
    *Lessee of Bryant, Thornhill, and others v. Alexander McCandless.
    Dedications of land for public or charitable uses are good without a donee to take title, and in such cases, a trustee may be appointed by the legisature.
    This was a suit in ejectment in Licking county, in which a verdict for the plaintiff was taken, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following proved facts:
    In 1804, one hundred and nine persons, residing in Connecticut, associated themselves together under the name of the New England Licking Land Company, and purchased a tract of the United States military land, lying in Licking county, to be occupied and partitioned after the rules prescribed in the articles of association. In 1806, partition was made among them by deed, signed by the members of the company, in which sundry tracts of land are appropriated to public objects. Among these dedicated lands, the tract in controversy is described as follows: “Fifty acres from the southeast corner of section 2, township 4, range 13, which” (with others) “are'given by said proprietors, to be a perpetual fund for the support of the ministration of the gospel on the premises of the company, the avails to be equally divided among the ecclesiastical societies thereon, in proportion to their ratios of taxes, which is the only use for which said land is designed by said donors.” Ho trustee was created by this deed. In 1834, the plaintiffs, by an act of the legislature of this state, 32 Ohio L. L. ,223, are appointed trustees “ to take charge ” of these lands, and are authorized, after giving bonds for the faithful discharge of their duties, “to take possession and rent or soil it,” for the use of the inhabitants.
    In January, 1835, forty-six persons, members or heirs of members of that association, in which after reciting the appropriation, the want of trustees, and the act of the legislature appointing the plaintiffs, they convey to them all their right in the land for the purpose of carrying into effect the original use, with power to rent or sell.for that purpose.
    The defendants show no title. The plaintiffs gave no bond as required in the act, until since the commencement of this suit. They are entitled to judgment, if these facts show they hold the legal title.
    Thrall, for plaintiff.
   *Judge Lane

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is the received and settled law that a dedication for public, pious, or charitable uses requires no donee to give it effect. 6 Ohio, 308; 7 Ohio, 221. It is an equally well-settled principle in chancery, that a trust shall never fail for want of a trustee, but that the necessary appointment may be made by the court. 7 Ohio, 221.

Since then, the original use is a good one; since a court of chancery may appoint a trustee, if necessary, no objection presents itself to the exercise of the same power by the legislature, in a proper case to secure the object to which the land was devoted, especially when the title is questioned by a stranger.

It is objected that the trustees acquired no authority until the requisite bonds were given. We think it not necessary to decide this question, since if the act had not passed the legal estate to the trustees, the fee remained in the donors and their heirs subject to the trust, and has been conveyed by a part of them by deed to these plaintiffs to attain the ends contemplated in the statute, by which they have received a sufficient legal estate in at least a part of the premises, to recover possession against a trespasser.

Judgment for plaintiff on the verdict.  