I
IRELAND v. GEBAGHTY. 41
paper, may be taken, in some respects, to be a letter of more minute
direction as to the manner in which the bishop was to execute the
trust for the benefit of the child, and, ina certain contingency, for
his wife. He goes more into the details of how he would have the
trust executed. What should be done with the estate in the event of ·
the death of the child was a matter which he seems to have
· fully settled_ from the time the declaration of trust was signed, ·
` and is nowhere changed, nor is any intent to change it manifested.
What he directed was that, in the event of the death of the child
leaving no issue, the property was to be held by Bishop Ireland "for
the purpose of providing an agricultural home for poor boys, in con-·
nection with an industrial school." This seems to me as definite as
most donors, contemplating the founding of a charity, would consider
necessary, and as definite and explicit as is necessary to point out
the charitable use to which the property is to be applied lbyithe
trustee. It seems to me that a fair- test as to whether this trust is
stated with suiiicient certainty or not is to inquire whether, if Bishop
Ireland should neglect or refuse to execute this trust in accordance K
with the directions of the grantor, there is sufficient certainty in the
terms of the declaration of trust to enable a court of equity to take
possession of the trust through its own trustee, or receiver, and exe- 4
cute the trust and carry out the wishes and intentions of the donor.
The direction is to provide an agricultural home for poor boys. It
seems to me that such a direction would be clearly understood by
any court of equity having jurisdiction of such matters; that such
court could, without diliiculty, see to it that the trustee which it”
should appoint should carry out the purpose thus clearly manifested.
I am, therefore, of opinion that this trust cannot be defeated by
reason of any uncertainty as to its object, or the purposes of the
donor. »
But it is urged that this trust never became fully created, because
the decd to Bishop Ireland was not recorded during Keegan’s life, -
and very shortly after the securities were forwarded to the bishop,
he returned a portion of them to Keegan, who collected and rein-
vested and expended a portion of them in the exercise of his own judg-
ment, and to some extent in accordance with the arrangements he had
previously made; and that, shortly after the death of Mrs. Keegan, ,
Bishop Ireland returned to Keegan, at his request, at Chicago, the box of '
securities, and that Keegan retained possession of those securities from
that time until his death, thereby depriving the transaction of the
character of a donation inter vivcs, or a completed gift during the life