Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-29

In point of fact the charity was SO
decreed in that very case, in the 18th
year of Elizabeth. But what is still
more important is the declaration OF
Lord Redesda!e, a great judge in
lequity, in the Attorney-General VS..
The Mayor of Dublin. l Bligh New
; r. 312, 347, C827,) where he says:
we are referred to the statute OF
| Elizabeth with respect to charitable
uses. as creating a new law upon the
subject of charitable uses. That sat
ute only created a new jurisdictions;
it created no new law, it Great
ed a new and ancilliary juris-
diction, a jurisdiction created by
commission, etc; but the proceed
ings of that commission were made
subject to appeal to the lord chancel-
lor. and he might reverse or affirm
what they had done, or make suc'
order as he might think fit for re-
serving the controlling jurisdiction OF
the court of chancery as it existed be.
fore the passing of that statute; and
! there can be no doubt that by lntor-
nation by the encouragement the
same thing might be done He then
adds. the right which the attorney
general has to file an information. is
la right of prerogative. The king. as
parens p~atriae, has a right, by his
proper officer, to call upon the sew
eral courts of justice, according to
the nature OF theieSeveral jurisdlc-
lions, to see that rigN is done to his
subjects who are incompetent to act
for themselves. as in the case OF char
tiles and other cases. So that Lord
Redesdale maintains the jurisdiction
in the broadcast terms, as founded IN
the inherent jurisdiction of chancery
independently of the statute or as
Elizabeth. In addition to these dlcta
) and doctrines, there is the very re-
l cent case of the incorporated So
I cietv VS.. Richards, l Drudy and War
rem, 258, where Lord Chancellor Sug-
, den, in a very mastery judgment, up
! on a full survey of all the authorities,
and where the, point was directly be-
) fore him, held the same doctrine, as
= Lord Redesdale, and expressly decld-
ID de that there is an inherent JurlSd1c.
ton in equity in cases OF charity, ana
= that charity is one OF those objects
. for which a court OF equity has at all
{ times interfered to make good that,
Z which at law was an illegal OF mtor-
8 NAL gift; and that cases of charity IN
courts Of equity in England were val
III independently VI LIN
: the statute of Elizabeth.
5 Mr.. Justice Baldwin. in the case OF
E the will of Sarah Zane, which was cit
G ed at the bar and pronounced at April
q term of the circuit court. in 1888, (see
y Brightly's N. P. Repts. Magill 4
u Brown, $40, note,) after very extern
q sive and learned researches into the
e ancient English authorities and stat
utes, arrived at the same conclusion
y in which the district judge, the late
c lamented Judge Hopkinson, concur
II red: and that opinion has a more
pointed bearing upon the present case,
O since it included a full review OF the
s. PENNSYLVANIA laws and doctrines on
a the subject of charities.
e But very strong additional light
has been thrown upon this subject by
S the recent publications of the COM
.nissioners on the public records in
n England, which contain a very cur
;ous and interesting collection OF the
e chancery records in the reign OF
e Queen Elizabeth, and in the earlier
i reigns. Among these are found many
H. cases in which the court of chancery
e entertained jurisdiction over charities
long before the statute Of 40 Eliza
beth; and some fifty of these cases
extracted from the printed calendars
u have been laid before us. They es.
y tablish in the most satisfactory and
conclusive amer that cases of char
T! tiles where there were trustees ap-
u pointed for general and indefinite
% charities. as we'll as for specific char
le tiles, were Familiarity known to, and
q acted upon, and enforced in the
"a court of chancery. In some of these
81 Al,1 ~1oo, ,-oro mot o11- n
S. an uncertain and indefinite nature,
1t but, as far as we can gather from the
N imperfect statement in the printed
d there were either no trustees ap-
II pointed, or the trustees were no,
competent to take. These records
N therefore, do in a remarkable man
L, ner, confirm the opinions OF Sir Jos.
" eph Jekyll, Lord Northington, Lord
lie Chief Justice Wilmot. Lord Rcdes.
TT dale. and Lord Chancellor Sugden
a Whatever doubts, therefore. might
L properly be entertained upon the sub
lie ject when the case of the Trustees Of
the Philadelphia Baptist Association
VS.. Harris Executors, a Wheat. l
was before the court, QSl9,) those
doubts are entirely removed by the
4 late and more satisfactory sources o.
p information to which we have allud.
ed"
IN From the quotation it will be seer
t, that the case of Baptist Assn VS.
81 Hart is completely over thrown. ant
IN the rule that a gift to an unincorpor'
ated religious society of property tc
e. be dedicated to pious uses was hello
N to be good at common law. We know
OF no decision wherein the opinion III
Ey Vidal VS.. Girard has been criticized
d In Ould VS.. Washington hospital. g;
S. U. S. a Otto). on p. 313. it is said:
r.. AT common law, lands may be
of granted to pious uses before there
is a grantee competent to take. ln
the meantime, the fee>will lie in
g " .-11 .1o, +Ic