dist Episcopal Sunday School, 4 Dem. 271.

Gifts to a corporation to be formed, or a voluntary society to be incorporated,

. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563; Anstice v. Brown, 6 Paige 448; Polk v. Ralston, 2 Humph. 537. And where not prohibited or excluded by statute, he may also take real property by devise. McIlvaine v. Coxe, 2 Cranch 280; Fairfax . Hunter, 7 Cranch 603; Fox . Southack, 12 Mass. 143; Mick v. Mick, 10 Wend. 379; Sutliff v. Forgey, 1 Cow. 89; People v. Conklin, 2 Hill 67; Vaux v. Nesbit, 1 McCord Ch. 352. And a condition that he should become a citizen is not too remote. Beard . Rowan, 9 Pet. 301. A devise may even be made to an alien, e. g., a Confederate soldier, Hoskins v. Gentrey, 2 Duv. 285; or the wife of a Confederate soldier, Smith v. Gaines, 11 Stew. (N. J.) 65, except as against the United States. In New York, by act of 1845, c. 115 (2 R. S. 57, § 4), aliens filing a declaration of intention can take; and by act of 1875, c. 38, those of the blood of testator can take without such declaration (except against the state), and even though testator died before the act of 1875. Hall v. Hall, 13 Hun 306. Where a devise is to children of whom some are aliens incapable of taking, the others take the whole. Van Cortland v. Laidley, 32 N. Y. St. Rep. 585. But the act does not apply to an alien devisee born after testator's death, Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 12 N. Y. 376; nor to the income of real property payable by the executor to an alien legatee. Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357.

In the United States, aliens are now generally authorized by statute to take a devise of real property. In some

ness.

1 Vict c. 26.

stand upon the same footing. It will be sufficient, in general, if the society is incorporated before the death of the testator, Kearney v. Missionary Society, states this authority is absolute. This is so in Alabama (1886 Code, § 1914), Arkansas (1884 Dig. Laws, §§ 232, 233), California (1885 Civ. Code, § 671), Colorado (1891 Ann. Stats. § 99), Florida (1892 R. S. § 1816), Georgia (1882 Code, § 1661), Maine (1883 R. S. c. 73, § 2), Maryland (1888 P. G. L. p. 9), Massachusetts (1882 P. S. c. 126,

1), Michigan (1882 Ann. Stats. § 5775), Minnesota (1891 Statutes, 5410), Missouri (1889 R. S. § 342), New Jersey (1877 Rev. 6, § 3), North Carolina (1883, § 7), Ohio (1890 R. S. § 4173), Oregon (1892 Ann. Laws, § 2988), Pennsylvania (1883 Purd. Dig. p. 84), Rhode Island (1882 P. S. c. 172, § 6), South Carolina (1882 G. S. § 1768), Tennessee (1884 Code, § 2804), Virginia (1887 Code, § 43), Washington (1891 G. S. § 2955), West Virginia (1891 Code, c. 70). In other states the authority extends only to resident aliens or those who apply for naturalization. This is so in Connecticut (1888 G. S. §§ 15-17), Illinois (1891 R. S. c. 6; P. L. 1887, p. 5), Indiana (1888 R. S. § 2967; P. L. 1885, p. 79), Iowa (1888 Code, p. 708; P. L. 1888, c. 85), Kansas (P. L. 1891, c. 3). Kentucky (1887 G. S. p. 247), Minnesota (1891 Statutes, SS 3996-99; P. L. 1887, c. 204, and 1889, c. 113), Mississippi (1892 Ann. Code, § 2439), Nebraska (1891 C. S. p. 654; P. L. 1889, c. 58), New Hampshire (1891 G. S. c. 137, § 16), New York (R. S. 8th ed. pp. 2420-29), Texas (P. L. 1891, c. 62), Wisconsin (1889 Ann. Stats. § 2200 a; P. L. 1887, c. 479).

(dd) A legacy, however, to a sub

10 Abb. N. C. 274; Voorhees v. Voorhees, 2 Halst. Ch. 511; or before the end of a life estate, the gift being in remainder, Shipman v. Fanshaw, 15 Abb. N. C. 288; Longhead v. Dikeman Baptist Church, 14 L. R. A. 410 (1891 N. Y.). But where the conditions of the gift require a special act, the time is indefinite, and the gift is void in New York as a perpetuity. People v. Simonson, 126 N. Y. 299. Without regard to the time of incorporation, however, a gift to a charitable institution to be incorporated is generally valid. Tappan's Appeal, 52 Conn. 412; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70; Gould v. Taylor Orphan Asylum, Id. 106; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352.

GOVERNMENTS. The United States Government cannot take a devise in New York, United States v. Fox, 94 N. Y. 315; and can take by devise in Massachusetts, Dickson v. United States, 125 Mass. 311; and the law of another state where part of the land lies is presumed to be the same. Id. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. A mu

scribing witness to a will or codicil of personalty before this date is a good legacy. Brett v. Brett, 3 Add. 210. Emanuel v. Constable, 3 Russ Ch. C. 436. Foster v. Banbury, 3 Sim. 40. Such a legacy would not be good in the case of a will or codicil of real estate even before the above date. Brett v. Brett (ubi sup.).

(e) The interest must be a beneficial interest to the witness to render the bequest void. Therefore where an attesting witness was made universal legatee in trust for the testator's widow, it was held that the bequest was not null and void under the statute: In the Goods of Ryder, Prerog. 2 Notes of Cas.

nicipal corporation can take for purposes not foreign to the public objects for which it exists. McDonogh v. Murdock, 15 How. 367; Sutton v. Cole, 3 Pick. 232; Webb v. Neal, 5 Allen 575; Fellows v. Miner, 119 Mass. 541. Thus, it can take a bequest for the purchase and display of United States flags, Sargent . Cornish, 64 N. H. 18; Philadelphia v. Elliot, 3 Rawle 170; or for the relief of the poor, although the administration of the fund is committed to a society to be formed for the purpose, Dascomb v. Marston, 80 Me. 223; or left to the discretion of the city authorities, Estate of Robinson, 63 Cal. 620; Beardsley v. Bridgeport, 53 Conn. 489. So, for the benefit of poor emigrants, Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; for the erection and maintenance of hospitals, Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465; or orphan asylums, Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 127; Barkley v Donnelly (Mo. 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 365; or for a public library, New Haven Institute v. New Haven (Conn.), 22 Atl. Rep. 447; or schools, Hatheway v. Sackett, 32 Mich. 97;

(ƒ) A solicitor was one of the attesting witnesses of a will. The will declared that he should be entitled to charge and receive payment for all professional business to be done by him under the will, in the same manner as he might have done had he not been the executor. It was held that he was prohibited by this section from receiving that which was not a debt of which payment could be enforced at law, but a beneficial gift which could only be claimed by virtue of the direction in the will. Re Barber, 31 C. D. 665. Re Pooley, 40 C. D. 1.

Piper . Moulton, 72 Me. 155. This is true also of a bequest for the education of poor orphans, to a township, Mason e. Methodist Episcopal Church, 12 C. E. Gr. 47; or for a school, to a school township, Skinner v. Harrison, 116 Ind. 139; or school district, Leeds v. Shaw, 82 Ky. 79; Maynard . Woodward, 36 Mich. 423; Estate of Bulmer, 59 Cal. 131; or parish, White v. Braintree Parish, 13 Met, 506; or to county commissioners, for the destitute in the county, Lagrange Co. v. Rogers, 55 Ind. 297; Craig . Secrist, 54 Ind. 419; or to a county for general public purposes, it to pay ten years' income for the poor of a certain township in the county, Lawrence Co. v. Leonard, 83 Pa. St. 206; or to county commissioners for educational purposes under its control, Christy e. Ashtabula Co., 41 O. St. 711; or to a board of water commissioners, to improve and maintain as a public park lands obtained and held under its charter powers. Penny . Croul, 76 Mich. 471; S. C.. 5 L. R. A. 858. A city cannot be compelled to accept a devise to it in trust for relief of "deserving indigent persons not paupers," but the court will appoint another trustee in case of its refusal. Dailey . New Haven, 60 Conn. 314. Municipal corporations are

v.

(g) i. e. by the same instrument which is attested. Therefore a bequest of a legacy by a will is not void because the legatee attests a codicil which gives him nothing; nor does a residuary legatee of a share of a residue lose it by attesting a codicil which, by revoking legacies, increases the residuary share: Gurney v. Gurney, 3 Drewr. 208. Tempeste. Tempest, 2 Kay & J. 635. Accord. A testatrix by her will gave a share of her residuary real and personal estate to the husband of one of the attesting wit

expressly authorized to take legacies in Louisiana, State v. McDonough, 8 La. Ann. 171; and may take real and personal property in New York in trust for various enumerated public uses, as public education, relief of poor, purchase and maintenance of public grounds for health and recreation or military exercise (1 R. S. 729, § 57). But a devise for the poor" of the town, not limited to its legal paupers, is not contemplated by the act, and is invalid. Fosdick v. Hampstead, 125 N. Y. 581. The question as to such capacity can only be raised by the state. Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1; Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 191.

its capacity must be shown, Matter of Huss, 126 N. Y. 537; S. C., 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 359; and where land in New York is devised to a city in Missouri, the rule in New York requires an express statutory authority in the state where the land is situated, Boyce v. St. Louis, 29 Barb. 650.

But a municipal corporation cannot take a bequest for irrelevant and foreign purposes. Chapin v. School District, nesses of the will. By a codicil which was attested by other witnesses, the testatrix after a direction to her executors to allow an extended time for payment of a debt due to her from one of the legatees, confirmed her will in other respects. It was held that the duly attested codicil had the effect of republishing and incorporating the will so as to render the gift to the husband valid notwithstanding the attestation of the will by his wife. Anderson v. Anderson, L. R. 13 Eq. 381.

such gifts to stand if the witness is not necessary to the probate of the will. This is so in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia. It is further provided, in some states, that a gift by will to an attesting witness, who would be entitled to a share of the estate in case of intestacy, shall be good pro tanto. This is the case in Arkansas,

California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The provisions of the act of 25 Geo. II. c. 6, as to refusal or renunciation of the gift by the witness, or actual payment made to him before probate, and prohibiting subsequent payment or compensation in such case, are included in whole or in part in the statutes of Arkansas, New Jersey and Oregon, and formerly also in Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Vermont and West Virginia. The husband or wife of the witness is also excluded in the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, and expressly admitted in Georgia. Other statutes, as in Maine and Massachusetts, simply require the will to be attested by a prescribed number of "disinterested and credible" witnesses. For a history of this act see Sullivan v. Sullivan, 106 Mass. 476.

In Arkansas, a gift to a subscribing

witness, if the will is not sufficiently attested without him, is void, and such witness is competent to prove the will; but such witness may take so much of such gift as does not exceed any share of testator's estate to which he would be entitled in case of intestacy; and if there are sufficient other witnesses the will and the gift are valid; and a charge of debt due to the witness is valid; and the will is valid, and the witness competent, if the legacy has been already paid, released or renounced before probate, or if the witness has died before testator; but payment, refusal or renunciation of the legacy in such case before probate is final and irrevocable, and the witness cannot afterward receive any payment or compensation (1884 Dig. Stats. § 6535-41). In California, a gift to a subscribing witness, who is necessary to the proper attestation of a will, except a charge of debt due him, is void; but such witness may take the share to which he would be entitled in case of intestacy (Civ. Code, §§ 128283). In Colorado, a gift to a witness who is necessary to the proper attestation of the will, is void so far as it exceeds the share which such witness would have taken in case of intestacy, and such witness is competent to prove the will (1891 Ann. Stats. § 4656). In the District of Columbia, a gift to a subscribing witness, or the husband or wife of such witness, is void so far as it exceeds the share which such witness would have been entitled to take in case of intestacy, and such witness is competent to prove the will (1857 Rev. Code, c. 52, § 24). In Connecticut, a gift by will to any subscribing witness other than an heir-at-law is void, and the witness is