xnmmun v. emucnrr. 89
not give it into her hands, but kept it himself. This deed was never
recorded, and was found among Keegan’s papers after his death.
The questions raised uponthese leading facts are these :· V
(1) Geraghty, the cross-complainant, insists that the deed from Keegan and
wife to the infant child, madein February, 1876, is an operative conveyance, ‘
and vested the fee-simple to the lands therein described in the child, andlthat
he, as the sole heir at law of the child, is entitled to hold the property, and to
have the conveyance from Keegan to Bishop Ireland set asideasa cloud upon
his title to the property covered _by the deed to the child. (2) That the con-
veyance of the real and personal property to Bishop Ireland was obtained by
reason of the undue influence of Bishop Ireland upon themind of Keegan.
(3) Thatthe object of the trust in Bishop Ireland is left so obscure, uncer-
tain. and ill-defined as   render such trust void and inoperative, and makeit
impossible to uphold orexecute it as a trust to a charitable use. ‘ (4) It is in-
sisted that the trust was never so far completed as to make it at valid trust in
Bishop Ireland for the purposes designated in the declaration 0f trust of Feb-
'ruary 4, 1879. , ` _ ry I . , A , _ ·
As to the deed from Keegan andwife tothe child`,‘the only question
is whether it can be treated as ever havinggbecome an- operative deed.
It never was delivered to the grantee, and, considering the immature
age of the grantee, it was, perhaps, impossible to have made such a
_delivery, and unnecessary that it should have been so made; but there
is no doubt that the grantor in such a deed should do some act mani-
festing an intention to deliver the deed and make it effective. The
testimony does not disclose the motives which ledwthese parents, so
soon after the birth-of this child, to unite in a conveyance of this
character. We only know from the proof that such · a paper was
signed and acknowledged by them. It was never recorded or published, ‘
in any way, by either of the parents, or ever after, alluded to in
such way as to showithat they, or either of them, considered it a con-
summated transaction. Whether the deed was made at the instance
or request of the mother, and to please her, or whether it wasa part I
of some inchoate plan or purpose of one or both of these parents, which A
was subsequently abandoned, wedo not know. We do know this,
however, that Keegan was a manof affairs, well acquaintedwith the
forms of procedure requisite to make a valid cbnveyance of real
estate; that he prepared most of his own deeds andbusiness pape1·s;
and this fact, coupled with his retention of the deed without record-
ing it, is quite conclusive evidence, to my mind, that he never in- ·
tended it to become operative, especially when you supplement this A
fact with the manner in which he subsequently dealt with this prop-
erty, and the disposition which he subsequently made of all his prop-