## Facts

- Ann Cracherode executed a will making several specific gifts and leaving her residuary estate (reported to be about £30,000) to the Bishop of Durham, Shute Barrington.
- The Bishop was named executor and was to take the residue as trustee, with directions to dispose of it for “such objects of benevolence and liberality” as he, “in his own discretion,” most approved.
- The will did not state that the residue had to be applied only to charitable purposes recognized by law; the language was broad enough to allow noncharitable uses.
- William Morice, one of Cracherode’s next of kin, filed a bill in the High Court of Chancery seeking to establish the will but asking the court to declare the residuary trust invalid.
- Morice argued that the trust failed because its “objects” were not identified with sufficient certainty for enforcement and because the wording could not be treated as a charitable trust.
- The case was heard in 1804 by Sir William Grant, Master of the Rolls (later affirmed on appeal by Lord Eldon in 1805).

## Issues

1. Whether a residuary bequest in trust for “such objects of benevolence and liberality” as the trustee chooses is a valid charitable trust.
2. If it is not charitable, whether it can stand as a private trust despite the absence of definite beneficiaries.
3. If the trust is void, whether the residue is undisposed of and therefore results to the testatrix’s next of kin.

## Decision

- The court held the trust was not confined to charitable purposes in the legal sense; “benevolence and liberality” could extend to noncharitable purposes and therefore could not be sustained as a charitable trust.
- The court held the arrangement could not be sustained as a private trust because the objects were too uncertain: there was no identified person or defined class “in whose favour the Court can decree performance.”
- The court rejected the idea that the trustee’s personal discretion could replace judicially enforceable obligations; an “uncontrollable power of disposition” is ownership, not a trust.
- Because the residuary trust failed, the residue was treated as undisposed of and held on a resulting trust for those entitled in default of disposition, namely the next of kin.
- The decision was later affirmed on appeal (1805), but the holding at this stage was that the residuary bequest was void for uncertainty and the residue went to the next of kin.

## Legal Principles

- A trust must be of a kind that a court can control and, if needed, administer; otherwise the arrangement is not a trust.
- Except for charitable trusts, a valid trust requires definite, ascertainable beneficiaries who can enforce the trustee’s duties.
- General purpose language that is not limited to legal charity (such as “benevolence and liberality”) will not be treated as charitable merely because it is morally worthy.
- When a testamentary trust is clearly intended but fails for uncertain objects and is not charitable, the property is treated as undisposed of and results back to the estate for distribution to those entitled by law (here, the next of kin).

## Conclusion

Morice v. The Bishop of Durham held that a residuary gift “for such objects of benevolence and liberality” at the trustee’s discretion was neither a valid charitable trust nor an enforceable private trust because it lacked definite beneficiaries, so the attempted trust failed and the residue resulted to the testatrix’s next of kin.


Morice v. The Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. Jr. 399, 32 Eng. Rep. 656 (1804)