- The cy pres doctrine. By what is known as the cy pres doctrine, which is adopted in quite a number of the states of this country, if the general nature of the charitable purpose is pointed out, and it is lawful and valid at the time of the testator's death, and no intention is expressed to limit it to a particular institution or mode of application, and the scheme of the

229, 56 Am. Rep. 589. For a criticism of this view, see article by Professor J. B. Ames in 5 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 389.

60. Adye v. Smith, 44 Conn. 60; Gerick's Ex'r v. Gerick, 158 Ky. 478, 165 S. W. 695 (statute); Schmucker v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; Johnson v. Johnson, 92 Tenn. 559, 22 L. R. A. 179, 36 Am. St. Rep. 104, 23 S. W. 114; Harrington v. Pier, 105 Wis. 485, 503, 50 L. R. A. 307, 76 Am. St. Rep. 924, 82 N. W. 345; Kronshase v. Varrell, 120 Wis. 161; 97 N. W. 928.

61-62. Woodruff v. Hundley, 147 Ala. 287, 39 So. 907; McDonald V;Shaw, 81 Ark. 235, 98 S. W. 952; fay v. Howe, 136 Cal. 599, 69 Pac. 423; Clayton v. Hallett, 30 Colo. 231, 59 L. R. A. 407; 97 Am. St. Rep. 117, 70 Pac. 429; Grant v.

Saunders, 121 Iowa 80, 100 Am. St. Rep. 310, 95 N. W. 411; Haines v. Allen, 78 Ind. 100, 41 Am. Rep. 555; Welch v. Caldwell, 226 111. 488, 80 N. E. 1014; Franklin v. Hastings, 253 111. 46, 97 N. E. 265; Klumpert v. Vrieland, 142 Iowa 434, 121 N. W. 34; Trustees of Washburn College v. O'Hara, 75 Kan. 700, 90 Pac. 234; Moore's Heir's v. Moore's Devisees. 4 Dana (Ky.) 354, 29 Am. Dec. 417; Howard v. American Peace Soc. 49 Me. 288; Minot v. Baker, 147 Mass. 348, 9 Am. St. Rep. 713, 17 N. E. 839; In re Nilson's Estate, 81 Neb. 809, 116 N. W. 971; Haynes v. Carr, 70 N. H. 463; Dunn v. Morse, 109 Me. 254, 83 Atl. 795; Allen v. Stevens, 161 N. Y 122, 55 N. E. 568;in re Murray's Will, 141 N. C. 588, 54 S. E. 435; In re John's Will, 30 Oreg.

494, 36 L. R. A. 242, 47 Pac. 341, 50 Pac. 226; Kimberley's Estate, 249 Pa. 469, 95 Atl. 82; Selleck v. Thompson, 28 R. I. 350; Staines v. Burton, 17 Utah, 331, 70 Am. St. Rep. 788, 53 Pac. 1015; Hays v. Harris, 73 W. Va. 17, 80 S. E. 827, 63. Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397; Tincher v. Arnold, 147 Fed. 665, 77 C. C. A. 649, 7 L. R. A. N. S. 471; Hinckley's Estate, 58 Cal. 457; Mason v. Bloomington Library Ass'n 237 111. 442, 86 N. E. 1044; Doyle v. Wha-len, 87 Me. 414, 31 L. R. A. 118, 32 Atl. 1022; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (Mass.) 539, 580; Ely v. Att'y Gen., 202 Mass. 545, 89 N. E. 166; Crow ex rel. Jones v, Clay County, 196 Mo. 243, 95 S. W. 369; Adams Female Academy v. Adams, 65 N. H. 225, 6 L. R. A. 785, 18 Atl. 777, 23 Atl. 430; Re Stevens' Estate, 200 Pa. 318, 49 Atl. 985; Gladding v. St. Matthews Church, 25 R. I. 628, 105 Am. St. Rep. 904, 65 L. R. A. 225, 1 A. & E. Am. Cas. 537, 57 Atl. 860. So, in the case of a trust for the purpose of promoting a sentiment in favor of slavery, and aiding fugitive slaves, the fund was, after the abolition of slavery, applied to the education and support of former slaves. Jackson v. Philips, 14 Allen (Mass.) 539. And In the case of a trust for establishing beds in a hospital for insane patients, in case arrangements could not be made with the hospital management, the fund should, it was said, be applied in aid of insane persons in some other way. Hayden v. Connecticut Hospital, 64 Conn. 320, 30 Atl. 50.

In the case of a charitable gift to a nonexistent corporation, the formation of the corporation has been regarded as not a condition precedent to the vesting of the gift, so that, if the corporation is not formed within a reasonable time the trust will be made effective in some other way. under the doctrine of cy pres. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 608; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 7 L. Ed. 617; Franklin v. Hastings, 253 111. 46; Ann. Cas. 1913A, 135, 97 N. E. 265; Swasey v. American Bible Soc. 57 Me. 523; Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309, 105 Am. St. Rep. 394, 72 N. E. 1008; Mclntire Poor School v. Zanesville Canal etc. Co. 9 Ohio, 203, 34 Am. Dec. 436.

64. Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 29. 14 L. R. A. 33, 27 Aim St. Rep. 48T, 28 N. E. 880; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366. 57 Am. Rep 278, 28 N. W. 353; Mars v. Gibert, 93 S. C. 455, 77 S. E: 131.

This power of applying the property to a proximate purpose has always been exercised in England by the court of chancery as a part of its ordinary equitable jurisdiction, and as such it has been exercised in those states in this country where the doctrine prevails. In England, however, there is another and distinct power exercised by the court of chancery, under the name of cy pres, not, as in the other case, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, but in a ministerial capacity, as the keeper of the king's conscience. This prerogative power of the king is exercised in England in two classes of cases,-those in which the gift is for a purpose which is illegal at the time of the testator's death, and those in which there is a gift to charity in general terms, with no trustee named to specify the beneficiaries and carry it into effect, or the trustee for which dies before acting. In such cases, it being presumed that the donor intended the property to go to some charity, rather than that it should go back to his heirs or next of kin, the fund is applied to some other charitable purpose in the exercise of the royal prerogative.65 The prerogative power thus exercised by the English court of chancery does not belong to any judicial tribunal in this country, and so far as it may exist here, is vested exclusively in the legislative department of the government as successor to the powers of the king as parens patriae66-67