It is said that charitable uses are favorites with ,courts of equity; the construction of all instruments, when they are concerned, is liberal in their behalf ; Ould v. Hospital, 95 U. S. 313, 24 L. Ed. 450 ; and even the rule against perpetuities is relaxed for their bene fit; id.; [1891] 3 Ch. 252; Woodruff v. Marsh, 63 Conn. 125, 26 Atl. 846, 38 Am. St Rep. 346; Bisph. Eq. § 133 ; Perin v. Carey, 24 How. (U. S.) 495, 16 L. Ed. 701; Brown v. Baptist Society, 9 R. I. 177 ; contra, Bas com v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 584. See also Gray, Perp. § 589. But if a gift to charity is made to depend on a condition precedent, the event must occur within the rule against perpetuities ; [1894] 3 Ch. 265; except where the event is the divesting of another charity; [1891] 3 Ch. 252.
An immediate gift to charity is valid, al though the particular application of the fund directed by the will may not'of necessity take effect within any assignable limit of time, or may never take effect at all, except on the occurrence of events in their essence con tingent and uncertain; while on the other hand, a gift in trust for charity which is conditional upon a future and uncertain event is subject to the same rules as any other estate depending on its coming into existence upon a condition precedent ; 74 L. J. Ch. 354; [1905] 1 Ch. 669, 92 L. T. 715.
A gift may be made to a charity not in esse at the time ; id.; Perry, Trusts § 736 ; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70, 1 N. W. 92, 50 N. W. 1103. See Booth v. Baptist Church, 126 N. Y. 215, 28 N. E. 238 ; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557, 13 Sup. Ct. 503, 37 L. Ed. 279.. And a gift for specific charitable purposes will not fail for want a trustees ; Sears v. Chapman, 158 Mass. 400, 33 N. E. 604, 35 Am. St. Rep. 502 ; Municipality of Ponce v. Roman Cath olic Apostolic Church, 210 U. S. 296, 28 Sup. Ct. 737, 52 L. Ed. 1068. See Dammert v. Osborn, 140 N. Y. 30, 35 N. E. 407.
Generally, the rules against accumulations do not apply ; Perry, Trusts § 738; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1 ; City of Philadel phia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. 9, 84 Am. Dec. 470; as accumulations for charity, for a longer period than is allowed by the rule against perpetuities will be upheld; Brig ham v. Hospital, 126 Fed. 796 ; St. Paul's Church v. Attorney. General, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N. E. 231. A bequest of money to be accumulated until the fund, with any addi tions from other sources, should suffice to pay the state debt, was held void as exceed ing the limitation of the rule against remote ness and accumulations ; Russell v. Trust Co., 171 Fed. 161.
Where there is no trustee appointed or none capable of acting, the trust will be sus tained, and a trustee appointed ; 3 Hare 191; Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 7 L. Ed. 617. In New York a certain designated beneficiary was essential to the creation of a valid trust and the ay pres doc trine formerly was not accepted ; see Power v. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602, 35 Am. Rep. 550,
said to reach the limit of uncertainty in that state, and In re O'Hara's Will, 95 N. Y. 418, 47 Am. Rep. 53, and Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y. 312; 16 N. E. 305, 2 Am. St. Rep. 420, commenting on that case and reasserting the general rule in New York as stated; Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 29, 28 N. E. 880, 14 L. R. A. 33, 27 Am. St. Rep. 487; a bequest in which the beneficiary is not designated and the selection thereof is delegated to trustees with complete discretionary power was held invalid, and the uncertainty as to beneficia ries could not be cured by anything done by the trustees to execute it ; id: But by New York Laws of 1893, c. 701, it is provided that if in an instrument creatipg a gift, grant, devise, or bequest there is a trustee named•toexecute the same, the legal title to the property shall vest in such trus tee, and if no trustee be named, the title shall vest in the supreme court; Bowman v.
Domestic & Foreign Missionary Society, 182 N. Y. 498, 75 N. E. 535 ; Allen v. Stevens, 161 N. Y. 122, 55 N. E. 568. The effect of this act is to restore the ancient doctrine of char itable uses and trusts as a part of the laws of New York ; id.; to confer all power over charitable trusts and trustees on the supreme court and to require the attorney general to represent the beneficiaries in cases within the statute as was the practice in England; Rothschild v. Goldenberg; 58 App. Div. 499, 69 N. Y. Supp. 523.
A testamentary gift for a charity to an un incorporated association afterwards incor porated is sometimes sustained; as when the devise does not vest until after the incor poration ; Plymouth Soc. of Milford v. Hep burn, 57 Hun 161, 10 N. Y. Supp. 817; but otherwise the incapacity to take cannot be cured by subsequent incorporation or amend ment ; Lougheed v. Dykeman's Baptist Church and Soc., 129 N. Y. 211, 29 N. E. 249, 14 L. R. A. 410 and note. A devise to a charity, however, is held valid where future incorporation is provided for or contem plated ; id.; Field v. Theological Seminary, 41 Fed. 371; Trustees of Storrs Agricultural School v. Whitney, 54 Conn. 342, 8 Ali. 141; Miller T. Chittenden, 4 Ia. 252; Swasey v. Bible Soc., 57 Me. 523 ; Burrill v. Boardman, 43 N. Y. 254, 3 Am. Rep. 694; Kinnaird v. Miller's Ex'r, 25 Graft. (Va.) 107. Under the civil law, a similar rule seems to have prevailed, and gifts for pious uses might be made to a legal entity to be •established by the state after the testator's death ; Mack eldy, Civ. Law § 157 ; Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 100, 7 L. Ed. 617; Milne's Heirs v. Milne's Ex'rs, 17 La. 46; Howe, Studies in the Civil Law 68.