Omaha daily bee., 1908-07-21

1886. Tjosvold against England Appeal
from Boone. Reversed with directions.
/. The doctrine Of charitable uses as ad-
ministered by the courts OF chancery OF
I E9sISGa eToG Gf Ing i ststTte p 69% Ss5 E TIhIIs.
beth, and of the cypress power under the
kingly prerogatiye, has been trAnsplanted
to this state, but in It's enforcement the
courts can exercise iIdicie1 powers only.
81. James, Orphan Asylum against Shelby.
60 Neb., 797.
2. Courts will view with favor donations
by will for charitable purposes and will
e%lndeayor to carry them INTO effect where
t ubie rules aIe OF law a. uo 81 2Tames%' 33rpbssn
Asylum against Shelby, supra.
8. Where the object of a testamentary
trust Is clearly charitable and the prop
erty devised is certain and definite and
the trustee Is clearly described and com
petent to take the devise and administer
the trust, and the beneficiary is certain
and definite as to the class, the bequest
will not fail on account Of the indefiniteA
ness or uncertainty Of the individuals who
are the ultimate beneficiaries.
T. An element OF a charitable trust as
compared with a private one Is the in
definlteness and uncertainty OF the benefic-
iaries, II the class Of beneficiaries is de-
scribed In general terms, the trust may be
sustained and enforced although the IN
dividual beneficiary Is uncertain and his
left to the trustee.
native Of an island OF the Kingdom OF
Norway, TO a church congregation or par
ish OF the island, which body is by the
laws or that kingdom capable OF receiving
such requests and administering such char
liable trusts, OF a sum Of money TO be IN
vested and the income therefrom dis
trlbuted annually TO worthy and needy
servant girls and widows and orphans OF
deceased sailors and fishermen who are not
a public charge and appointing three Of
the parish officers, and their successors in
office, 10 carry out the provisions Of the
bequest. constitutes a charitable trust, and
Is sufficiently definite as to its objects, the
trustee and the benefieiaTies so that II
may be upheld.
G. Provisions OF the will set forth In the
opinion construed and held that Il was the
testator's intention that the income from
the trust be distributed to those persons
within the classes described who are in
hsbitants Of the respective parishes 70
which the several requests were made and
10 authorize the designated trustees 10 Sc
lect the individuals within the classes who
are the ult'mate bepeficiNrtcs 50.
1888. Mathews against Glockel. APP
zeal from otoe Reversed with directions
!. Where 2 wife owning as tenant IN
common with her brothers and sisters an
dover and homestead right Of their
mother. together with such brothers and
sisters and upon a sufficient considera-
mother not to partition Eaid 'ards dur
Ing the lifetime Of the mother, such agree
ment Is birding upon her husband when
claiming as tenant by the courtssy a-er
the death Of the wife ard during the life
time ~ he mother
have his Undivided share set apart 10 him
Ia IN effect an action n parT'fi0n md
may not be maintained unlets the tenant
in co-mo- is entitled 70 the present
possession ~ such share.
1880 State cS rel King against Solo
Eppsrscn, G. Division No. T.
- case 90 p tie vote ~ an e ectIun II
village truFtees the candidates cannot de-
termiue the result by lot there being no
statute authorizing a.
Use zee want ads 10 boost your business