Cited by

E.g., Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , , 38 L. R. A. 669; Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 57 , , .

9 E. g., In re Estate of Little, 143 Minn. 298 , ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , .

Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 57 , , ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , , 38 L. R. A. 669, 65 A. S. R. 559; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; Young-Men’s Christian Assn. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , ; Little v. Universalist Convention, 143 Minn. 298 , : Although there is nothing to prevent following the old method, yet charitable t

26 ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , 71 N.W.

This statute seems to have been considered by this court in only one case, Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , , 38 L. R. A. 669, 65 A. S. R. 546, in which it is said that the statute abrogates the rule against perpetuities and restraints of alienation as to such conveyances.

Whether in that view of the case the designation of the beneficiaries is of a "fluctuating and uncertain" group within the rule of Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , 71 N.W.

But since that time it has been assumed in the cases cited [German Land Assn. v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 260 (331); Little v. Willford, 31 Minn. 173 , ; Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 57 , , ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , ] in support of the rule, that all trusts in both real and personal property were abolished, except *367 as authorized by the statute.

The distinction is clearly illustrated by the case of Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , : 2 The court held in that case that a devise to two individuals (naming them) or the survivor of them, in trust for the use of the Salvation Army (unincorporated) at St.

German Land Assn. v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 260 (331); Little v. Willford, 31 Minn. 173 , ; Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 57 , , ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , ; Shanahan v. Kelly, 88 Minn. 202 , .

a, page 202, the law upon the subject of trusts was reviewed, and it was held that all trusts, including charitable trusts in personal property, are abolished, except as provided in G. S. 1894, c. 43; and that all trusts, with the possible exception of those authorized by subdivision 6 of section 11, in order to be valid, must be definite and certain as to the beneficiary, — citing Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , .

The distinction is clearly illustrated by the case of Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , .

This question was disposed of in Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , .