Pkecatory

5 Describes an expression in a will which requests that something be done — recommendatory words. Courts of equity have gone great lengths in creating implied or constructive trusts from such words. The tendency is to discourage extending the doctrine. Whenever the object, or the property, of the supposed trust is not certain or definite, or a clear discretion and choice to act is given, and whenever prior dispositions Import uncontrollable ownership, the comts will not create a trust from precatory words." Words of entreaty, recommendation or wish, addressed by a testator to a devisee or legatee, make him a trustee for the person in whose favor such expressions are used, provided the testator has pointed out with clearness the objects of the trust, and the subject-matter on which it is to attach or from which it is to arise and be administered.' U there be a trust sufficiently expressed and capable of enforcement, it does not disparage, much less ■ Copeland v. Memphis, &c. R. Co., 3 Woods, 600 (1878), Woods, J.; Beard v. Eowan. 9 Pet. *317 (1835); Commonwealth v. Smith, 76 Va. 484-85 (1882), cases; IB Cent. Law J. 27-29 (1884), cases

— Irish Law Times; 15 Johns. 116; 1 Pick. 251; 69 Pa. 3.33; Dwar. Stat. 107. s Randolph v. Milman, L. B., 4 C. P. *in a868j. 'Shields v. Shields, 60 Barb. 61 (1870), Potter, J. 4 See Story, Bailm. §§ 227, 253 6; Hadley, Rom. Law, 178. 5 L. precari, to pray, entreat, request. •2Story, Eq. §§ 1086-70. 'Warner v. Bates, 98 Mass. 276-78 (1867), cases, Bigelow, C. J.; Handley v. Wrightson, 60 Md. 198-206 (1883), cases; Knox v. Knox, 59 Wis. 172, 178-85 (1884), defeat it, to call it "precatory." The question of its existence depends, after all, upon the intention of the testator as expressed by the words he has used, according to their natural meaning, modified only by the context and the situation and circumstances of the testator when he used them. On the one hand,, the words may be merely those of suggestion, counsel, or advice, intended only to influence, and not to take away the discretion of the legatee growing out of the right to use and dispose of the propertj^ given as his own. On the other hand, the language may be imperative in fact, though not in form, conveying the intention of the testator in words equivalent to a command, and leaving to the legatee no discretion to defeat his wishes, although there may be a discretion to accomplish them by a choice of methods, or even to defeat and limit the extent of the interest conferred upon his beneficiary.*