A devise for the benefit of an unincorporat ed association of individuals unnamed, which may increase and add to its number, or lose by death or withdrawal, and the membership of which is not known, and is indeterminate, is held void for uncertainty ; Miller v.. Ahrens, 150 Fed. 644. In jurisdictions in which the statute of Elizabeth is not a part of the existing laws, only incorporated bodies can take charitable bequests ; Mount v. Tut tle, 183 N. Y. 358, 76 N. E. 873, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 428; Kain v. Gibboney, 101 U. S. 362, 25 L. Ed. 813 (where the opinion was also by Strong, J., then a member of that court) ; Fifield v. Van Wyck, 94 Va. 557, 27 S. E. 446, 64 Am. St. Rep. 745; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141, 71 N. W. 1031, 38 L. R. A. 669, 65 Am. St. Rep. 559 ; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 88 Tenn. 637, 13 S. W. 590.
Where the association is not charitable,, the gift is void within the doctrine of Mor ice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. 399: "There can be no trust over the exercise of which this court will not assume a control; for an uncontrollable power of disposition would be ownership, not trust. If there be a clear trust, but for uncertain objects, the property that is the subject of the trust is undisposed of; and the benefit of such trust must result to those to whom the law gives the owner ship in default of disposition by the owner. But this doctrine does not hold good with re gard to trusts for charity. Every other trust must have a definite object. There must be somebody in whose favor the court can de cree a performance." This doctrine was applied" where the gift was for the use and benefit of a convent, not charitable but reli gious ; 11 L. R. Ir. 236 ; to an individual with the condition that he spend his time in retirement and constant devotion; L. R. 12. Eq. 574.
Where a statute declares void a gift by will to a charity if made within less than 30• days of the death, a gift to a trust company to take effect if a legacy to charities should be void under the act, was held void because it was clearly made to carry out the bequest to the charities designated in the will ; In. re
Stirk's Estate, 232 Pa. 98, 81 Atl. 187.
See, generally, 3 Washburn, Real Prop.. 687, 690; Boyle, Char.; Duke, Char. Uses 2 Kent 361; 4 id. 616 ; 2 Ves. Ch. 52, 272 ; 6 id. 404; 7 id. 86; Ambl. 715; 2 Atk. 88;.
Barr v. Weld, 24 Pa. 84 ; Mayor, etc., of Philadelphia v. Elliott, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 170 ; Witman v. Lex, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 88, 17 Am. Dec. 644 ; Gass & Bonta v. Wilhite, 2 Dana (Ky.) 170, 26 Am. Dec. 446 ; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc., 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 437, 18 Am. Dec. 516; Kniskern v. Lutheran Churches, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 439 ; Yates v. Yates, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 324; Voorhees v. Church, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 104 ; Brett, Lead. Cas. Mod. Eq. ; Trustees of McIntire Poor School v. Canal & Mfg. Co., 9 Ohio 203, 34 Am. Dec. 436 ; Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Ohio St. 237 ; Town of Hamden v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 435, 8 L. Ed. 452 ; Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cra. (U. S.) 331, 3 L. Ed. 735 ; Dwight's argument, Rose will case ; Dwight's Charity Cases ; a full article on Jurisdiction of the Court of Chan cery to Enforce Charitable Uses, 1 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 129, 321, 385 ; Dashiell v. At torney-General, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 392, 9 Am. Dec. 577. See 31 Am. L. Reg. 123, and 5 Harv. L. Rev. 389, for discussion of the Tilden will case, cited supra; 15 id. 509; and also Potter will case, Houston v. Town- I send, 1 Del. Ch. 421, 12 Am. Dec. 109, in which the arguments are very fully reported and the authorities collected on both sides of the questions involved in this title.
Usually a charitable corporation is not liable in damages for personal injuries re sulting from the torts of its officers and agents ; Abston v. Academy, 118 Tenn-24-; 102 S. W. 351, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1179 ; Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. 624, 15 Atl. 553, 1 L. R. A. 417, 6 Am. St. Rep. 745 ; Gable v. Sisters of St. Francis, 227 Pa. 254, 75 Atl. 1087, 136 Am. St. Rep. 879; Farrigan v. Pe year, 193 Mass. 147, 78 N. E. 855, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481, 118 Am. St. Rep. 484, 8 Ann. Cas. 1109 ; Powers v. Hospital, 109 Fed. 294,