In determining whether or not a gift is charitable, courts will consider the nature of the gift, rather than the motives of the do nor ; In re Smith's Estate, 181 Pa. 109, 37 Atl. 114.
When a testator creates a trust which, is invalid because it is one which the law will not permit to be carried out, the trust fails; Fairchild v. Edson, 154 N. Y. 199, 48 N. E. 541, 61 Am. St. Rep. 609 ; Jackson v. Phil lips, 14 Allen (Mass.) 539; Campbell's Heirs v. McArthur, 4 N. C. 557 ; State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392; Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Pa. 465, 3 Am. Rep.. 558; De Camp v. Dobbins, 31 N. J. Eq. 671.
A bequest for a religious purpose is prima facie, a bequest for a charitable purpose; [1893] 2 Ch. 41. In England bequests for masses for the repose of the testator's soul are void as being for superstitious uses ; 2 Drew. 417 ; 2 Myl. & K. 684. In the United States they have been held good charitable trusts ; Petitioh of Schouler, 134 Mass. 426; Appeal of Seibert, 18 W. N. C. (Pa.) 276 ; Hoeffer v. 'Clogall, 171 Ill. 462, 49 N. E. 527, 46L. R. A. 730, 63 Am. St. Rep. 241. In New York, though they were held charitable, they were held void for want of a specific legatee; Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y. 312, 16 N. E. 305, 2 Am. St. Rep. 420; Gilman v. McArdle, 99 N. Y. 451, 2 N. E. 464. In Alabama the gift was held not charitable ; Festorazzi v. Church, 104 Ala. 327, 18 South. 394, 25 L. R. A. 360, 53 Am. St. Rep. 48; so in California ; In Lennon's Estate, 152 Cal. 327, 92 Pac. 870, 125 Am. St. Rep. 58, 14 Ann. Cas. 1024. Such a bequest was upheld, not as a charity, but as an expenditure directed by the tes tator for services rendered to him ; Moran v. Moran, 104 Ia. 216, 73 N. W. 617, 39 L. R. A. 204, 65 Am. St. Rep. 443. It is upheld, not as a charitable, but as a religious use; Ap peal of Rhymer's, 93 Pa. 142, 39 Am. Rep. 736. Money given by his followers to the founder of a church constitutes a trust fund ; Holmes v. Dowie, 148 Fed. 634. If given "for souls," it is a public charity, not being restricted to designated persons ; Ackerman v. Fichte? "(Ind.) 101 N. E. 493.
In Ireland gifts for masses are generally held good charitable bequests; Ir. R. 2 Eq. 321. They were held not to be bequests for any purpose merely charitable, • within the exception of a statute imposing a legacy duty; 11 R. 10 C. L. 104; 21 L. R. Ir.
480. Sirch a bequest was held not to be an attempt to create a perpetuity ; 21 L. R. Ir. 138; but that it is such was held in 25 L. R. Ir. 388; [1896] 1 Ir. 418; and that the gift was void for the want of a definite cestui que trust was held in Ir. R. 11 Eq. 433.
A charitable devise may become void for uncertainty as to the beneficiary; Society of the Most Precious Blood v. Moll, 51 Minn. 277, 53 N. W. 648 ; Brennan v. Winkler, 37 S. C. 457, 16 S. E. 190; Yingling v. Miller, 77 Md. 104, 26 Atl. 491; Johnson v. Johnson, 92 Tenn. 559, 23 8. W. 114, 22 L. R. A. 179, 36 Am. St. Rep. 104 ; Simmons v. Burrell, 8 Misc. 388, 28 N. Y. Supp. 625. The decision that the appropriation for the World's Co lumbian Exposition was a charitable use ; U. S. v. Exposition, 56 Fed. 630; was reversed by the circuit court of appeals, which held that, being made for the benefit of a local corporation, it did not constitute a charitable trust, although aiding a great public enter prise ; World's Columbian Exposition v. U. S., 56 Fed. 654, 6 C. C. A. 58.
When the purposes of a charity may be best sustained by alienating the specific prop erty bequeathed and investing the proceeds in a different manner, a court of equity has jurisdiction to direct such sale and invest ment, taking care that no deviation of gift be permitted ; City of Newark v. Stock ton, 44 N. J. Eq. 179, 14 Atl. 630 ; Peter v. Carter, 70 Md. 139, 16 Atl. 450.
Charities in England were formerly in terpreted, sustained,, controlled, and applied by the court of chancery, in virtue of its general jurisdiction in equity, aided by the stat. 43 Eliz. c. 4 and the prerogative of the crown ; the latter by the lord chancellor, as the delegate of the sovereign acting as parens patrice; Spence, Eq. Jur. 439, 441; Bartlet v. King, 12 Mass. 537, 7 Am. Dec. 99. The subject has since been regulated by various statutes ; the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, amended by various subsequent acts down to 1894 ; Tad. Char. Tr. part ill.; 3d ed. By the Toleration Act, 1 Wm. & M. c. 18, chari table trusts for promoting opin ions of Protestant Dissenters have been held valid ; 2 Ves. Sen. 273. Roman Catholics share in their benefits ; 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 115 ; and Jews, by 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59, § 2.