There is no need of any particular per sons or objects being specified ; the general ity and indefiniteness of the object con stituting the charitable character of the nation; Boyle, Char. 23. A charitable use, when neither law nor public policy forbids, may be applied to almost anything that tends to promote the well-doing and well-be ing 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 Phil adelphia, 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. McKean, 1 Sumn. 276, Fed. Cas. No. 229; Chapin v. School District No. 2, 35 N. H. 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. Griffith, 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 N. J. Eq. 487; City of Cincinnati v. McMicken, 6 Ohio C. C. 188; 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. Palm er, 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 be quest for the same purpose void; Tincher v. Arnold, 147 Fed. 665, 77 C. C. A. 649, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471, 8 Ann. .Cas. 917); to all institutions for the advancement of the Christian religion ; Alexander v. Slovens, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 351; Gibson v. Armstrong, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 481; White v. Attorney General, 39 N. C. 19, 44 Am. Dec. 92; Ap peal of Domestic & Foreign Missionary So ciety, 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 Ia. 180; Conklin v. Davis, 63 Conn. 377, 28 Ali. 537; foreign missions ; Kinney v. Kinney's Ex'r, 86 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 Ves. Jr. 243; the bene fit of ministers of the gospel; Trustees of Cory Universalist Society at Sparta v. Beat ty, 28 N. J. Eq. 570; for distributing Bibles and religious tracts; Winslow v. Cummings, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 358; Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Pa. 23 ; chapels, hospitals and orphan asylums; Soohan v. City of Philadelphia, 33 Pa. 9; Fink v. Fink's Ex'r, 12 La. Ann. 301; Attorney General v. Society, 8 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 190; Second Religious Society of Box ford v. Harriman, 125 Mass. 321; even when discrimination is made in favor of members of one religious denomination ; Burd Orphan Asylum v. School' District, 90 Pa. 21; Trus tees v. Gutherie, 86 Va. 125, 10 S. E. 318, 6 L. R. A. 321; dispensaries; Beekman v. Peo ple, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 260; public libraries; Crerar v. Williams, 145 Ill. 625, 34 N. E.
467, 21 L. R. A. 454; Minns v. Billings, 183 Mass. 126, 66 N. E. 593, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.)
686, 97 Am. St. Rep. 420; and the like; Shot well v. Mott, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 46; Jack son v. Phillips, 14 Allen (Mass.) 539 ; 2 Sim. & S. 594; 7 H. L. Cas. 124; friendly societies ; 32 Ch. D. 158; the Salvation Army; 34 Ch. D. 528; educational trusts; [1895] 1 Ch. 367 ; a volunteer corps; [1894] 3 Ch. 265; for the furtherance of the principles of food reform as advocated by certain named vegetarian societies; [1898] 1 Ir. R. 431; 21 T. L. R. 295; any 'religious society; [1893] 2 Ch. 41 (but not a Dominican convent, for the pro motion of private prayer by its own mem bers ; id. 51); a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals; Minns v. Billings, 183 Mass, 126, 66 N. E. 593, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 686, 97 Am. St. Rep. 420 (but not for the maintenance of animals ; so also 35 C. C. R. 545); 41 Ch. D. 552; [1895] 2 Ch. 501; a drinking fountain for horses; In re Mate of Graves, 242 Ill. 23, 89 N. E. 672, 24 L. R. A. (N, S.) 283, 134 Am. St. Rep. 302, 17 Ann. Cas. 137; to repair a sea dyke; 38 Ch. D. 507; to provide a scholarship; [1895] 1 Ch. 480; to repair a churchyard ; 33 Ch. D. 187; to form a fund for pensioning old and worn out clerks of a certain firm ; 48 W. R. 300; to recompense such persons as shall an nually ring a peal of bells in a designated parish to commemorate the restoration of the monarchy to England; [1906] 2 Ch. 184; to establish a cemetery; Hunt v. Tolles, 75 Vt. 48, 52 Atl. 1042; or maintain one; Rol lins v. Merrill, 70 N. H. 436, 48 Atl. 1088 (contra, In re Cork, 61 N. J. Eq. 409, 48 Atl. 1027) ; (but not to repair a tomb ; L. R. 4 Eq. 521; Kelly v. Nichols, 18 R. I. 62, 25 Atl. 840, 19 L. R. A. 413; nor to erect a monument to a parent ; 35 C. C. R. 505; nor to keep a testator's clock in repair; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 306, 21 Atl. 906; nor for the purpose of cleaning a painting every four years; 70 L. J. Ch. 42; nor to en courage sport; [1895] 2 Ch. 649; nor a be quest to general public purposes ; Cresson's Appeal, 30 Pa. 437; as supplying water or light to towns, building roads and bridges, keeping them in repair, etc.; Town of Ham den v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350 ;) and to the ad vancement of religion and other charitable purposes general in their character; Derby v. Derby, 4 R. I. 414 ; Fink v. Fink's Ex'r, 12 La. Ann. 301; Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Ohio St. 237; Brendle v. German Reformed Con gregation, 33 Pa. 415; Bethlehem Borough v. Fire Co., 81 Pa. 445; Lewis' Estate, 152 Pa. 477, 25 Atl. 878; Sweeney v. Sampson, 5 Ind. 465; L. R. 10 Eq. 246 ;.L. R. 1 Eq. 585; L. R. 4 Ch. Appt 309; L. R. 20 Eq. 483 ; Holmes v. Coates, 159 Mass. 226, 34 N. E. 190; Hadden v. Dandy, 51 N. J. Eq. 154, 26 Atl. 464, 32 L. R. A. 625; [1893] 2 Ch. 41; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Artist, 60 Fed. 365, 9 C. C. A. 14, 23 L. R. A. 581; Tudor, Char. Tr.; or a devise may be made to a municipal corporation for charitable uses; Vidal v. Gir ard, 2 How. (U. S.) 128, 11 L. Ed. 205; Bark ley v. Donnelly, 112 Mo. 561, 19 S. W. 305; Skinner v. Harrison Tp., 116 Ind. 139, 18 N. E. 529, 2 L. R. A. 137 ; and a city may re fuse to accept such a bequest ; Dailey v. City of New Haven, 60 Conn. 314, 22 Atl. 945, 14 L. R. A. 69.