40 rmnmnn. nnromnn.
erty for the benefit of tl1is child. I therefore feel impelled to the con-
clusion, from the testimony in this case, that the deed was never
delivered, and has never become an operative grant to this child; and
therefore that no title to the lands mentioned in this deed was cast
upon the cross-complainant, Peter Geraghty, by descent as the sole
heir at law of the child.
As to the allegation of undue influence, I can find no evidence in
the record that Bishop Ireland ever exerted, or attempted to exert,
any influence to induce Mr. Keegan to convey his property to him,
or make him a trustee. On the contrary, whatever evidence there is
bearing on that question tends to show that Bishop Ireland accepted
this trust reluctantly, and only out of consideration for his long friend- _
ship towards Mr. Keegan, and at Mr. Ke_egan’s earnest andpressing
instance and request. That Keegan was an earnest and zealous Catho-
lic, and that his relations to Bishop Ireland for many years had been
especially friendly and confidential, are facts amply show11 from the
proofs in the case. But it nowhere appears that the bishop advised
» this disposition of Keegan’s property, or sought the oihce of trustee.
As to the objection to the validity of the trust upon the ground
that it is not so sufficiently defined that it can be executed with cer-
tainty, itseems to me very clear that Keegan’s Hrst and leading pur-
pose was to make provision for his child. He had, by his industry and
close economy, accumulated quite an estate for a man in his position
of life, valued, as he deemed it, about the time this transaction took
place, at from $75,000 to $80,000. He had unfortunate differences
with his wife. He felt that his health was rapidly declining, and was
anxious to make some sure disposition of the property by which it
could be preserved for the benefit of his child; this seems to have
been his nrst and controlling thought. Running throughout the
whole web of this record is the constant expression of his anxiety to
' secure his property for the benefit of this child. At times, he seems
to have made some provision for his wife; but the papers making
such provision were destroyed, and whatever arrangement of that
kind was contemplated was never completed, so that finally, when,
after consultation with his attorney, he came to a dehnite conclusion,
it was to convey all his real and personal property to the bishop, in
trust for the child; and the document which, undoubtedly, was in-
tended to define that trust clearly, as the guide for the trustee in the
subsequent disposition of the estate, was the paper prepared simulta-
neously with the deed by the attorney, and dated February 4, 1879.
P The subsequent letter of April 18th, indorsed upon the back of this