The weight of judicial authority in Eng land was in favor of the doctrine which, as will be seen, prevails in this country, that equity exercised an inherent jurisdiction over charitable uses independently of the statute of Elizabeth ; that the statute did not create, but was in aid of, the jurisdiction. In sup port of this conclusion are found such judges as Ld. Ch. Northington, in .1 Eden 10; Amb. 351; Sir Jos. Jekyll, in 2 P. Wms. 119; IA. Ch. Redesdale, In 1 Bligh 347 ; Ld. Ch. Hard wicke, in 2 Ves. Sr. 327; Ld. Keeper Finch, in 2 Lev. 167; Ld. Ch. Sugden, in .1 Dr. & W. 258 ; Ld. Ch. Somers, in 2 Vern. 342; Ld, Ch. Eldon, in 1 Bligh 358, and 7 Ves. 36; Wilmot, C. J., in Wilmot's Notes 24; Ld. Ch. Lyndhurst, in Bligh 335; and Sir John Leach, in 1 Myl. & K. 376.
The stat. 43 Eliz. c. 4 has not been re enacted or strictly followed in the United States. In some states it has been adopted by usage ; but, with several striking excep tions, the decisions of the English Chancery upon trusts for charity have furnished the rule of adjudication in our courts, without particular reference to the fact that the most remarkable of them were only sustainable under the peculiar construction given to cer tain phrases in the statute; Boyle, Char. 18. The opinion prevailed extensively in this country that the validity of charitable en dowments and the jurisdiction of courts of equity in such cases depended upon that statute. In the case of the Baptist Associa tion v. Hart, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 4 L. Ed. 499, the court adopted that view and accept ed the conclusion that there was at common law no jurisdiction of charitable uses exer cised in chancery, although in afterwards re viewing that decision an effort was made to distinguish the case by the two features that such cases are not recognized by the law of Virginia, where it arose, and that it was a donation to trustees incapable of taking, with beneficiaries uncertain and indefinite ; Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. (U. S.) 128, 11 L. Ed. 205. These views were assailed in 1833 by Bald win, J. (Magill v. Brown, Bright. 346, Fed., Cas. No. 8,952), in 1835 in Burr's Ex'rs v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241, 29 Am. Dec. 154, and in 1844 by Mr. Binney in the Girard will case in Vidal v. Girard, 2i How. (U. S.) 128, 11 L. Ed. 205. In that case there was furnished a memorandum of fifty cases extracted from the then recently published chancery calen dars, in which the jurisdiction had been ex ercised prior to the stet. of 43 Eliz. (2 How. [U. S.] 155, note) ; and although the accu racy of this list was challenged by Mr. Webster in argument ; (id. 179 note), the court, per Story, J., accepted it to "establish, in the most satisfactory and conclusive man ner," the conclusion stated. Baldwin, J., also enumerated forty-six cases of the en forcement of such trusts independently of the statute; Magill v. Brown, Bright. 346,
Fed. Cas. No. 8,952. The doctrine was fully adopted by the United States supreme court in the Girard will case, and has been since adhered to ; Ould v. Hospital, 95 U. S. 304, 24 L. Ed. 450. It is now conceded as settled that courts of equity have an inherent and original jurisdiction over charities, independ ent of the statute ; Perry, Trusts § 694 ; Tappan v. Deblois, 45 Me. 122; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; Paschal v. Acklin, 27 Tex. 173; State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392; Griffith v. State, id. 421, 463; Kronshage v. Varrell, 120. Wis. 161, 97 N. W. 928.
In Virginia and New York, that statute, with all its consequences, seems to have been repudiated; Gallego's Ex'rs v. Attorney General, 3 Leigh (Va.) 450, 24 Am. Dec. 650; Cottman v. Grace, 112 N. Y. 299, 19 N. E. 839, 3 L. R. A. 145. So in North Carolina, Connecticut, Maryland, and the District of Columbia ; McAuley v. Wilson, 18 N. C. 276, 18 Am. Dec. 587; Griffin v. Graham, 8 N. C. 96, 9 Am. Dec. 619; Bridges v. Pleasants, 39 N. C. 26, 44 Am. Dec. 94; Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 293, 16 Am. Dec. 58; White v. Fisk, 22 Conn. 31 ; Dashiell v. Attorney General, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 392, 9 Am. Dec. 572; id., 6 Harr. & J. (Md.) 1; Wilderman v. Balti more, 8 Md. 551; Halsey v. Church, 75 Md. 275, 23 Atl. 781; Ould v. Hospital, 95 U. S. 304, 24 L. Ed. 450. In Georgia, Illinois, Indi ana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and perhaps some other states, the English rule is acted on; McCord v. Ochiltree, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 15; Baptist Church v. Church, 18 B. Monr. (Ky.) 635; Beall v. Fox, 4 Ga. 404; 'Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 107, 26 Am. Dec. 645; Derby v. Derby, 4 R. I. 414; Fink v. Fink's Ex'r, 12 La. Ann. 301; Burr's Ex'rs v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241, 29 Am. Dec. 154 ; Trustees of Phila delphia Baptist Ass'n v, Hart's Ex'rs, Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 4 L. Ed. 499; Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. (U. S.) 127, 11 L. Ed. 205; Perin v. Carey, 24 How. (U. S.) 465, 16 L. Ed. 701; Crerar v. Williams, 145 Ill. 625, 34 N. E. 467, 21 L. R. A. 454. See Gil man v. Hamilton, 16 Ill. Dickson v. Montgomery, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 348. While not in force as a statute in Pennsylvania, it is embodied as to its principles in the com mon law of that state ; Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. 624, 15 Atl. 553, 1 L. R. A. 417, 6 Am. St. Rep. 745 ; Dulles's Estate, 218 Pa. 162, 67 AU. 49, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1177. Connecticut has a substitute statute for that of 43 Eliz., passed in 1684, which is more strict than the English law in that it re quires certainty in the person to be benefited or at least a certain and definite class of persons, with an ascertained mode of select ing them ; Adge v. Smith, 44 Conn. 60, 26 Am. Rep. 424.