There is sometimes a direction by the creator of a trust that the income shall be accumulated for a certain period, or until a certain event, and then be paid to the beneficiaries named. If this accumulation is to continue until a time beyond the limits of the rule against perpetuities, and the gift is to be regarded as not vesting till such time, then the gift of the fund is void.71 If, however, the gift can be regarded as vesting immediately,-and, as before stated, gifts are always regarded as vested, if possible,-the direction for accumulation, whether itself valid or invalid, cannot invalidate the gift.72 In the case of a vested non charitable gift, the accumulation can, under the English rule, be stopped at any time by the action of the beneficiaries, if sui juris, in calling for the legal

70. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 607; Attorney General v. Bowyer, 3 Ves. Jr. 714, 727, 728; Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbour, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 99; Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings, 95 U. S. 303, 24 L. Ed. 450; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 27 L. Ed. 397; Cumming v. Trustees of Reid Memorial Church, 64 Ga. 105; Swasey v. American Bible Soc. 57 Me. 523.

Though gifts to a corporation or association not yet formed are generally supported on the doctrine of cy pres, such gifts are, as shown by Professor Gray, sustained in a few states in which the cy pres doctrine is repudiated. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 615-625.

71. Marsden, Perpetuities, 314; Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 674, 675,

677; Southampton v. Hertford, 2 Ves. & B. 54; Curtis v. Lukin, 5 Beav. 147; Thorndike v. Loring, 15 Gray (Mass.) 391; City of Philadelphia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. St. 9, 28, 29; Webster v. Wig-gin, 19 R. I. 73, 28 L. R. A. 510, 31 Atl. 824; Girard Trust Co. v. Russell, 179 Fed. 446; Andrews v. Lincoln, 95 Me. 541, 56 L. R. A. 103, 50 Atl. 898.

72. As in the case of a charitable gift accompanied by an in: valid direction for accumulation, Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 678; Ingra-ham v. Ingraham, 169 111. 432, 48 N. E. 561, 49 N. E. 320; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1; St. Paul's Church v. Attorney General, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N. E. 231; City of Philadelphia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. St. 9.

A direction to accumulate for the purpose of the payment of debts is not invalid under the rule. The creditors have a vested interest, and can stop the accumulation at any time76a

In England, the period during which accumulations may continue before the vesting of the gift has been reduced, by what is known as the "Thelluson Act,"77 to one of four periods named by the act,-that is, during the life of the giver, during twenty-one years after the giver's death, during the minorities of any persons living at the giver's death, or during the minorities of persons who would be entitled to the income of the fund. Accumulation can be directed for only one of these periods. Provided the Rule against Perpetuities is not violated, however, the effect of exceeding the statutory period is not to defeat the direction for accumulation entirely, but it is void only as to the excess over the statutory period.78 In Pennsylvania, there is a statutory provision similar in the main to the Thelluson act.79 In New York and states adopting its legislation in this regard, an accumulation of the rents and profits of real property is restricted by the general requirement that the absolute power of alienation shall not be suspended for more than two lives in being, and also by special provisions that it shall last only during the minority of the persons to be benefited thereby. Directions for accumulation to extend beyond such minority are void only as to the excess over the legal period.80

73. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 671-673; Gray, Restraints, Alien, Prop. Sec.Sec. 107-llla; Marsden, Perpetuities, 317, 319; Oddie v. Brown, 4 De Gex & J. 179; Phipps v. Kelynge, 2 Ves. & B. 57, note.

74. Ante Sec. 116 (d).

75. Ante Sec. 183, note 37.

76. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 673; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 111. 432, 48 N. E. 561, 49 N. E. 320; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1; St. Paul's Church v. Attorney

General, 164 Mass. 188, 41 N. E. 231; City of Philadelphia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. St. 9.

76a. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 676; Bateman v. Hotchkin, 10 Beav. 426; Morgan v. Morgan, 20 R. I. 600, 40 Atl. 736.

77. 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 98 (A. D. 1800). The act takes its name from Peter Thellusson, whose will, providing for the accumulation of the income of an immense property during the