A legacy to a corporation for general cor porate purposes is in some cases held to create a trust ; De Camp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. Eq. 36 ; 1 Dr. & War. 258 ; President, etc., of Harvard College v. Society, 3 Gray (Mass.) 280; in others not a trust but a gift with conditions annexed as to its ex penditure; Woman's Foreign Missionary So ciety of Methodist Episcopal Church v. Mitch ell, 93 Md. 199, 48 AU. 737, 53 L. R. A. 711; In re Griffin's Will, 167 N. Y. 71, 60 N. E. 284; Bird v. Merklee, 144 N. Y. 544, 39 N. E. 645, 27 L. R. A. 423.
A gift to a perpetual institution not char itable is not necessarily bad. The gift is good if it is not subject to any trust that will prevent the existing members of the association from dealing with it as they please, or if it can be construed as a gift to or for the benefit of the individual members of the association. If the gift is one which by the terms of it, or which by reason of the constitution of the association in whose favor it is made, tends to a perpetuity, the gift is bad ; 70 L. J. Ch. 631; [1901] 2 Ch. 110.
A gift to a society the object of which was the employment of its funds for mutual be nevolences among its members and their fami lies was held not a charitable use under the common law of Pennsylvania or the statute of Elizabeth; Babb v. Reed, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 151, 28 Am. Dec. 650; Swift's Ex'rs v. Socie ty, 73 Pa. 362.
In England a devise or bequest for be nevolent purposes is held to be too indefinite and therefore void; 3 Mer. 17 ; 9 Yes. 399 ; but though wider than charity in legal signif ication ; Norris v. Thomson's Ex'rs, 19 N. J. Eq. 307; its meaning may be narrowed by the context; De Camp v. Dobbins, 31 N. J. Eq. 695. Any act of kindneSs, forethought, good will, or friendship may properly be de scribed as benevolent; Suter v. Hilliard, 132 Mass. 413, 42 Am. Rep. 444 ; and it has been held that whatever may be the meaning of the word when used alone in a bequest in connection with charity, it is synonymous with it; Saltonstall v. Sanders, 11 Allen (Mass.) 446. A fund for providing oysters for benchers at one of the Inns of Court, however benevolent, would hardly be called charitable; [1891] A. C. 580. A gift to an archbishop of property to be used as he "may judge most conducive to the good of religion in this diocese," is not a gift for "religious purposes" an is invalid; 106 L.
T. 394 (P. C.). A bequest to executors to distribute the property among benevolent ob jects is not too indefinite to be permitted to stand; Dulles's Estate, 218 Pa. 162, 67 Atl. 49, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1177.
Legacies to pious or charitable uses are not, by the law of Euglaml, entitled to a preference in distribution; although such was the doctrine of the civil law. Nor are they in the United States, except by special statutes.
In jurisdictions which have adopted the statute of uses, or which accept the doctrine of original jurisdiction in equity, trusts oth erwise valid, especially when in aid of reli gious, educational, or charitable objects, are not void because of lack of corporate capaci ty in the beneficiary ; Appeal of Evangelical Ass'n, 35 Pa. 316 ; Conklin v. Davis, 63 Conn. 377, 28 Ad. 537 ; Tappan v. Deblois, 45 Me. 122; Lewis v. Curnutt, 130 Ia. 423, 106 N. W. 914; Burbank v. Whitney, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 146, 35 Am. Dec. 312; Parker v. Cowell, 16 N. H. 149; Mason's Ex'rs v. M. E. Church, 27 N. J. Eq. 47.
In Evangelical Ass'n's Appeal, supra, it was held that a bequest to an unincorporated religious society, not upon any defined chari ty, or for any specified charitable use, was valid; in such case it is necessary only to name the legatee ; such a society can take without any direction that the legacy (or gift) should be expended for charity purpos es; its own character determines the char acter of the gift. Strong, J. (a great au thority on this law), in delivering the opinion of the court, cited 3 Russ. 142, where it was held that in a bequest to a purely charitable corporation the court will decree payment without requiring that a scheme be settled for its distribution; also, 1 Sim. & Stu. 43, where a legacy to an unincorporated chari table institution, to become part of its gen eral funds, was upheld. See also Burr's Ex'rs v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241, 29 Am. Dec. 154. He also cited with disapproval the statement to the contrary in 1 Jarm. Wills 193. The case also held that it makes no difference that the members of such society are largely non-residents.