Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/414

398 398 HAR YARD LA W RE VIE W. Gott v. Nairne x is another case at variance with Morice v. Bishop of Durham. In that case ,£12,000 were bequeathed to trustees, on trust at their discretion to buy an advowson and nom- inate to it such person as they should think proper. Subject to this trust, the advowson was to be held in trust for A until he should have a benefice worth £1,000 a year, or died. Until the advowson was bought the fund was to accumulate, and at the end of twenty-one years, or at A's death, or on his being presented to a benefice worth £1,000 a year, the fund was to belong to A, his executors and administrators, absolutely. The fund accumulated for twelve years. No advowson had been purchased, but the trustees did not desire to renounce the trust. Under the English rule, which gives a cestui que trust, who has the entire beneficial in- terest in property, the right to have a conveyance of the legal title, A claimed to have the fund transferred to him. The bill was dismissed on the ground that A had not the exclusive interest ; for the trustees, though not compellable, were yet at liberty to nominate some person other than A. Hall, V.C., after remark- ing that the trustees disclaimed any beneficial interest and desired to perform the trust, added : " I see no reason why the trustees should not be allowed to carry out this trust." A bequest for the celebration of masses for the soul of a de- ceased person is, in Ireland, 2 an honorary trust. No one can file a bill to compel its performance. But if the trustee is willing to comply with the testator's direction, the next of kin cannot inter- fere to prevent him. 3 ment) ; Wood v. Vandenburgh, 6 Paige, 277; Emans v. Hickman, 12 Hun, 425; Re Frazer, 92 N. Y. 239; Hagenmeyer v. Hanselman, 2 Dem. 87, 88 (but see Re Fisher, 8 N. Y. Sup. 10) ; Bainbridge's App., 97 Pa. 482; Fite v. Beasley, 12 Lea, 328; Cannon v. Apperson, 14 Lea, 553, 590. 1 3 Ch. D. 278, 35 L. T. Rep. 209 s. c. 8 In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania a bequest for masses is a good charitable trust. Schouler's Pet., 134 Mass. 426; Seibert's Ap., 18 W. N. (Pa.) 276. In England such a bequest is void, as a superstitious use. West v. Shuttleworth, 2 M. & K. 684; Re Fleet- wood, 15 Ch. D. 596; Elliott v. Elliott, 35 Sol. J. 206. v. Brennan 5 Ir. R. 2Eq. 321 ; Dillon v. Rielly, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 152; Atty.-Gen. v. Delaney Ir. R. 10 C. L. 104; Bradshaw v. Jackman, 21 L. R. Ir. 12; Reichenbach v. Quin, 21 L. R. Ir. 138 ; Perry v. Tuomey, 21 L. R. Ir. 480. The Court of Appeals has consistently
 * Commissioners v. Wybrants, 7 Ir. Eq. 34, n. ; Read v. Hodgens, 7 Ir. Eq. 1 7 ; Brennan