collection of numerous authorities. Where a stream changes its course by reason of a freshet so as to cut off a point of the property of the landowner and leave it beyond the thread of the stream, the ownership will not be changed. Sweatman v. Holbrook, Ky. (38 S. W. Rep. 691). Low water mark on the shore of a lake, as a boundary, is the line or level at which the waters of a lake should stand when free from disturbing causes; where one of the boundaries in a deed is in fact, substantially coincident with the shore of the lake at low water mark, then the fact that no mention is made of the lake as a boundary, will not overcome the presumption of the intent to convey to its low water mark, unless a contrary intention is manifest from the language of the deed. Slauson v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 94 Wis. 642 (69 N. W. Rep. 990). Cal. Stat. 1852, p. 180; Stat. 1861, pp. 384, 386; Stat. 1862, p. 337; Stat. 1868, p. 222, construed and applied-exhaustive consideration of the boundary of the town of Oakland, Cal., and construction of grant of riparian lands. City of Oakland v. Oakland Water-Front Co., 118 Cal. 160 (50 Pac. Rep. 277).

Sec. 102. Streams as--Grants by United States--Title to islands. Grants by the United States for its public lands bounded on streams and other water courses, made without reservation or restriction, are to be construed as to their effect, according to the law of the state in which the land lies. NePee-Nauk Club v. Wilson, 96 Wis. 290 (71 N. W. Rep. 661); White v. Leovy, 49 La. 1660 (22 So. Rep. 931). Citing, Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371 (11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 801, 838). Each state determines for itself to what extent it will exercise its prerogative over such streams and bodies of In Wisconsin it is held that grants by the United States, of lands bounded by a meandered lake or other permanent body of water, convey title only to the natural shore of the body of water, while the title to the land which is under the water is in the state. Ne-Pee-Nauk Club v. Wilson, 96 Wis. 290 (71 N. W. Rep. 661). Grants by the government are to be construed according to the common law unless some act has been done by the government to qualify or exclude that construction, and all grants by the government having their boundaries upon streams not navigable by the common

water.

law, entitle the grantee to all islands lying between the main land and the center of the thread of the current. President of Kaskaskia v. McClure, 167 Ill. 23 (47 N. E. Rep. 72). A patent from the government of land bounded on one side by a meandered stream containing an island, which is not indicated on the plats of the survey or included in the computation of the quantity of land patented, does not pass title to the island to the patentee where subsequently the government has caused the island to be surveyed and patented it to another. The patent of the first patentee extends only to the middle thread of the channel of the river running next to his land. Steinbuchel v. Lane, 59 Kan. 7 (51 Pac. Rep. 886).

Sec. 103. Monuments, courses and distances-Surveyor's stakes. Monuments control courses and distances. Simpkins Adm'r v. Wells, Ky. (42 S. W. Rep. 348). Course and distance control where a monument cannot be identified; and where the evidence as to the identity is conflicting, the question is for the jury. Deaver v. Jones, 119 N. C. 598 (26 S. E. Rep. 156). Where a deed describes property conveyed by reference to fixed monuments and refers to it as being the same property conveyed by another deed, the description by monuments prevails if there is a conflict. Stark v. Spalding, Ky. (39 S. W. Rep. 234). Where a deed calls to adjoin certain or adjacent surrounding tracts it is the same as to say, to go to and run with the lines of such tracts. O'Dell v. Swaggerty, Tenn. (42 S. W. Rep. 175). Where a deed gives a boundary by land of another the true line of the ownership of the adjoining land is the monument; and it matters not whether the deed of the land referred to is recorded or not. Smith v. Sweat, 90 Me. 528 (38 Atl. Rep. 554). Where land is sold bordering on a highway the thread or center line of the highway is presumed to be the boundary of such land. Carpenter v. Buckman, Ky. (41 S. W. Rep. 579). Where monuments established by a government survey cannot be found and there is a controversy as to the location of the corner or corners, then courses, distances and area, as given by the field notes of the United States survey, will control in ascertaining lost corners. Carter v. Hornback, 139 Mo. 238 (40 S. W. Rep. 893). In deter

mining the boundary of a street, in the absence of any original monuments which can be ascertained, the location and occupancy of lots in immediate blocks and the lines and corners of streets and blocks thereby established, as indicated by old fences, old buildings, and the streets as so laid out and used for many years, and stakes and monuments established by former surveyors, are competent evidence to prove the actual location. City of Madison v. Mayers, 97 Wis. 399 (73 N. W. Rep. 43; 65 Am. St. Rep. 127; 40 L. R. A. 635). Where a boundary line which is to connect with a third line is described as running to a certain angle from a street the angle will control over a mere estimate of the length of the proposed line. Iverson v. Swan, 169 Mass. 582 (48 N. E. Rep. 282).

Where an owner of land upon a proposed adjacent stree: who has a boundary line of the street located by a surveyor who sets stakes showing such location, points out, sells and conveys lots in reference to such stakes the purchasers take their title in accordance with such boundary line, and are not affected by a plat of the lots subsequently made by such owner fixing a different boundary within the original line. Gross' Ill. Stat. 1871, p. 102, applied. City of Joliet v. Werner, 166 Ill. 34 (46 N. E. Rep. 780). In determining the boundaries of a city lot the lines run on the ground and the stakes set by the surveyor control over lines marked on a plat. City of Decatur v. Niedermeyer, 168 Ill. 68 (48 N. E. Rep. 72). The court say: "As has been repeatedly held by this court, the true boundary lines of a city lot are where they are actually marked by the monuments placed by the surveyor to indicate where they are to be found, and the most satisfactory evidence of the place where the lines were located is afforded by the original stakes. The monuments must necessarily control the field notes and maps of the survey, as well as courses, distances, and quantity. These monuments are facts. The field notes and plats are but descriptions which serve to assist in ascertaining facts."

CHARITABLE USES.

EPITOME OF CASES.

Sec. 104 Conveyances for-Who may take-Definiteness required. A charitable devise may be to an unincorporated association; and in such case the individuals composing it who may be identified by the evidence,take as natural persons. Dye v. Beaver Creek Church, 48 S. C. 444 (26 S. E. Rep. 717; 59 Am. St. Rep. 724). Citing, Bates v. Taylor, 28 S. C. 476 (6 S. E. Rep. 327). Where a statute (Wis. Rev. Stat., §§ 931, 1499) gives a city power to establish a public library and reading room and charges it with the relief and support of its resident poor, it has power to accept land devised to it for establishing and maintaining a public library and for establishing a home for the aged and poor. In such a case the devise for library purposes is not invalidated by the fact that it is coupled with a devise to maintain a business men's club room, which the city has no power to do, where the latter devise is a mere accessory to the principal devise for library purposes. Beurhaus v. City of Watertown, 94 Wis. 617 (69 N. W. Rep. 986). An unincorporated society, or a voluntary association, like a religious society or denomination is capable of taking as a beneficiary in a trust. White v. Rice, 112 Mich. 403 (70 N. W. Rep. 1024). Under Minn. Gen. Stat., § 4274, it is held that a devise to certain trustees for the benefit of a certain branch of the Salvation Army, as such, is invalid on account of the indefiniteness of the beneficiary; but applying §§ 3022, 3027, 3048, authorizing religious societies to incorporate and hold property, such branch of the Salvation Army may incorporate, and if it does so within a reasonable time, the devise will vest in such corporation and be upheld. Buck, J., dissenting. Dickinson v. Fitterling, 69 Minn. 162 (71 N. W. Rep. 1030). A bequest to certain named trustees "for the benefit of the New Jerusalem Church (Swedenborgian) as they shall deem best," was held void for uncertainty. Fifield

v. Van Wyck's Ex'r, 94 Va. 557 (27 S. E. Rep. 446; 64 Am. St. Rep. 745). A devise to a church "for poor children for their tuition," is held not void as being uncertain as to the objects and beneficiaries of the use. Dye v. Beaver Creek Church, 48 S. C. 444 (26 S. E. Rep. 717; 59 Am. St. Rep. 724). A charitable bequest designates the beneficiaries with sufficient definiteness where it is made to trustees "for the benefit of the worthy poor people of the town of P. as may be in needy and necessitous circumstances and in any misfortune; always excluding from assistance or aid the criminal class or the habitually intemperate, indolent and lazy; but to all the worthy poor people of said town." In re Strong's Appeal 68 Conn. 527 (37 Atl. Rep. 395). Particular charitable bequest held void on account of the uncertainty of the beneficiaries. Pack v. Shanklin, 43 W. Va. 304 (27 S. E. Rep. 389).

Sec. 105. Conveyances for-Validity-Perpetuities. A bequest for the maintenance of free public schools is a valid charity, although a system of public schools is maintained by the state. In re John's Will, 30 Or. 494 (47 Pac. Rep. 341; 36 L. R. A. 242). Citing, Green v. Blackwell, N. J. Eq.

(35 Atl. Rep. 375). A bequest for the erection of a monument in honor of Pennsylvania soldiers is a valid charity. In re Smith's Estate, 181 Pa. St. 109 (37 Atl. Rep. 114). A bequest to trustees for the purpose of purchasing a lot and building a chapel in Carndrine, Ireland, "to be forever used for purposes of public worship under the auspices of the Roman Catholic church," is a gift for a charitable use; and the fact that the charity would be administered in a foreign country does not, of itself, render the gift void, where there is nothing to show that it would not be a good public charity by the law of Ireland. Teele v. Bishop of Derry, 168 Mass. 341 (47 N. E. Rep. 422; 60 Am. St. Rep. 401; 38 L. R. A. 629). The bequest of a certain sum to a Catholic bishop, to be used and applied for masses for the repose of souls of certain persons specified is invalid, for the reason that there is no beneficiary who may enforce performance of the trust. McHugh v. Mc Cole, 97 Wis. 166 (72 N. W. Rep. 631; 65 Am. St. Rep. 106; 40 L. R. A. 724). A devise of land, the in