money given to be laid out in lands, Att. Gen. v. Parsons, 8 Ves. Jun. 191; nor to pay off incumbrances upon lands already in mortmain, 1 Ves. 108; pass under a bequest to a charity.

But notwithstanding bequests to charitable uses were rendered null and void by the statutes of mortmain, and that corporations were restrained by the 34 Hen. VIII. from taking devises of lands, yet, as Mr. Justice Blackstone expresses himself, the piety of judges formerly carried them great lengths in supporting such charitable uses; it being held, that the statute of the 43 Eliz. c. 4, by virtue of which a devise to a charitable use, operates in the nature of an appointment, rather than a bequest, supersedes and repeals all former statutes, and supplies all defects of assurances, where the donor was of capacity to dispose, and had an estate any way disposable by him: and that, therefore, not only a devise to a corporation, but a devise by a copyhold tenant, without surrendering to the use of his will, and a devise (nay, even a settlement) by tenant in tail, without fine or recovery, made to a charitable use, is good by way of appointment, 2 Bla. Com. 376.

Proceeding on the principle of the statute, courts of equity have shown great favour to testamentary dispositions in favour of charities. In the words of Lord Hardwicke, Soresby v. Hollins, 2 Burn's

Ecc. Law, 556, "there is no restriction whatsoever upon any one, from leaving a sum of money, or any other personal estate, by will, to charitable uses; provided it be to be continued as a personalty, and the executors and trustees are not under a necessity of laying it out in land, by virtue of any direction of the testator for that purpose." Therefore, where there is a discretionary power in trustees or executors, as where a bequest was made to a charitable use, "to be secured by the purchase of lands or otherwise," such devise has been supported, Soresby v. Hollins, 2 Burn's Ecc. Law, 556; and see Doe d. Toone and West v. Copestake, 6 East's Rep. 328. So a bequest of money in trust for a charitable use will be supported in equity, if the nature of the trust is not described, nor the mode of the application of the devise pointed out; and, by force of the second section of the statute, the trustees may lay out the same in the purchase of land, Baylis v. Att. Gen. 2 Att. 239. So, if the nature of the charitable use is described, by referring to the objects generally, without specifying the particular objects, equity will, by substituting another mode of appli→ cation, effectuate the charitable purpose according to the general intentions of the testator. Moggridge v. Thackwell, Ves. Jun. 465. Att. Gen. v. City of London, 3 Bro. C. C. 171. Likewise, if a bequest is left to charitable uses, according to

the designation of the testator's executor, who happens to die without executing his trust, the Court of Chancery will uphold such a trust as a valid bequest, and will, by substitution, carry into effect the charitable intention of the testator, Moggridge v. Thackwell, 3 Bro. C. C. 517. But if he designates a particular charity as the object of his bequest, and his intention cannot be carried into effect, in consequence of the statute, equity will not apply the bequest to any other charitable purpose. Att. Gen. v. Whitchurch, 3 Ves. Jun. 141.

It has also been determined that money devised to a charity in trust, and directed to be vested in the public funds, till lands can be purchased to the satisfaction of the trustees, is a valid bequest. Grimmet v. Grimmet, Ambl. 210. And, although a devise of lands, or money to be laid out in land, is void, as falling within the restraint of the statute, yet where a bequest is made to support that which is already in mortmain, it is a legitimate object of a will. Thus money given to repair a free chapel, (Harris v. Barnes, Ambl. 651,) a parsonage house, (1 Bro. C. C. 444, n.) or to build upon land already in mortmain, (Att. Gen. v. Parsons, 8 Ves. Jun. 186,) has been held not to be within the meaning of the statute; provided, in the case of erecting buildings, the lands in mortmain are particularly specified upon which the buildings are to be erected. 3 Bro. C. C. 588. It has also been determined that

where an estate devised before the passing of the statute has increased in value, the amount of its accretions belongs to the charity. Att. Gen. v. Johnson, Ambl. 190; Att. Gen. v. City of London, 3 Bro. C. C. 171.

With respect to bequests bequeathed for the augmentation of poor livings, under the statute 2 and 3 Anne, c. 11, s. 4, (which rendered gifts of real and personal property, by deed enrolled, or by will for that purpose, valid,) as by the rules of the corporation they must be laid out in land, they were held to be void by the mortmain-act, 9 Geo. II. But the operation of the statue of Anne being revived by the 43 Geo. III. c. 107, s. 1, bequests for the augmentation of Queen Anne's bounty are again rendered valid. And by the 108th section of the same act, all gifts of five acres of land, or personal property to the amount of £500, by deed enrolled, or by will executed three months previous to the death of the testator, and devised for the express purpose of building or repairing any church or parsonage house, is valid and a larger bequest will not have the effect of invalidating the gift. Also by the stat. 43 Geo. III. c. 108, which was enacted for the purpose of promoting the building repairing, and providing of churches and chapels, and houses for the residence of ministers, and church-yards and glebes, persons possessed of lands in their own right may, by deed enrolled, or

by will executed three months prior to their death, bequeath land not exceeding five acres, or personalty not exceeding £500. By the 51 Geo. III. c. 115, the king may vest in any person or body politic or corporate, his or their lands, provided they do not exceed five acres, for building any church, chapel, parsonage house, &c.; and by the second section of the same act any person seised in fee simple of any manor, &c. may grant five acres of the waste to any parochial church or chapel.

A bequest of personal property towards establishing a school has been held to be a valid disposition; for though the money cannot be laid out in land or building, yet the testator's intention may be carried into effect, by the master's teaching either in his own house or in the church. 4 Bro. C. C. 526. 4 Term Rep.

Copyholds.-Copyhold estates, or estates held by copy of court-roll, may be the subject of a devise, although not previously surrendered according to the customs of the manor of which they are held to such uses, 55 Geo. III. c. 192; and to carry this indirect testamentary disposition into effect, an unaltered will of a copyholder, or any paper having a testamentary operation, and received into the ecclesiastical courts as such, is sufficient. Tuffnell v. Page, Temp. Ld. Hardwicke, 1740. And as a copyholder may, by this surrender, dispose of his legal estate to the uses of his will, it follows, à for