APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 319 



the purchase of land for charitable 

 uses. The deed of trust appointed 

 the mayor, burgesses, and com- 

 monalty of Bristol to act as 

 trustees ; and directed them to 

 lay out the money in the pur- 

 chase of lands, of which the 

 yearly rent should amount to six 

 score pounds or more. The 

 revenue of this land was to be 

 laid out in the following manner ; 

 During the first ten years after 

 the purchase, 100/. per annum 

 were to be given to the city of 

 Bristol, for the maintenance of 

 poor apprentices; and then 24' 

 other cities, specified in the deed, 

 were to receive in succession lOil. 

 each, for one year. At the end 

 of every 34 years the same rota- 

 tion was to commence, Bristol 

 receiving 100/. for ]0}'ears, and 

 each of the other cities 1 04/. for 

 one year. No provision was 

 made in the deed for the applica- 

 tion of the surplus which would 

 thus remain, when the 100/. or 

 104/. were deducted from the 

 annual rent of 120/. The ques- 

 tion at issue was, whether this 

 surplus should be appropriated 

 by the Corporation of Bristol to 

 their own benefit, or should be 

 given to the charity. The case 

 had been brought before the 

 court, by application from the 

 Attorney General, and by com- 

 plaint from the president and 

 scholars of St. John's College. 

 The other party had demurred, 

 and the demurrer now came to 

 be argued. 



Mr. Wetherell argued at great 

 length for the application. He 

 contended that as the corporation 

 were not purchasers for them- 

 selves, but for the charity, they 

 rould not be entitled to the 

 § 



surplus. In the case of wills, 

 executors are not to appropriate 

 a surplus ; but where the rent 

 afterwards exceeds the suna 

 directed by the testator, applica- 

 tion is to be made to the court 

 for direction. Trustees of charity 

 are in the same predicament as 

 executors of a will. Beneficial 

 rights are not to arise from 

 fiducial duties. Here were 10/. 

 the application of which was not 

 directed, but it appeared from the 

 tenor of the deed that the donor 

 intended this surplus to guard 

 against casualties. There was 

 no reason why it should be given 

 to the trustees, although it was 

 not otherwise disposed of. The 

 universal rule of law, which 

 denies to a trustee any beneficial 

 title, except what is specifically 

 stated, decides that the silence of 

 the donor, with regard to this 

 surplus, destroys the claim of the 

 corporation. This deed was pre- 

 pared by a declaration of trust. 

 It was not a covenant, as had 

 been alleged. The corporation 

 were therefore in the same case 

 as all other trustees. The learned 

 Counsel cited several cases, in 

 which he contended that the 

 decisions of the court destroyed 

 the right of the corporation. 



Mr. Taunton followed on the 

 same side. It would be agreed 

 on all hands that this question 

 was to be decided by a reference 

 to the intention of the donor. 

 The deed of trust appointed 

 " that the six score pounds 

 arising from such lands and 

 tenements are to be applied by 

 said Mayor, Burgesses, and Com- 

 monalty, in manner as afterwards 

 stated, and to no other uses, in- 

 tents, and purposes." Here is an 



express 



