(Civ. Code, sec. 1317; Estate of Blake, 157 Cal. 458, [ 108 P. 287]; Estate of Henderson, 161 Cal. 357, [ 119 P. 496]; Estate of Spreckels, 162 Cal. 567, [ 119 P. 496].) In Estate of Haines, 150 Cal. 643, [ 89 P. 606], the will contained no words of present gift. A specific part of the income was to be deposited to the credit of the minors "to be equally divided" between them at a future time; yet this court held that there was no obstacle to such an accumulation.
It is true that the testator did not always make use of the terminology which a lawyer would have employed in drafting a will. For example, he uses the word "distributed" in the third of the paragraphs last above quoted where "apportioned" or "devised" would have better expressed his apparent meaning, but [5] while a disclosed intention to create a trust is indispensable it is not essential that such intention be manifested by express terms (25 Cal. Jur. 280, 286; Estate of Haines, 150 Cal. 640 [ 89 P. 606]; In re Shaw's Estate, 198 Cal. 352 [ 246 P. 48]). It is immaterial that the language used is inartificial, ungrammatical and devoid of technical terms (Id., and see, also, Estate of Dunphy, 147 Cal. 95 [ 81 P. 315]), provided the intention is evident from a reasonable construction of the document as a whole ( Estate of Heywood, 148 Cal. 184 [ 82 P. 755, 757]).