When it is said, as is frequently done, that the Rule against Perpetuities does not apply to charitable trusts,62 the word "perpetuity" is used in its primary sense, and the statement appears to mean that a charitable trust is not invalid, though it is, in theory at least, of perpetual duration, by reason of the lack of definite cestuis que trust to consent to its termination.63 And the statement may also have some reference to the fact that, for a like reason, the beneficial interest under such a trust is alienable.64 A charitable trust may, however, be invalid under the rule against remoteness.

If, after a gift to A, there is a limitation over to B in trust for a charity on a certain event, the limitation over is void if this event may occur beyond the period of the rule.65 Likewise, if, after a gift in trust for a charity, there is a limitation over to an individual, the limitation over is void if on a remote event.66

Eq. (S. C.) 241, and Hills v. Simonds, 125 Mass. 536, and criticises Sears v. Russell, 8 Gray (Mass.) 86, Lovering v. Lovering. 129 Mass. 97, and Smith's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 492, which cases, without considering the question from this point of view, held that gifts which might thus be regarded as independent were all invalid together. Lovering v. Lovering has since been overruled by Dorr v. Lovering, 147 Mass. 530, 18 N. E. 412.

62. See e. g. Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (Mass.) 539; Hartson v. Elden, 50 N. J. Eq. 522, 26 Atl. 561; Alden v. St. Peter's Parish in City of Sycamore, 158 111. 631, 30 L. R. A. 232, 42 N. E 392; Troutman v. De Boissiere Odd Fellows' Orphans'

Home & Industrial School Ass'n (Kan.) 64 Pac. 33; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, L. R. 6 P. C. 381.

63. Ante Sec. 117.

64. See Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 589, 590.

65. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 594-596; Attorney General v. Gill, 2 P. Wms. 369; Commissioners of Charitable Donations & Bequests v. De Clifford, 1 Dru. & War. 245; Merritt v. Bucknam, 77 Me. 253; Brattle Square Church v. Grant, 3 Gray (Mass.) 154; Leonard v. Burr, 18 N. Y. 96; Smith v. Town-send, 32 Pa. 434; Village of Brat-tleboro v. Mead, 43 Vt. 556.

66. In re Bowen (1893) 2 Ch. 491; Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342, 41 L. Ed. 739; Starr v. Starr M. P. Church, 112 Md. 171. First Universalist Soc. of title.73 In this country, presumably, the beneficiaries would not have this power, since it would evidently disappoint the donor's intention,74 but a direction that the accumulation continue longer than a life or lives in being and twenty-one years thereafter would, in some states, presumably be invalid under a rule, framed on the analogy of the Rule against Perpetuities, restrict tive of the duration of a trust.75 In the case of a gift to a charity, with a direction to accumulate for an illegal period, the gift will be upheld, if it can be regarded as a present gift, and, in place of the illegal accumulation, the court will direct a management of the fund which is legal and possible, cy pres the original direction76

If, however, there is a gift to a charity with a limitation over to another charity, the limitation over is not invalid, even though it is to vest at a period beyond that named in the rule.67

In the case of a gift to a charity which is not to take effect until the happening of an event which may not occur within the period of the rule, if there is no preceding gift to another donee, the gift is void, as in the case of a gift to an individual.68 But a gift which is otherwise immediate is not regarded as subject to a condition precedent, and so void under the rule, merely because the particular application of the fund may not take place within the period fixed by the rule.69 This principle is frequently applied in the case of a gift for charitable purposes to a corporation or association not yet formed, in which case the gift is regarded as immediately complete, and so valid, though the corporation or association may not be formed till a period indefinitely remote, the theory being that, if

North Adams v. Boland, 155 Mass. 171, 15 L. R. A. 231, 29 N. E. 524; Society for Promotion of Theological Education v. Attorney General, 135 Mass. 285; Rolfe & Rumford Asylum v. Le-febre, 69 N. H. 238, 41 Atl. 1087; Palmer v. Union Bank, 17 R. I. 627, 24 Atl. 109.

67. Christ's Hospital v. Grainger, 1 Macn. & G. 460; Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 28 L. R. A. 510, 31 Atl. 824; In re John's Will, 30 Or. 494; Lenning's Estate, 154 Pa. St. 209, 25 Atl. 1049; Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342, 41 L. Ed. 739; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1; In re Tyler [1891] 3 Ch. 252; Storrs Agr. School v. Whitney, 54 Conn. 342, 8 Atl. 141; Mackenzie v. Jersey City Presbytery, 67 N. J. Eq. 652,

61 Atl. 1027, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 227;See Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 597-603h.

68. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 605, 606; Cherry v. Mott, 1 Mylne & C, 123; Chamberlayne v. Brockett, 8 Ch. App. 206; Jocelyn v. Nott, 44 Conn. 55.

69. Chamberlayne v. Brockett, 8 Ch. App. 206; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397; Sin-nett v. Herbert, 7 Ch. App. 232; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1; Almy v. Jones, 17 R. I. 265. 12 L. R. A. 414, 21 Atl. 616; Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 28 L. R. A. 510, 31 Atl. 824; Ingra-ham v. Ingraham, 169 111. 432: 48 N. E. 561, 49 N. E. 320; In re John's Will, 30 Or. 494, 36 L. R. A. 242, 47 Pac. 341, 50 Pac. 226.