v. Fitzgerald (1905) 78 Conn. 4, 60 Atl. 694.

A trust for the benefit of the children of a deceased son is created by a will in which testatrix directed all her estate to be divided into five equal parts, two of which were given to her two daughters absolutely, and the other three shares directed to be held in trust for her three sons during their lives, paying them the income on their respective shares, and that, on the death of any of such sons, the share of such deceased sons should be given to the two daughters or the survivor, "to be used by them or the survivor of them either wholly or in such parts or shares as they or the survivor of them in their or her discretion shall deem desirable for the benefit of the children, if there should be any living, of said deceased son or sons." Jones v. Jones (1888) 124 Ill. 254, 15 N. E. 751. c. Gift to one "to use for" himself (or herself) and children.

A trust in favor of the testator's widow and children may be implied from a will in which he devised to her certain real estate "in fee simple, that she may dispose of the same as she may think best for herself and for her children," and gave her all his money on hand and household goods "for her to have and use as she may think best and proper for herself and my children; provided that in case my beloved wife, Mary Ann Elliott, should marry after my decease, then and in that case it is my will that two thirds of all my property, both real and personal, shall descend in equal proportion to my children." Elliott v. Elliott (1889) 117 Ind. 380, 10 Am. St. Rep. 54, 20 N. E. 264.

No trust in favor of the children is created by a will in which testator gave all his property to his wife "for her sole use and benefit, to use the same for her and her children as she may see proper;" the sentence with reference to the use of the property being merely the expression of the testator's expectation, and therefore only a recommendation as to the use to which it might be applied. Schneiderhahn v. Zeller (1908) 33 Ky. L. Rep. 694, 110 S. W. 834.

The children of the daughter take no interest under a will by which a mother, who was under great obligations to her daughter, bequeathed to her the residue of her estate "for the sole use of herself and children," subject to a legacy of $300 "to be paid out of the amount willed to my daughter," the words, "for the sole use of herself and children," being regarded as merely indicative of the motive of the gift. Small v. Field (1890) 102 Mo. 105, 14 S. W. 815.

No implied or precatory trust is created for testator's children by a will giving his wife all his personalty "to be hers absolutely, to be used by her in any way or manner she may wish for her own comfort and for the support and benefit of our two children," where the will gave her the use and control of the testator's real property only until the majority of the youngest child, while there was limitation as to the personalty, thereby evincing an intent to discriminate between the two kinds of property. Wilmoth v. Wilmoth (1890) 34 W. Va. 426, 12 S. E. 731.

no

In Crockett v. Crockett (1848) 2 Phill. Ch. 553, 41 Eng. Reprint, 1057, where testator directed that all his property should be "at the disposal of his wife for herself and children," it was held that the widow, as between herself and her children, was either a trustee of the fund, with a large discretion as to the application of it, or had a power in favor of the children subject to a life interest in herself.

In Hart v. Tribe (1854) 18 Beav. 215, 52 Eng. Reprint, 85, where testator gave his wife a sum of money "to be used for her own and the children's benefit as she shall in her judgment and conscience think fit," it was held that this was not the case of a trust for the benefit of the children, to be accounted for by the widow in the same manner as if it had been given to her in trust for herself and her children, but that the provision to be made for them was a matter for the discretion of the widow, to be fairly exercised.

No trust is created by a will giving

testator's estate to his wife, "to be used by her as she considers best for herself and our infant son." Re Kelly (1914) 6 Ont. Week. N. 173.

d. Gift to one "to use for the maintenance and education of," or "to be applied in the bringing up of," children.

No trust in favor of the children of the testatrix is created by a will in which she stated: "To provide to the extent of my ability for the support and education of such of my children as shall be unmarried and minors and such of the married or adult ones as may, by innocent misfortune, become really needy, I give and bequeath to my beloved husband, Sylvester W., the father of my children, all my property, whether real, personal, or mixed, that he may use the same for the maintenance and education of my said children, and that he may from time to time advance to each of them as he may deem best to start them in life. I do hereby appoint my beloved husband my executor, with full power to control, manage, use, convey, sell, and dispose of said property as his own absolute property without being required to file or render any account or give any bail," it being clear that the husband was intended to be absolute owner. Randall v. Randall (1890) 135 III. 398, 25 Am. St. Rep. 373, 25 N. E. 780.

An express trust for the children of the sons is created by a will stating: "My home on Moreland avenue, I desire my three sons to share equally, and proceeds therefrom to be used as far as they will go for the education of their children." Gaither v. Gaither (1926) 213 Ky. 330, 280 S. W. 1099.

In Byne v. Blackburn (1858) 26 Beav. 41, 53 Eng. Reprint, 811, where testator gave a sum of money in trust to pay the income therefrom to his daughter for life, and after her decease to pay it to the daughter's husband during his life, "nevertheless to be by him applied for or towards the maintenance, education, or benefit of the child or children" of testator's daughter, it was held that, as the testator himself appointed trustees of the 49 A.L.R.-7.

fund, he could not have intended the father to act as a subtrustee, and that, if he intended the children to have a direct and positive interest in the fund during the life of their father, he would have directed his own trustees to make the payment to the children; and therefore that the gift was a beneficial gift to the father to assist him in the performance of his parental duties.

No trust is created by a will in which testator devised his residuary estate to a married woman, her heirs and assigns forever, and, after creating a trust as to the real property, went on to provide: "And as to the personal property so given as aforesaid, to the said Sarah Mackett to and for her own proper use and benefit forever, but not to be subject or liable to the debts, control or engagements of her present or any future husband; and her receipt alone to be a good and sufficient discharge for the same; and the proceeds to be applied by her in the bringing up and maintenance of" her children. Mackett v. Mackett (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. (Eng.) 49.

e. Gift to one "to use in caring for" another.

A legacy to testator's widow "for her to use as she may see fit in caring for" a person named creates a trust for the use specified, only the time and manner of the expenditure being left to the discretion of the widow. Dexter. v. Evans (1893) 63 Conn. 58, 33 Am. St. Rep. 336, 27 Atl. 308.

1. Gift to one "for the support of" himself (or herself) and children, or other relatives.

No trust for the benefit of the children of testator's nephews and nieces is created by a provision whereby testator directed his testamentary trustees to pay out of the net income of his residuary estate an annuity of $2,000 to a niece during her natural life, "for the support of herself and of her nephews and nieces whom she has now under her care, and of such other persons as she from time to time may wish and request to be members of her family." Harper v. Phelps (1851) 21 Conn. 257.

The provisions of a conveyance in trust for a certain person to permit him "to use, occupy, possess, enjoy, improve, rent, and build upon the said. tracts or lots of land in any manner he may deem best for the support, maintenance, and benefit of himself and his children during his natural life," do not create a trust for the children, such words amounting to a mere expression of motive for the conveyance. Bryan v. Howland (1881) 98 III. 625.

An intention to create a trust, of which his wife was the trustee, for the benefit of herself, her children, and the father of the testator, is manifested by a will in which testator gave his wife all his estate, "to be used by her for her own support and for the maintenance and education of my children," adding: "It is my will that my wife, who is hereby constituted my executrix, shall in her discretion bestow such sums of money on my father from time to time, Thomas J. Summers, in case of his becoming so infirm by age or disease that he shall be unable to support himself. It is my will that, in case of the death of my wife before any of my children above named attain their majority, that whatever of my estate may be left when the youngest child, William Summers, shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years and over and above the education and maintenance of my said children, shall be divided equally among them, share and share alike." Summers v. Higley (1901) 191 III. 193, 60 N. E. 969.

A trust in the income for the benefit of the family of testator's son is created by a will by which testator constituted a trust fund, with directions to pay the income yearly to his son "for the support of himself and his family and the education of his children." Chase v. Chase (1861) 2 Allen (Mass.) 101.

A trust is created by a will in which testator devised all his real estate and the residue of his personal estate to his wife "and to her heirs in fee simple, for the maintenance and support of my said wife and my infant child."

Pratt v. Miller (1888) 23 Neb. 496, 37 N. W. 263.

Under a will by which testator gave his estate to his wife during her lifetime "for the support of herself and children," and provided that in event of her death all his estate should be divided equally between his son and daughter, and further that, in event of the wife's remarriage, she should take one third of the estate, the remaining two thirds to be divided equally between the son and daughter, the widow took in trust for herself and children. Billar v. Loundes (1884) 2 Dem. (N. Y.) 590.

A beneficial interest is given to testator's son George by a will in which testator gave all his estate to his son Logan, "to the support of him and his brother George; that is, that George gets no more than what will support him equal to Logan should he not be extravagant." Carson V. Carson (1841) 36 N. C. (1 Ired. Eq.) 329.

No trust for testator's children is created by a gift to testator's wife of the rents and profits of all his property during her life, "for her support and the support and education of my children under the direction of my executors." Paisley's Appeal (1871) 70 Pa. 153.

No trust is created by a will in which testator devised to his daughter Elizabeth, "for the support of herself and her children," certain property. Cressler's Estate (1894) 161 Pa. 427, 29 Atl. 90, 95.

g. Gift to one "for the support of" another.

A trust is created by a bequest to a daughter of the testator, "for the support of my daughter Caroline," who was insane. Buffington v. Maxam (1886) 140 Mass. 557, 5 N. E. 519.

h. Gift to one "to enable him to" provide for children of himself or another.

No trust in favor of testator's children is created by a will in which he directed the payment to his wife during her natural life, absolutely, of the income from his property, "to enable her to support, educate, and maintain our children. . . My said wife is not to be liable to account in any man

ner or in any court for the use or application of the moneys which she may receive under this subdivision of this 'third' clause, and the same are given to her absolutely to use and apply as she may deem best and proper." Slater v. Slater (1905) 46 Misc. 332, 94 N. Y. Supp. 900, affirmed in (1906) 114 App. Div. 160, 99 N. Y. Supp. 564, which is affirmed in (1907) 188 N. Y. 633, 81 N. E. 1176.

No trust is created by a will in which testator gave one a stated sum "the better to enable him to provide for his younger children." Brown v. Casamajor (1799) 4 Ves. Jr. 498, 31 Eng. Reprint, 255.

No trust is created by a will in which testator gave property "to my brother Arthur Benson, to enable him to assist such of the children of my deceased brother, Francis Benson, as he, the said Arthur Benson, shall find deserving of encouragement," but the words quoted are to be taken in their natural import as indicating the motive for the gift. Benson v. Whittam (1831) 5 Sim. 22, 58 Eng. Reprint, 246.

In Leach v. Leach (1843) 13 Sim. 304, 60 Eng. Reprint, 118, where a testator gave certain property in trust to pay an annuity to his daughter for her separate use for life, remainder to her husband to enable him to maintain his children by her until the youngest attained twenty-one, it was held that the husband was bound to apply the annuity for the maintenance of the children, but that, if he maintained them properly, they would not be entitled to an account against him.

i. Gift to one "for the purpose of" doing some specified thing.

A gift made by the following provision: "I give to the trustees of the Brooklyn Masonic Veterans the sum of $1,000 for the purpose of founding a home midway on Long Island for destitute Masons, their widows, or children," is absolute, the definition by the testator of the purpose to which he desired the gift to be applied being merely precatory. Re Baldwin (1911) 74 Misc. 325, 134 N. Y. Supp. 405.

The absolute legal estate created by a bequest to testator's wife, of all his

negroes, is not qualified by the words, "for the purpose of raising and educating my two sons," to whom he gave the negroes at his wife's death, but the words merely give a reason for the gift and in that way suggest and recommend the duty which was incumbent on his wife. Mason v. Sadler (1860) 59 N. C. (6 Jones, Eq.) 148.

No trust is created by the recital in a deed conveying land to the vestry and wardens of a church, that it was made "for the purpose of aiding in the establishment of a home for indigent widows or orphans or in the promotion of any other charitable or religious objects to which the property may be appropriated" by the grantee. St. James v. Bagley (1905) 138 N. C. 384, 70 L.R.A. 160, 50 S. E. 841.

No trust in favor of the children is created by a will by which testator gave his wife all his estate "for the purpose of raising her children, to have and to hold to her and her heirs forever," the words quoted being construed as assigning the motive for the gift. Seamonds v. Hodge (1892) 36 W. Va. 304, 32 Am. St. Rep. 854, 15 S. E. 156.

j. Gift to one "in order that" he may do a certain thing.

The widow was held to take absolutely, and not as trustee, under a will by which testator left to his wife all his property, "in trust nevertheless for the several uses, intents, and purposes hereinafter mentioned," going on to direct the payment of debts and funeral expenses, giving nominal legacies to those of his children for whom he had provided in his lifetime, and sums of money to each of his unmarried daughters, charging his estate with their payment, and further providing: "It is also my will that my youngest son, Peter Morrin, shall live and reside with his mother, my said beloved wife, and be attentive to her and directed by her, in order that she may, by deed or by her last will and testament, provide for him in such manner as to her may seem most expedient and proper; and I appoint and nominate my said beloved wife, Anne Morrin, my residuary legatee and trus

tee to this my last will and testament in order that she may direct and govern my said children and assist to arrange all matters between them, and, previous to her death-provided always that she does not again marry— that she may dispose of the residue of my property to and amongst my said children and provide for my son Peter as she may think most expedient,"since the words "in order that," as used in the clause with regard to testator's son Peter, do not approach to a precatory trust, and it is to be presumed that they have the same meaning in the subsequent provision making his wife his residuary legatee "in order that," etc. Morrin v. Morrin (1886) Ir. L. R. 19 Eq. 37.

k. Miscellaneous.

No trust in favor of testatrix's daughter is created by a will by which she gave her entire estate to her grandson, to have and to hold to him and to his heirs and assigns, to his and their own proper use, benefit, and behoof forever, with the statement that it was her intention to make no provision for her daughter or granddaughter, as in her judgment they would be more amply provided for by her grandson than they could be by her in her will. Floyd v. Smith (1910) 59 Fla. 485, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 651, 138 Am. St. Rep. 133, 51 So. 537, 21 Ann. Cas. 318.

No trust estate in the property devised for the remainderman is created by a will by which the testator gave the whole of his estate to his wife "during her widowhood, to be as absolutely under her control and management as it now is under my own, being perfectly willing to trust my children to her care and her bounty." Belt v. Gay (1914) 142 Ga. 366, 82 S. E. 1071.

No trust is created by a will in which testator gave to a person named the contents of his bank box, "such as scarf pins and other personal effects, to be by him distributed among my friends as he sees fit," the legatee not being charged with the duty of holding and delivering such effects to any par

ticular person or persons at any particular time. Maginnis's Succession (1925) 158 La. 815, 104 So. 726.

No trust is created in favor of the daughters by a will giving property to testator's wife "for her own use, and to be disposed of at her decease according to the terms of any will that she may leave," and further stating: "She is, of course, to charge herself with the education and support of our daughters so long as they shall remain unmarried." Spooner v. Lovejoy (1871) 108 Mass. 529.

In Knibbs v. Knibbs (1920) 236 Mass. 182, 127 N. E. 885, where testator bequeathed to his wife all his property, "to have and to hold, spend whatever pleases her, after her death whatever may be left leave to my only sister's child . $500. The rest

to be equally divided between our dear children or their heirs . . if in the judgment of my dear wife she deems it best furnish money to put our grandson" through college. It was held that the gift to his sister's child and to his own children with the suggestion for the education of his grandson, in view of the earlier provisions for his wife, did not affect the absolute interest given to her, but were to be interpreted as expressions of a desire and request that his wife would carry out his wishes.

An absolute devise is made by a will in which the testatrix gave her estate "in trust" to a religious society "upon the following terms and conditions and for the following purposes:" To care for her grave and that of her father, "the balance of said income and profit to be used and expended by my said devisee and legatee as it may deem best providing it be used for some worthy Christian and charitable purposes, but I prefer, if possible, that such surplus of profits and income be used to pay upon or help defray the salary or compensation of the minister who may be located and preach in the locality where said graves are located;" it being clear that the terms and conditions annexed to the gift were but an attempted embodiment in the will of the by-laws and practice of the religious corporation to which the be