Bequest to a charity, the 409; Philpott v. Governors of St. George's Hospital, 6 H. L. 338 (overruling Trye v. Corporation of Gloucester, 14 B. 173); Chamberlayne v. Brockett, 8 Ch. 206. 8. Upon similar principles, a bequest to the trustees of a charity which exists only for the purchase of land is void. Widmore v. Woodroffe, Amb. 636; Middleton v. to acquire Clitheroe, 3 Ves. 734; Denton v. Lord J. Manners, 25 B. 38; 2 De G. & J. 675. object of which is land. Bequest for foreign charity. Universi ties of Ox Cambridge, and Eton, On the other hand, it is good if it exists for the purchase of land or other objects. Incorporated Society v. Barlow, 3 D. M. & G. 120; Carter v. Green, 3 K. & J. 591; Wilkinson v. Barber, 14 Eq. 96. 9. A bequest of money to be employed in enlarging or improving a charitable object attempted to be created by a testator, fails, if the original object is invalid. A.-G. v. Hinaman, 2 J. & W. 270; Smith v. Oliver, 11 B. 481; Crump v. Playfoot, 4 K. & J. 479; Green v. Britten, 42 L. J. Ch. 187; In re Cox; Cox v. Davie, 7 Ch. D. 204. 10. A bequest of the proceeds of sale of land in England to be laid out in the purchase of land for charitable purposes in a country where land may be well given to charity, is void. Curtis v. Halton, 14 Ves. 537; A.-G. v. Mill, 3 Russ. 328; 5 Bl. N. C. 593; 2 Dow. & Cl. 393. But the Statute of Mortmain leaves bequests of money to be laid out in the purchase of land for charitable purposes in other countries untouched. Mackintosh v. Townsend, 16 Ves. 330; see Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. 124. C. Exceptions from the Statute of Mortmain. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the ford and Colleges of Eton, Winchester and Westminster, are excepted from the operation of the Mortmain Act. But this exception only authorises devises to these colleges for all or some of the purposes for which they exist, and not upon trust Westmin. for other charitable objects. A.-G. v. Tancred, 1 Ed. 10; Winchester, and ster excep EXCEPTIONS FROM MORTMAIN ACT. 311 the Act. 1 W. Bl. 90; Amb. 351; A.-G. v. Whorwood, 1 Ves. 534; ted from A.-G. v. Munby, 1 Mer. 327. And if there is a good devise of lands to a college for charitable objects, which the college refuses to accept, the object will be carried out cy prés. A.-G. v. Andrew, 3 Ves. 633. tate. Before the Wills Act, it seems that a devise to a college Whether a college did not carry the legal estate, notwithstanding Benet College takes the v. Bishop of London, 2 W. Bl. 482, which was decided legal esupon an erroneous interpretation of the statute 43 Eliz. c. 4, that statute being merely remedial and not intended to authorise what was illegal before. See Incorporated Society v. Richards, 1 D. & War. 258. Whether a devise to a college since the Wills Act would carry the legal estate seems doubtful. See p. 92. cases charities em The fact that a charity is empowered by Act of Parlia- In what ment to hold lands does not entitle a testator to devise lands to it. Robinson v. Governors of London Hospital, powered to 10 Ha. 19; Nethersole v. School for the Indigent Blind, may take 11 Eq. 1; Chester v. Chester, 12 Eq. 444. But where charities are empowered to acquire lands by will, testators are of course entitled to devise lands to them. Perring v. Traill, 18 Eq. 88. But it seems that such a power to take lands by devise, would not necessarily authorise a bequest of money secured on mortgage. Chester v. Chester, supra. hold lands by devise. money to land de An Act passed before the Act 9 Geo. II. c. 36, and Bequest of enabling a charitable corporation to take lands without a licence in mortmain, by authorising testators to devise lands ployed on to the corporation, does not exempt the corporation from vised to charity by the operation of 9 Geo. II. c. 36. Luckraft v. Pridham, the testa6 Ch. D. 205. tor. Under 42 Geo. III. c. 116, s. 50, money may be given by Redempwill or otherwise for redeeming the land tax on lands tion of settled to charitable uses. land tax. Statute 43 Geo. III. c. 108. Endowment of districts for Under section 162 of the same Act land tax redeemed or purchased may be given by deed or will for the augmentation of any living. The statute 43 Geo. III. c. 108, authorises the devise of lands not exceeding five acres, or of goods or chattels to the amount of 500l. for erecting, repairing, or providing any church or chapel where the Liturgy of the Church of England is used, or any mansion-house for any minister of the said Church, and other similar purposes. Under this Act a bequest of 500l. towards building a church, if the testator survives the making of the will three months, is good. Dixon v. Barlow, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 677; Girdlestone v. Creed, 10 Ha. 480. The Act, however, does not authorise a devise of lands to be sold and the proceeds to be applied towards the purposes of the Act. Incorporated Church Building Society v. Coles, 1 K. & J. 145; 5 D. M. & G. 324. The effect of the Act is that under a bequest towards building a church the legacy will be apportioned between the pure and impure personalty, and be paid out of pure personalty to the extent of its proportion, and out of the impure personalty to the extent of 500l. Sinnett v. Herbert, 7 Ch. 232; Champney v. Davy, 11 Ch. D. 949. Under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, s. 9, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may constitute districts for spiritual purposes, and by section 22 land or money may be given by deed or spiritual purposes. will for the endowment of the minister of a district, or for providing a church or chapel under the Act. Under this Act a direction to apply a sum for the purposes authorised by the Act, if the object can be legally carried out within twenty-one years from the testator's death, is valid, if a district is constituted within the stated period, though no district has been constituted at the testator's death. Baldwin v. Baldwin, 22 B. 419. A list of charities excepted from the Mortmain Act will be found in Tudor's Real Property Cases, p. 508. trust of The Statute of Mortmain cannot be avoided by a secret Secret trust in favour of a charity. Russell v. Jackson, 10 204. Ha. land in favour of charity is In such a case, however, the devisee takes the legal bad, estate. Sweeting v. Sweeting, 12 W. R. 239. but the devisee takes the legal es Where land is devised on trust for a person for life with remainder to charity, the legal estate is well devised for tate. life. Young v. Grove, 4 C. B. 668. The legal estate passes when the trust is for charity, and for other objects which are valid. Doe d. Chidgey v. Harris, 16 M. & W. 517, 518. But a devise of lands on an express trust for charity only is void, as regards the legal estate as well, by the statute 9 Geo. II. c. 36. Doe d. Burdette v. Wrighte, 2 B. & Ald. 710. Devise to interests, CHAPTER XXVII. SUCCESSIVE AND CONCURRENT INTERESTS, JOINT I. DEVISE TO A CLASS IN TAIL. In some cases the question has arisen whether the gift a class in tail gives is to several persons concurrently, or whether they are concurrent intended to take successively; thus a devise to the sons of a person in tail is, primâ facie, a gift to a class. De Windt v. De Windt, L. R. 1 H. L. 87; Surtees v. Surtees, 12 Eq. 400. But, if there is a general intention manifest to keep the intention estates together in a single line of enjoyment, the members expressed of the class will take successively. Cradock v. Cradock, property 4 Jur. N. S. 626, 656; Allgood v. Blake, L. R. 7 Ex. 339; one line of ib. 8 Ex. 160. unless there is an to keep the together in enjoy. ment. Gift to them II. GIFTS TO A PARENT AND CHILDREN. In the same way a gift to a parent and children is and chil- prima facie a gift to them concurrently. Mason v. Clarke, dren gives 17 B. 126; Sutton v. Torre, 6 Jur. 234; Wilson v. Madconcurrent dison, 2 Y. & C. C. 372; Beales v. Crisford, 13 Sim. 592; Newill v. Newill, 12 Eq. 432; 7 Ch. 253. See Cape v. Cape, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 543. interests. The fact, that the gift is to the parent in trust for herself and her children, is not sufficient to show that they are not to take concurrently. Newill v. Newill, 7 Ch. 253. See Curtis v. Graham, 12 W. R. 998. Ward v. Grey, 26 B. 485, probably goes beyond the present tendency of the Court. What is a But, if there is anything to show, that the parent is to intention. take a different interest from that of the children, he will contrary take for life, with remainder to the children. |