Cited by

See, e.g., Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 225 , 100 N.W.

Finnegan v. Burt, 225 Minn. 86, 88 , Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 222 , 100 N.W.

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 , .

In Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 222 , , this court said: “In determining whether the subject-matter of the act here in question is embraced in its title, the distinction between a general title to a statute and a restricted one and the rules applicable to each must be observed.

Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , .

Thus, in Monitor Drill Co. v. *154 Moody, 93 Minn. 232 , , that question was squarely presented, and we held that such pleading “may he stricken out on motion as sham or frivolous.” That also was the holding in Bettingen v. Moshier, 180 Minn. 356 , .

the enactment expressly provides that [§ 8090-4]: “Nothing in this act shall apply to any gift, bequest, devise, or trust, made, created, or arising by or under the provisions of the will of any person whose decease occurred before this act takes effect.” Prior to the enactment of this statute (an earlier attempt was declared unconstitutional for defect in title, Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ) in numerous cases we construed gifts to charities as absolute or on condition rather than in trus

559 ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , 100 N.W.

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 trusts are now, and have been, valid in this state since 1927.

It was held in Monitor Drill Co. v. Moody, 93 Minn. 232 , , that a counterclaim could be stricken as sham, but this was only on the theory that the counterclaim was an "answer" within the above quoted provision of the code.

Rice v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 , ; Kedzie v. Town of Ewington, 54 Minn. 116 , ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , .

Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; 25 R C. L. 870.

Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; Megins v. City of Duluth, 97 Minn. 23 , ; Hjelm *223 v. Patterson, 105 Minn. 256 , , 127 A. S. R. 560; 6 Dun-nell, Minn. Dig.

Shanahan v. Kelly, 88 Minn. 202 , ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 221 , ; Bemis v. N. W. Trust Co. 117 Minn. 409, 413 , ; 26 R. C. L. 1189.

To the same effect is Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , 100 N.W.

26 R. C. L. 1372, § 233; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; Mayall v. Mayall, 63 Minn. 511 , ; Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 22 and 57, , , ; 2 Perry, Trusts & Trustees (6th ed.) § 476A, note (a).

As is said in Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 224 , : “An absolute gift is one where not only the legal title, but the beneficial ownership as well, is vested in the donee.

The logic of the decision of Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , , cited by appellants, when applied to this case, is that the last clause in this title should be read in connection with and be restricted by the first; and so read we do not think appellants’ objection of defective title well founded.

It does not give notice that the act is confined to a particular part or phase of the general subject, as did the title of the act considered in Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , , but announces in general terms that it is creating a department of weights and measures.

several grounds of invalidity urged against the trust here involved, we will first consider whether it is invalidated by its perpetuity features, assuming for the time being that the trust property consists entirely of personalty; and as the law is, and has been “from the beginning of the state, that express trusts, except as authorized or modified by statute,” are prohibited (Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 223 , ), we must, in determining the above question, look exclusively to our statutes.

Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 222 , ; Megins v. Duluth, 97 Minn. 23, 26 , ; Hjelm v. Patterson, 105 Minn. 256 , , 127 Am.

B. L. 1905, §§ 3204 — 3249; Shanahan v. Kelly, 88 Minn. 202 , ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; Rong v. Haller, 109 Minn. 191 , , 26 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Megins v. City of Duluth, 97 Minn. 23 , ; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Porter, 53 Minn. 279 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.