Griffith v. State
Citations
- 2 Del. Ch. 421
Syllabus
<p>A valid trust can never fail for the want of a trustee.</p> <p>Wherever may be the legal estate, if the trust is valid it will be protected and enforced in a court of equity.</p> <p>Devise in trust for the benefit of “ such only the poor of Kent County who by timely assistance may be kept from being carried to the Poor House aud becoming subjects thereof.” Held to be a description of the beneficiaries not too uncertain to be carried into effect.</p> <p>Devise of a fund to trustees for the benefit of the poor of Kent County &c,—“ the distribution thereof to be made by agents to be appointed by the Orphans’ Court or the Levy Court of Kent County, as might be deemed proper.” Held, that either the Orphans’ Court or the Levy Court were competent to appoint the necessary agents for distribution of the fund ; but that were it otherwise, or were both the courts designated to refuse or neglect to make such appointment, the Court of Chancery is competent to supply the required agency.</p> <p>Where a power of appointment is vested in one of two persons or bodies, either may exercise it; and the one first exercising it does so to the exclusion of the other.</p> <p>Uncertainty as to the objects of a charitable use is not an objection to its validity. In this respect charitable uses differ from ordinary trusts. If the objects be uncertain,or the particular mode of application fail, the fund may be administered in England either by the C6rown as parens patrice or by the Court of Chancery; in this State such a charity will be administered by the Court of Chancery.</p> <p>The rule of law against perpetuities is not applicable to trusts for charity.</p> <p>The English Statute of Mortmain of 9 George II is not in force in this State.</p> <p>The third section of the Statute of this State which prohibits devises of lands to religious societies, except in the mode therein prescribed,does not apply to devises to charitable uses generally.</p> <p>The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancer
Judges: Wootten
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Taylor v. CrossonCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1916-06-26· cited 32×
- Delaware Land & Development Co. v. First & Central Presbyterian ChurchSupreme Court of Delaware· 1929-01-22· cited 23×
- Trustees of New Castle Common v. MegginsonSupreme Court of Delaware· 1910-06-21· cited 22×
- Chew v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilmington, Del., Inc.D. Delaware· 1916-08-04· cited 22×
- Weller v. Farmers Bank of the StateCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1970-10-30· cited 14×
- Delaware Trust Co. v. GrahamCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1948-09-09· cited 14×
- Hutton v. St. Paul Brotherhood of the People's ChurchCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1935-05-10· cited 11×
- Broeker v. WareCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1942-12-19· cited 10×
- Ross v. FreemanCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1935-07-23· cited 6×
- Satterfield v. BegleyCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1945-07-13· cited 4×
- Feinberg v. FeinbergCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1957-05-08· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.