## Facts

- Ann Cracherode executed a will giving specific and pecuniary legacies and leaving the residuary estate (about £30,000) to the Bishop of Durham.
- The residuary clause gave the Bishop the residue “upon trust” to dispose of it to “such objects of benevolence and liberality” as he, in his discretion, approved.
- The will did not limit the residue to legally recognized charitable purposes; the language was broad enough to include non-charitable uses.
- William Morice, as next of kin, challenged the residuary disposition as an invalid trust and sought a resulting trust of the residue for the next of kin.
- The Master of the Rolls held the trust invalid and ordered the residue to the next of kin; the Bishop appealed to the Lord Chancellor.

## Issues

1. Whether the residuary clause created a trust rather than an absolute beneficial gift or mere power in the Bishop.
2. Whether the clause could be sustained as a charitable trust despite the use of the terms “benevolence and liberality.”
3. If non-charitable, whether the trust failed for uncertainty of objects because it identified no definite beneficiaries capable of enforcing it.
4. If the trust failed, whether the residue passed beneficially to the Bishop or resulted to the testatrix’s next of kin.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the decree below and dismissed the Bishop’s appeal.
- The clause was construed as intending a trust obligation, not an absolute beneficial gift to the Bishop.
- The trust could not be upheld as charitable because “benevolence and liberality” extended beyond legal charity and could include non-charitable purposes.
- As a non-charitable trust, it was void for uncertainty of objects because there were no definite beneficiaries in whose favor the court could decree performance.
- The residue was beneficially undisposed of and therefore resulted to the testatrix’s next of kin.

## Legal Principles

- A valid private (non-charitable) trust requires definite, ascertainable beneficiaries (or a definite object) capable of enforcing the trust in court.
- Equity will not recognize a trust that grants an “uncontrollable” discretion to apply property to indefinite purposes; such a discretion is treated as inconsistent with the court’s supervisory control over trusts.
- Charitable trusts are exceptional: they may be framed in general terms and enforced through the court’s jurisdiction even without definite individual beneficiaries.
- When a settlor/testator clearly intends to create a trust but the trust fails (including for uncertainty of objects), the beneficial interest results back to the settlor’s estate; in a testamentary case, it passes to those entitled in default of an effective disposition (here, the next of kin).

## Conclusion

A residuary bequest on trust to apply property to unspecified “objects of benevolence and liberality” is not saved as charitable and, lacking definite beneficiaries, is void for uncertainty; the residue therefore passes on resulting trust to the testatrix’s next of kin rather than to the trustee-beneficiary.


Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 10 Ves. Jr. 522, 32 Eng. Rep. 947 (Ch. 1805)