Olliffe v. Wells, 130 Mass. 221 (1881).

Facts: Testatrix devised the residue of her estate to Rev. Wells (D) 'to distribute same in such manner as in his discretion shall appear best calculated to carry out wishes which I have expressed to him or may express to him. Testatrix's heirs (P) sued, claiming that the devise was invalid, and the residue should be distributed to them. D responded by claiming that Testatrix had intended that the devise be used for charitable purposes, and that he was willing to effect these purposes.

Issue If a will shows the devisee to take legal title only and not the beneficial interest, and the trust is not sufficiently defined by will to take effect, will a court impose a resulting trust on the heirs of the decedent as to the property of the decedent not disposed of by will?

Rule: A residuary devise to a person named “to distribute the same in such manner as in his discretion shall appear best calculated to carry out wishes which I have expressed or may express to him,” and appointing the devisee executor, gives him no beneficial interest therein, the trust being too indefinite to be carried out, and as between the devisee and heirs and next of kin, the equitable interest goes to them by way of resulting trust.

Holding: The Court held that the devisee took no beneficial interest in the devise; that the trust on its face was too indefinite to be carried out; that it could not be established against the heirs or next of kin of the testator by evidence of oral communications made to A. by the testator, whether before or after the execution of the will, showing that the trust was for charitable purposes; but that the heirs or next of kin took by way of resulting trust.

Analysis: It has been held that if a testator devises property to his executors in trusts not defined in the will, but which, as he states in the will, he has communicated to them before the will's execution, the trusts, if for lawful purposes, may be proved by the admission of the executors or by oral evidence and enforced against them. It has also been held that the trusts may be enforced against the heirs or next of kin.
We reject this line of cases. The will on its face shows that the devisee takes the legal title only and not the beneficial interest, and the trust is not sufficiently defined by the will to take effect. Thus, the equitable interest goes, by way of resulting trust, to the heirs as property of the deceased, not disposed of by will. They cannot be deprived of that equitable interest unless signified in those forms that the law makes essential to every testamentary disposition. A trust not sufficiently declared on the face of the will cannot therefore be set up by extrinsic evidence to defeat the rights of the heirs at law.