerates, or which by analogies are deemed within its spirit and intendment. Hence devises for the benefit of hospitals, or poor of parishes; for improvement of cities, as for bringing water for the use of the inhabitants; and for preaching a sermon on a certain day, keeping the chimes of a church in repair, and singing psalms, have been held charitable uses and void. So where a testator, after reciting that he had at great labour and expense raised a freehold botanic garden at S., and, not having any relations, was desirous of devising and bequeathing all his freehold estates, and all the residue of his stock, funds, and personal estate to trustees to maintain and improve the collection of plants, &c.; and wished, if occasion required, that the garden might be enlarged by taking in part of his ground adjoining, and the collection of plants increased, as he trusted it would be a public benefit; and then proceeded to devise the garden and land adjoining, and all the rest and residue of his real and personal property to trustees, giving special directions as to the management of the gardens: the Lord Chancellor thought that upon the expression of the testator, that he trusted it would be a public benefit, he might venture to declare the disposition void. In a case also in which a man bequeathed an annuity of 107. per annum out of land to a minister to preach a sermon

9 Ves. 405. 1 Swanst. 297.308. 1 Cox, 317. 3 Mer. 19. 2 Sim. and St. 76.

Att. Gen. v. Ward, 3 Ves. 327.

Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. 542. d Jones v. Williams, Ambl. 651. e Turner v. Ogden, 1 Cox, 316. Townley v. Bedwell, 6 Ves. 194.

once a year to his memory, to keep his tombstone in repair, and the inscription thereon, and upon the stone against the wall, and 27. per annum to the clerk, and 27. more to the sexton, for ever; with 47. per annum to the mayor and corporation of A. for managing and keeping accounts thereof: Lord Hardwicke held the annuities to the minister, clerk, and sexton charitable uses, and void, as well as the 47. per annum to the corporation as attendant on them." But a bequest to erect a monument in a church to the testator's memory is not a charitable use; and where there was a grant of lands in trust perpetually to repair, and if need be rebuild, a vault and tomb standing on the land, and permit the same to be used as a family vault for the donor and her family: the Court thought that as far as concerned the grantor's own interment it was not a charitable use, but inasmuch as it was for her family it might be so considered.c

d

In consequence of the above-mentioned statute all bequests to charitable uses of money charged upon, or to arise by the sale of land; whether freehold or copyhold, and whether specifically given, or included only in a general residuary clause; of money due on mortgage," as on turnpike tolls, or

a Durour v. Motteux, 1 Ves. 320. b Lowndes on Legacies, 205, citing Mellish v. President of the Asylum, M. S.

Doe v. Pitcher, 3 M. and S. 407. 6 Taunt. 359; and see Gravenor v. Hallum, Ambl. 643.

Hone v Medcraft, 1 Bro. 261. e 14 Ves. 541. Att. Gen. v. Lord Weymouth, Ambl. 20. 1 Coll. Jur. 433. Att. v. Ward, 3 Ves. 327.

Arnold . Chapınan, 1 Ves. 108. Doe v. Waterton, 3 B. and A. 149.

Att. Gen. v. Graves, Amb. 155, Att. Gen. v. Caldwell, id. 635. Att. Gen. v. E. Winchelsea, 3 Bro. 374. 2 Cox, 364. Paice v. Archb. Canterbury, 14 Ves. 364. Johnston v. Swann, 3 Mad. 457.

h Att. Gen. v. Caldwell, Ambl. 635. Att. Gen. v. Meyrick, 2 Ves. 44. Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. 542, Pickering . Lord Stamford, 1 Ves. J. 272.

Knapp v. Williams, 4 Ves. 430, n. Howse v. Chapman, id. 542.

secured by assignment of poor rates and county rates; of navigation shares; of leaseholds, as a lease from the Crown of the right of laying mooringchains in the river Thames; have been held void. So where estates were conveyed in trust to sell, and pay a certain sum to A. his executors, &c. after the decease of the survivor of A. and two other persons; another sum to the executors of A.; and a third sum to such person as B. should appoint, who appointed it to A.; and A. by will bequeathed all his real and personal property upon trust to sell, and convert into money, and after satisfaction of debts and legacies, to pay the residue of the money to arise from the real and personal estates to his wife; and she by her will gave the remainder of her property, after paying debts and legacies, to charitable uses: it was held that the sums, not having been raised at her death, continued an interest in land, and did not therefore pass to the charities.*

It is equally clear that all bequests of mere personal estate to be laid out or invested in real property, as a gift of 500l. to be applied towards the discharge of a mortgage on a chapel,' are within the statute, and void.

With regard, however, to personal bequests to be laid out in land, the act has been held only to apply, where the fund must, according to the terms of the will, be so laid out at all events. For where J. N. by his will desired his executors to settle and secure

Finch v. Squire, 10 Ves. 41. ▸ Howse v.

Swann, 3 Mad. 457.

Negus v. Coulter, Ambl. 367. • Att. Gen. v. Harley, 5 Mad. 321. f Att. Gen. v. Bowles, 3 Atk. 807. 2 Ves. 547. Att. Gen. v. Tyndall, Ambl. 614. 2 Ed. 207.

d Chapman, 4 Ves. 542. Att. Gen. v. Graves, Ambl. 155. 1 Coll, Jur. 448. Att. Gen. v. Tomkins, Ambl. 216. Shanley v. Baker, 4 Ves. 732. Paice v. Archb. of Canterbury, 14 Ves. 364. Johnston v.

Corbyn v. French, 4 Ves. 418.

by purchase of inheritance, or otherwise, as they should be advised, out of his personal estate, an annuity of 50l. to be distributed among the poor people of L.: Lord Hardwicke thought if it had rested on the first words, the devise had been clearly void; but as the disjunctive left to the executors two methods to do a particular thing, the one lawful and the other not, the lawful one should be pursued and take effect; and he accordingly decreed the gift to be valid. In this respect, indeed, his Lordship, who had to decide the first cases that occurred after the passing of the act, seems to have carried his distinctions to some nicety. Thus where a testator gave certain parts of his estate to be applied in the clothing and educating of twenty poor boys; and directed such parts to be invested in the funds until the whole could be laid out in a purchase of lands to the satisfaction of the governor and trustees (whom he appointed), which lands were directed to be purchased in the names of the trustees, and the interest and profits and rents of such parts of his estate or the lands to be purchased therewith to be applied in clothing the boys: Lord Hardwicke thought there was room to construe this bequest with a discretionary power in the trustees to lay out the money one way or other, either in lands or in the funds. But in a case in the same year, where a man by his will gave his debts, securities, and ready money to trustees in trust, till they could purchase land, to pay the interest of 120l. to the poor of H., and willed that the trustees, as soon as they could meet

Soresby v. Hollins, 1 Coll. Jur. 439. 9 Mod. 221. Burn, E. L. Mortmain; and see 3 Ves. 144. Att. Gen. .Hartley, 4 Bro. 412. Curtis v.

Hutton, 14 Ves. 537.

Grimmett v. Grimmett, Ambl. 210. 1 Coll. Jur. 454. 1 Dick. 251.

with a suitable purchase, should lay out 1207. in lands of inheritance, to be vested in them for ever in trust, &c. Sir T. Clarke thought the bequest void, for that he would not go further than Grimmett v. Grimmett." And in a subsequent case, where a testatrix gave 600l. to be laid out in the purchase of land as soon as could be after her decease, and until an eligible purchase could be made, to be placed out at interest by her friend C. whom she appointed trustee for the purpose of receiving and placing out the same until a purchase could be made; and upon trust as soon as he could meet with lands suitable for the purpose to purchase them: the Court held the bequest contrary to the statute; and Lord Commissioner Eyre observed, the case of Grimmett v. Grimmett stood upon so much nicety that it was not proper to extend it where every part of the circumstances of that case did not occur: that the principal case was distinguishable from it in this, that the primary destination of the fund was very clearly the purchase of land; and therefore, whatever might be the authority of Grimmett v. Grimmett, it did not strictly apply. And where a testator gave the residue of his personal estate for the endowment of two schools, and recommended his trustees to lay out the money when collected in land; it was held that the word "recommend," being imperative, left the trustees no discretion, and the bequest was therefore void.

Again, Lord Hardwicke decided that a bequest for erecting or building a school-house or hospital was not contrary to the intent of the statute; for

82.

a

English v. Ord, High. on Mtmn.

b Grieves v. Case, 2 Cox, 301.

1 Ves. J. 548. 4 Bro. 67.

c Kirkbank v. Hudson, 7 Pri. 212; and see Doe v. Wrighte, 2 B. & A.710.