Charitable Uses

or CHARITIES. Gifts to general public uses, which may extend to the rich as well as the poor. Ambl. 651; 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 305. Gifts to such purposes as are enumerated in Act 43 Eliz. c. 4, or which, by analogy, are deemed within its spirit or intendment. Boyle, Charity, 17. "Whatever is given for the love of God, or for the love of your neighbor, in, the catholic or universal sense, free from the stain or taint of every consideration that is personal, private or selfish," is a gift for charitable uses. 2 How. (U. S.) 127. The essentials are (1) that the gift be for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons (14 Allen [Mass.] 556; 107 U. S. 182)_; (2) that it be free from contractual obligation in or consideration to the donor (33 Pa. St. 419); (3) that the purpose be humanitarian in the broadest sense, whether it be religious (12 Mass. 537), educational (35 N. H. 445; 34 N. J. Eq. 101), benevolent (91 Mass. 442; 54 Ind. 549), or public (163 Mass. 509; 5 Del. Ch. 51).

CHARITIES. Gifts to general public uses, which may extend to the rich as well as the poor. Camden, Ld. Ch. in Ambl. 651; adopted by Kent, Ch., Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 294, 11 Am. Dec. 471; Lyndhurst, Ld. Ch., in 1 Ph. Ch. 191; and U. S. Supreme Court in Perin v. Carey, 24 How. (U. S.) 506, 16 L. Ed. 701; Bisp. Eq. § 124; Franklin v. Armfield, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 305. Gifts to such purposes as are enumerated in the act 43 Eliz. c. 4, or which, by analogy, are deemed within its spirit or intendment. Boyle, Char. 17. Such a gift was defined by Mr. Binney to be "whatever is given for the love of God or for the love of your neighbor, in the catholic and universal sense — given from these motives, and to these ends — free from the stain or taint of every consideration that is personal, private, or selfish." Vidal Ould v. Hospital, 95 U. S. 311, 24 L. Ed. 450. Lord Mac Naghten said in [1S91] A. C. 531: Charity in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty, trusts for the advancement of education, trusts for the advancement of religion, and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads. They had their origin under the Christian dispensation, and were regulated by the Justinian Code. Code Just. i. 3, De Episc. et Cler.j Domat, b. 2, t. 2, § 6, 1, b. 4, t. 2, § 6, 2; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 96; Mr. Binney's argument on the Girard will, p. 40; Chastel on the Charity of the Primitive Churches, b. 1, c. 2, b. 2, c. 10; Codex, donationem piarum, passim. Under that system, donations for pious uses which had not a regular and determined destination were liable to be adjudged invalid, until the edicts of Valentinian III. and Marcian declared that legacies in favor of the poor should be maintained even if legatees were not designated. Justinian completed the work by sweeping all such general gifts into the coffers of the church, to be administered by the bishops. The doctrine of pious uses seems to have passed directly from the civil law into the law of England; ' Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 100, 139, 7 L. Ed. 617; Howe, Studies in the Civil Law 68. It would seem that, by the English rule before the statute, general and indefinite trusts for charity, especially if no trustees were provided, were invalid. If sustainable, it was under the king's prerogative, exercising in that respect a power analogous to that of the ordinary in the disposition of bona vacantia prior to the Statute of Distributions; F. Moore 882, 890; Duke, Char. Uses 72, 362; 1 Vern. 224, note; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 96, pi. 8; 1 Ves. Sen. 225; Hob. 136; Chitten,den v. Chittenden, 1 Am. L. Reg. 545. The main purpose of the stat. 43 Eliz. c. 4 was to define the uses which were charitable, as contradistinguished from those which, after the Reformation in England, were deemed superstitious, and to secure their application; Shelf. Mortm. 89, 103. The objects enumerated in the statute were, "Relief of aged, impotent and poor people; maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities; repairs of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, seabanks and highways; education and preferment of orphans, relief, stock or maintenance for houses of correction; marriage of poor maids; supportation, aid and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen and persons decayed; relief or redemption of prisoners or captives; aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payments of fifteens, setting out of soldiers, and other taxes." Subsequently it appears that this statute, as a mode of proceeding, fell into disuse, although under its influence and by its mere operation many charities were upheld which would otherwise have been void; Shelf. Mortm. 378, 379, and notes; Gallego's Ex'rs v. Attorney General 3 Leigh (Va.) 470, 24 Am. Dec. 650; Nelson, Lex Test. 137; Boyle, Char. 18 et seq.; 1 Burn, Eccl. Law, 317 a. Under this statute, courts of chancery are empowered to appoint commissioners to superintend the application and enforcement of charities; and if, from any cause, the charity cannot be applied precisely as the testator has declared, such courts exercise the power in some cases of appropriating it, according to the principles indicated in the devise, as near as they can to the purpose expressed. And this is called an application cy pres; 3 Washb. R. P. 514. See Cy Pkes. There is no need of any particular persons or objects being specified; the generality and indefiniteness of the object constituting the charitable character of the domay be applied to almost anything that tends to promote the well-doing and well-being of man; Perry. Trusts, § 687. They embrace gifts to the poor of every class, Including poor relations, where the intention is manifest: Soohan v. City of Philadelphia,.33 Pa. 9; Franklin v. Armfield, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 305; Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 518, 4 L. Ed. 629; Allen v. Mc Kean, 1 Sumn. 27G, Fed. Cas. No. 229; Chapin v. School District No. 2, 33 N. II. 445; 7 Ch. D. 714; for the poor of a county, "who by timely assistance may be kept from being carried to the poor house;" State v. Grillith, 2 Del. Ch. 392; Griffith v. State, id. 421; for the poor, though the distribution of the fund Is private and to private persons; Bullard v. Chandler, 149 Mass. 532, 21 N. E. 951, 5 L. R. A. 104; for every description of college and school; Stevens v. Shippen, 28 X. J. Eq. 4S7; City of Cincinnati v. Mc Micken, 0 Ohio C. C. 18S; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70, 1 N. W. 92, 50 N. W. 1103; Bedford v. Bedford's Adm'r, 99 Ky. 273, 35 S. W. 926; Handley v. Palmer. 103 Fed. 39, 43 C. C. A. 100; Howe v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 45, 3 S. W. 390, 60 Am. Rep. 226 (that the state provides free education for children will not render a private bequest for the same purpose void; Tincher v. Arnold, 147 Fed. 665, 77 C. C. A. 619, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471, 8 Ann. Cas. 917); to all institutions for the advancement of the Christian religion; Alexander v. Slavens, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 351; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 4S1; White v. Attorney General, 39 N. C. 19, 44 Am. Dec. 92; Appeal of Domestic & Foreign Missionary Society, 30 Pa. 425; to all churches; Inhabitants of Princeton v. Adams, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 129; In Case of St. Mary's Church, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 559; Johnson v. Mayne, 4 la. ISO; Conkliu v. Davis, 63 Conn. 377, 28 Atl. 537; foreign missions; Kinney v. Kinney's Ex'r, S6 Ky. 610, 6 S. W. 593; for the education of two young men for all coming time for the Christian ministry; Field v. Seminary. 41 Fed. 371; the advancement of Christianity among the infidels; 1 Yes. Jr. 243; the benefit of ministers of the gospel; Trustees of Cory Universalist Society at Sparta v. Beatty, 28 N. J. Eq. 570; for distributing Bibles and religious tracts; Winslow v. Cummings, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 35S; Pickering v. Shut well. 10 Pa. 23; chapels, hospitals and orphan asylums; Soohan v. City of Philadelphia,:',:', Pa. 0; Fink v. Fink's Ex'r, 12 La. Ann. 301; Attorney General v. Society, s Rich. Eq. is. C.) 190; Second Religious Society of Boxford v. Harriman, 125 Mass..",21; even when discrimination is made in favor of members of one religious denomination; Burd Orphan Asylum v. School District, 90 Fa. 21; Trustees v. Gutherie, 86 Va. 125, 10 S. E. 31S, 6