State ex Rel. v. Toney

1 Citing case

  1. Estate of Henderson

    17 Cal.2d 853 (Cal. 1941)   Cited 46 times

    Thus gifts and trusts to eleemosynary institutions whose benefits are restricted to members in a particular organization have been held charitable. ( Estate of Halm, 196 Cal. 778 [ 239 P. 307]; Estate of Bailey, 19 Cal.App.2d 135 [ 65 P.2d 102]; Spiller v. Maude, 32 Ch. D. 158 (1881); Pease v. Pattinson, 32 Ch. D. 154 (1886); In re Buck, 2 Ch. 727 (1896); In re Lacy, 2 Ch. 149 (1899); City of Indianapolis v. Grand Master, 25 Ind. 518; Duke v. Fuller, 9 N.H. 536 [32 Am. Dec. 392]; Morrow v. Smith ( Re Wilson), supra; MostWorshipful Grand Lodge v. Board of Review, 281 Ill. 480 [117 N.E. 1016]; Roberts v. Corson, 79 N.H. 215 [ 107 A. 625]; State v. Toney, 141 Or. 406 [ 17 P.2d 1105]; MasonicEducation and Charity Trust v. City of Boston, 201 Mass. 320 [87 N.E. 602]; City of Petersburg v. Petersburg BenevolentMechanics' Assn., 78 Va. 431; De la Pole v. Broughton,supra; Scott on Trusts, vol. 2, pp. 2022-2028; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, vol. 2, pp. 1106, 1107; Rest., Trusts, 369.) Gifts and trusts designed to aid the poor, the aged, and the unfortunate have been sustained as charitable although the beneficiaries are limited to the widows and orphans of the deceased members of particular organizations, including fraternal orders.