## Facts

- Francis Jackson’s will created multiple bequests to a “permanent board of trustees” to pursue broadly stated social-reform purposes.
- One bequest funded publications, speeches, lectures, and other means intended to “create a public sentiment” to end slavery in the United States.
- A second bequest funded assistance “for the benefit of fugitive slaves” who escaped from slaveholding states.
- A third bequest funded efforts to secure passage of laws granting women voting rights, officeholding, and expanded property and civil rights.
- The executor filed a bill in equity seeking instructions on the validity and administration of these bequests.
- The matter also raised questions about (i) whether charitable bequests of indefinite duration violate the rule against perpetuities, (ii) whether broadly worded gifts could be administered lawfully under court supervision, and (iii) whether a separate family gift-over provision was void for remoteness given the actual family circumstances.
- The Attorney General’s participation was implicated because the suit sought instructions concerning charitable bequests.

## Issues

1. Which contested bequests qualify as charitable trusts under Massachusetts law rather than impermissible political or private purposes?
2. Whether charitable trusts of indefinite duration are subject to the common-law rule against perpetuities.
3. Whether a bequest aimed at procuring changes in law (legislation) can be treated as a charity.
4. Whether a broadly worded charitable bequest may be upheld where it can be applied lawfully, and whether a court may require a court-supervised plan limiting administration to lawful means.
5. Whether a private family gift over following life estates is void for remoteness when, in fact, the life tenant dies without surviving children.

## Decision

- The court held that the anti-slavery “public sentiment” bequest was a valid charitable trust (as evaluated at the time, before slavery was abolished).
- The court held that the bequest for the benefit of fugitive slaves was a valid charitable trust because it could be administered through lawful relief (e.g., aid in distress or purchase of asserted ownership claims), consistent with the testator’s intent.
- The court held that the women’s rights bequest, framed as securing passage of laws granting voting and related rights, was not a charity and was invalid as a charitable trust.
- The court reaffirmed that charitable trusts are not within the common-law rule against perpetuities and may be of indefinite duration.
- The court held the challenged private family gift over was not void for remoteness on the actual facts because the relevant child died without surviving children.
- The court indicated the Attorney General should be joined in an executor’s bill for instructions regarding charitable bequests and that the court may require a scheme for lawful administration before directing funds to trustees.

## Legal Principles

- A charitable trust is a gift, consistent with existing law, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons through purposes such as education, religion, relief of suffering, assistance in establishing oneself in life, public works, or otherwise lessening governmental burdens.
- Charitable trusts are not subject to the common-law rule against perpetuities; they may be perpetual and may leave details of application and selection of beneficiaries to trustee discretion subject to judicial supervision.
- A bequest whose purpose is procuring changes in the law is not a charitable purpose.
- If a charitable bequest can be carried out lawfully consistent with the testator’s intent, it will be upheld; where wording could permit unlawful applications and trustees are not a legally established corporation, a court may require a court-supervised scheme limiting administration to lawful means before ordering distribution.
- For private trusts, remoteness is assessed in light of actual events; a gift over is not void for remoteness where the contingency that could have delayed vesting does not occur (e.g., the life tenant dies leaving no surviving children).

## Conclusion

The court sustained broad anti-slavery and fugitive-aid bequests as charitable trusts capable of lawful administration, rejected a bequest aimed at securing legislative change as non-charitable, confirmed that charitable trusts are exempt from the rule against perpetuities, and recognized judicial oversight (with the Attorney General joined) to ensure charitable funds are applied only through lawful means.


Jackson v. Phillips, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 539 (1867)