State v. Griffith
Citations
- 2 Del. Ch. 392
Syllabus
<p>Charitable uses are not within the rule of law against perpetuities.</p> <p>A devise of real estate, with a direction that the same be not sold but rented— “the proceeds arising from such rents” to be applied to certain charitable uses—held, not to be within the law against perpetuities. Prior to the English Statute of 9 Geo. II, charitable uses in England were subject to no restriction.</p> <p>The English mortmain acts did not extend to the British colonies.</p> <p>The Delaware Statute of 17 Geo. II, for the relief of religious societies, &c., considered; its history and objects. The prohibitions in this statute against testamentary gifts of real estate to religious societies do not affect charitable uses generally.</p> <p>A devise to certain charitable uses of a fund, to be distributed “by agents, to be appointed by the Orphans’ Court or the Levy Court of Kent County, as maybe deemed most proper,” is not void, for uncertainty as to. which one of the two Courts shall appoint the agents. Either Court may exercise the power of appointment. If both refuse, this Court will appoint. So, were the power of appointment void for uncertainty, this Court would have power to create the necessary agency.</p> <p>Distinction between limitations of the legal estate and limitations by way of trust, with respect to the degree of certainty requisite in the objects to take.</p> <p>A devise of lands in trust “to and for the support, maintenance and education of the poor white citizens of Kent County generally,” coupled with a direction that no partof the bequest should “be applied to the use or benefit of any person or persons residing within the walls of the Poor House, but to be distributed amongst such only of the poor who by timely assistance may be kept from being carried to the Poor House and becoming subjects thereof,” is not void for uncertainty in the description of the objects.</p> <p>Uncertainty as to the individual beneficiaries, until appointment or selection, is charac
Judges: Johns
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Estate of HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 125×
- Taylor v. CrossonCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1916-06-26· cited 32×
- McBride v. MurphyCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1924-06-04· cited 26×
- 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×
- Girard Trust Co. v. Rector of St. Anne's Protestant Episcopal ChurchCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1947-04-24· cited 15×
- 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×
- Broeker v. WareCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1942-12-19· cited 10×
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. SloaneCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1947-08-12· cited 8×
- Ross v. FreemanCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1935-07-23· cited 6×
- Rea v. GriffinMadison County Court of Common Pleas· 1916-08-14
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.