 If it might, consistently with the will, be applied to other than strictly charitable purposes, the trust is too indefinite for the Court to execute.  A Treatise on the Law of Legacies - 第 182 頁Roper Stote Donnison Roper 著 - 1829完整檢視 - 關於此書
 | Great Britain. Court of Chancery, John Herman Merivale - 1819 - 766 頁
...however so benevolent, unless they also come within the technical denomination of charitable purposes ? If it might, consistently with the will, be applied...is too indefinite for the Court to execute. I see DO substantial difference between this case and the former, and therefore consider the point as already... | |
 | Leonard Shelford - 1836 - 1090 頁
...benevolent, unless they also came within the technical denomination of charitable purposes. And as it might consistently with the will be applied to other than strictly charitable purposes, the trust was too indefinite for the court to execute. (u) 10 Ves. 543. See9Ves. 399; ante, p. 85. See Vezey... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Chancery, Charles Beavan - 1844 - 726 頁
...integrity and discretion should agree on, and Sir William Grant held it void, saying, " If the property might, consistently with the will, be applied to other...trust is too indefinite for the Court to execute." Again, in Ommanney v. Butcher (c), Sir Thomas Plumer held that a bequest for private charity was void... | |
 | James Hill - 1845 - 704 頁
...he is bound so to apply it" (<>). And in another case the same learned judge says, " If the property might consistently with the will be applied to other,...trust is too indefinite for the court to execute" ( p). Thus in Coxe \. Sattet (9), where a testator " authorized and empowered" his trustees, to continue... | |
 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Randolph Manning, George C. Gibbs, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, William Dudley Fuller, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper - 1874 - 664 頁
...whether he is bound so to apply it." And in James v. Allen, 3 Mer., 17, he says further: "If the property might, consistently with the will, be applied to other...trust is too indefinite for the court to execute."— See also Ellis v. Selby, 1 Myl. & C., ATIOKKRY GlUBBAL t> . 8 OVLB . If the ambiguity involves the... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Chancery, Charles Beavan - 1852 - 718 頁
...Morice (a) \ Moore.s PCC p. 293. 1851. M»riec v. The Bishop of Durkam (a); and if the property iright, consistently with the will, be applied to other than strictly charitable purposes, the trust i;< too indefinite for the Court to execute ; James v. Allen (A). The cases of gifts to a country,... | |
 | New Jersey. Court of Chancery - 1870 - 628 頁
...benevolence is also an object of his charity." The ground of the decision was, that as the bequest could, consistently with the will, be applied to other than strictly charitable purposes, the court could not execute the trust. In Williams v. Kerskaw, 5 Clark $ Fin. Ill, note, the devise was... | |
 | 1916 - 1326 頁
..." ; and another observation of the same learned Judge in James v. Atten(5) : " If it [the property] might consistently with the " will be applied to other...trust is too indefinite for the Court to execute." I have referred to EUis v. Selby(2) because it seems to me to answer the suggestion that upon the principle... | |
 | Frederick Pollock, Robert Campbell, Oliver Augustus Saunders, Arthur Beresford Cane, Edward Potton, Joseph Gerald Pease, William Bowstead - 1894 - 736 頁
...however so benevolent, unless they also come within the technical denomination of charitable purposes ? If it might, consistently with the will, be applied...I should not entertain any doubt on the question. FKEEMAN v. FAIKLIE. isu. (3 Merivale, 24—45.) NaV - 15 ' It is the beunden duty of an executor to... | |
 | 1896 - 830 頁
...however benevolent, unless they aloo come within the technical denominations of charitable purposes. If it might, consistently with the will, be applied...trust is too indefinite for the court to execute." It was held that the gift was invalid. In Kendall v. Granger the bequest was to be applied for amongst... | |
| |
