or next of kin; yet he held that it must go to such use as the king should direct." Since the toleration act a bequest in favour of dissenters is valid.b SECTION II. Bonett 4. ben Of describing Legatees. Wes.38 I. THOSE who are capable of being legatees must be named or described with reasonable certainty, otherwise the bequest will fail. For if a man devises his land to his best friend, or to the best men in D.; or bequeaths a legacy to one of the world; or to the son of A. who has several sons, and it cannot be shown which the testator meant; these are void gifts. Hence where there was a bequest of pictures to Lady and a blank was left for the name, but the testatrix had appointed Lady Hort executrix, who was the only person of title mentioned in the will: it was held, that Lady Hort was not entitled to the pictures, but that the bequest was void for uncertainty. Yet a construction will, if possible, be put upon uncertain expressions. Thus where a testator gave his lands to his wife A. for life, and after her decease' to M. niece to his said wife, and then added, Item, I give the use of 500l. stock for and during her natural life; but after her decease I give the 500l. among the brothers and sisters of my said wife:" Lord Hardwicke was clear, that by her the testator intended the wife, and decreed accordingly." Simon & Buckles Legacies to charities form an exception to the 6. 3. rule; and uncertain gifts to them will be sometimes с supported, which would otherwise be void." Thus bequests "to the poor inhabitants of L.;" "for the good of poor people; " "to be paid and applied to charitable and pious uses;" for the purpose of putting out poor relations apprentices; have been held valid. So where a legacy was given "to the poor," and there were no words in the will which discovered what poor were meant, but it appeared that the testator was a French refugee; the Court directed the legacies to be given to the poor refugees. And where a testatrix, by a codicil, gave 51. per annum to all and every the hospitals, without saying where the hospitals were; and it appeared she lived many years at C. and died there, and took notice by her will of two hospitals there; the legacy was held ■ Castledon v. Turner, 3 Atk. 257. Fox v. Collins, 2 Ed. 107. In a late case, in which a man willed, that his real and personal estate should be divided according to the statute of distribution, in that case made and provided, the devise was held void as to the real estate, Thomas v. Thomas, 3 B. & C. 825. b Swinb. P. 1. S. 16. Att. Gen. v. Clarke, Ambl. 422. T. Finch, 245, cited 1 Ver. 225; and see Touch. 415. A devise "to the poor," or "to the church," was in the civil law a gift to the poor or the church of the parish in which the testator lived, Swinb. P. 7. S. 8. • Att. Gen. v. Herrick, Ambl. 712; and see 6 Ves. 410. Doe v. Wrighte, 2 B. & A. 710. ↑ White ".White, 7 Ves. 423; and see Att. Gen. v. Price, 17 Ves. 371. Isaac v. Defriez, id. 373. N. Att. Gen. v. Rance, cited Amb. 422. not to be void for the uncertainty, but to have been intended for all the hospitals in C. But a bequest, we have seen, in trust for such objects of benevolence and liberality as the executor should approve of, is too indefinite and void." If one give him 107. whose name is written in a schedule in the custody of such a man, and in truth there is no such schedule in the custody of such a man to be found, or if there be no name written therein, the legacy is void for uncertainty. Yet where a testator charged a manor with 1000l. to be applied to such charitable uses as he had by writing under his hand formerly directed, and no writing could be found; Lord Keeper North said, it was no question but the charity being general and indefinite, the application of the money was in the king; and his Majesty having declared his pleasure to have it disposed of for the benefit of the mathematical boys of his foundation in Christ's Hospital, he thought it could not be better laid out. So where a testatrix gave the residue of her personal estate to J. V., desiring him to dispose of it in such charities as he should think fit, recommending poor clergymen, who had large families and good characters; and J. V. died in the lifetime of the testatrix: Lord Thurlow declared that the residue passed by the will, and ought to go, and be applied in charity, regard being had to poor clergymen with good characters and large families, according to the recommendation in the will: and Masters v. Masters, 1 P.W. 421. Att. Gen. v. Hudson, id. 674; and see Sir W. Jones v. Sir J. Whitchott, Rep. T. Finch, 353. Owens v. Bean, id. 395. Morice v. Bp. Durham, ante 9. e Touch. 415. Swinb. P. 7. S. 7. d Att. Gen. v. Syderfen, 1 Ver. 224. 2 Freem. 261. 7 Ves. 43. N.; and see Mahon v. Savage, 1 Sch. & Lef. 111. e Moggridge v. Thackwell, 3 Bro. his decree, after being confirmed by Lord Eldon," was finally established in the House of Lords. In a later case this subject was again entered into at large. A man by will directed the residue of his effects to be divided for promoting the gospel in foreign parts, and other charitable purposes as he intended to name thereafter, after all his worldly property was disposed of to the best advantage. Sir W. Grant held this bequest void for uncertainty; but Lord Eldon, upon appeal, reversed the decree. His Lordship said, he considered it now established, that although the mode, in which a legacy is to take effect, is in many cases with regard to an individual legatee considered as of the substance of the legacy, where a legacy is given so as to denote that charity is the legatee, the Court does not hold that the mode is the substance of the legacy; but will effectuate the gift to charity as the substance: it was quite impossible, therefore, now to maintain that a disposition to charity is to be construed as a legacy to an ordinary legatee, who must be sufficiently pointed out and described; and without again going through the cases, he recurred to the doctrine in Freeman, that if a sum of money is bequeathed to such charitable uses as the testator shall direct by a codicil or note in writing, and he leaves no direction, the Court may dispose of it to such charitable uses as it shall think fit.d When there is a general indefinite charitable purpose, not fixing itself upon any particular object, the 517. 1 Ves. J. 464; and see White v. White, 1 Bro. 12. Att. Gen. v. Hickman, 2 Eq. Ab. 193. Doyley v. Doyley, id. 194. 7 Ves. 58. N. Baylis v. Att. Gen. 2 Atk. 239. As to Wheeler . Sheer, Mos. 288, see per Lord Eldon, 1 Mer. 86. 91. 97. a 7 Ves. 36. b 13 Ves. 416. Att. Gen. v. Syderfen, ante 91. d Mills v. Farmer, 1 Mer. 55. 19 Vcs. 483. disposition is in the king by the sign manual; but where the gift is to trustees, with general or some objects pointed out, the Court will take upon itself the execution of the trust. In doing this it will direct an application as near the testator's intention as possible: as if a devise, for example, should be for such schools as the testator should appoint, and he appoints none, the Court may apply it to what school they please, but for no other purpose than a school." So where the whole value of a fund, such as it was at the time, is given to a charitable purpose, and the fund, being actually exhausted by the purpose declared, is afterwards increased by the improved annual produce, the surplus will be applied as nearly as possible to the uses and purposes to which the testator meant his property to be subservient.© Where a residue, Sir W. Grant observed, was to be applied, the Court frequently directed a scheme, even where an unlimited discretion as to distribution was left to a trustee; and where, consequently, a scheme could answer no purpose, but to show that the whole fund was applied to the proper objects. But in the case before him, in which the testator bequeathed the interest of his personal property to his wife for life, desiring that she would, with the advice and assistance of his trustees, yearly expend one moiety in promoting charitable purposes, more especially in relieving such distressed persons, either a 1 Turn. 270. See Att. Gen. v. Berryman, 1 Dick. 168. Clifford v. Francis, 1 Freem. 330. Moggridge u. Thackwell, 7 Ves. 83. 87. Paice v Archb. of Canterbury, 14 Ves. 364. b2 Freem. 262. See 3 Ves. 144. 11 Ves. 251. Att. Gen. v.Baxter, ante 87. Att. Gen. v. Pyle, 1 Atk. 435. Bp. of Hereford v. Adams, 7 Ves. 324. Att. Gen. v. Stepney, 10 Ves. 22. Att. Gen. v.Cooper's Co. 19 Ves. 187. Att. Gen. v. Minshull, 4 Ves. 11. Att.Gen. v.Wansay, 15Ves. 231. Att. Gen. v. Hurst, 2 Cox. 364. 3 Bro. 374, |