Bequest, in trust for such objects of benevolence and liberality as the trustee in his own discretion shall most approve, cannot be supported as a charitable Legacy ; and is therefore a Trust for the next of kin.
Ann Cracherade by her Will, dated the 16th of April 1801, and duly executed to pass real estate, after giving several legacies to her next of kin and others, some of which she directed to be paid out of the produce of her real estate, directed to be sold, bequeathed all her personal estate to the Bishop of Durham, his executors, andc., upon trust to pay her debts and legacies, andc.; and to dispose of the u1timate residue to such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve of ; and she appointed the Bishop her sole executor.
The bill was filed by the next of kin, to have the Will established, except as to the residuary bequest; and that such bequest may be declared void. The Attorney General was made a Defendant . The Bishop by his answer expressly disclaimed any beneficial interest in himself personally.
Held: The objects of benevolence and liberality were not so limited, and that the gift therefore failed. Sir William Grant MR described the effect of the 1601 Act and the use of the word ‘charity’: ‘Here its signification is derived chiefly from the Statute of Elizabeth. Those purposes are considered charitable, which that Statute enumerates, or which by analogies are deemed within its spirit and intendment.’ He continued: ‘But it is settled, upon authority, which it is too late to controvert, that where a charitable purpose is expressed, however general, the bequest shall not fail on account of uncertainty of the object: but the particular mode of application will be directed by the King in some cases, in others by this Court.’
Judges:
Sir William Grant MR
Citations:
[1804] EngR 179, (1804) 9 Ves Jun 399, (1804) 32 ER 656
Links:
Statutes:
Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Morice v The Bishop of Durham 1789
. .
See Also – Morice v The Bishop of Durham 1789
. .
See Also – Morice v The Bishop of Durham 1789
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Morice v Bishop of Durham HL 1805
The court was asked whether a gift of residue to be applied ‘to such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve of’ was valid as being confined to purposes that were charitable.
Held: . .
See Also – Morice v The Bishop of Durham 20-Mar-1805
. .
See Also – Morice v The Bishop of Durham 21-Jun-1805
. .
Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Cited – Scottish Burial Reform and Cremation Society v Glasgow Corporation HL 26-Jul-1967
The appellants sought partial exemption from rates on its premises. The Corporation challenged their charitable status. The society’s object was to encourage and provide facilities for cremation.
Held: The object was charitable.
Lord Reid . .
Cited – Incorporated Council of Law Reporting For England And Wales v Attorney-General And Others CA 14-Oct-1971
The Council sought charitable status for its activities of reporting the law. The Revenue appealed against the decision by Foster J that the Council ought to be registered as a charity.
Held: The appeal failed. The company should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Charity, Trusts
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.343647
