HEEBMANS V. SOSHAIiTZ. 569 �trustee of an express trust, and; vestJngthe legal title in him, Gn the other hand,the validity of tllis instrument is aAtaaked on the ground that, if it bas any foree whatever, itoan pnly be considered a power in .trust, ;<ireated for thei.beneut of the donor during hislife; that as it.proyides for the disposition of the residue of the property after his death, it could, on thje happening of that event, only take «ffeot as a willi that no valid trust is created either under !the iiew' Yprji or, Wiscon- sin statute of uses and trusts; that; whateveir t^rust -c^aa de- clared, lapsed on* the death of Fellowa^ and fdid not snpvive him ; that the granting clause in the eonveyance, by whicht the fee is attempted to be conveyed, if repugnant to the other parts of the deed; and i theref ors ; that the plaintiff: has np sueh interest or title as enables him; tioi.maintainthis, action. The statute of Wiseonsin in force wlieu this !eQn:?eyanee ;wa8 executed, and now kno.wn fls fiectiou, 2081; ,of the preseni Eevision, provided as follows : ^ - �" Express trusts inay be created for an/Ot'either Of 'thefollowing puif poses: {!) Tosell landsfor thebenefltof;ereditors; (SJ tOsell.mcptga^e-, or lease lands for the beneflt of , ^e^atees, or for the purpose of saitisfying any charge thereon; (3) to receive the feats and ptonts of lanas, ana apply them to the use of any persiah duniijg the iife of auch peraon, or foi: any shorter ternie siibject to the iules ptescribed in the last preceding chapter ; (4) to receive the rents and profits of lands, and to accjunul^te the same, for the beneflt of any married woman, or for any of the purposes and within the limita prescribed in the preceding chapter ; (5) for the beneficiai interestB of any per*)n ox personsi yThen such trust "ia Ailly expressed and clearly deflned upon the face of the instrument creating it, subject to the limitations as to time prescribed in this title. " �It is understood that this is a literal copy of the New York statute, except that the fifth subdivision has been added in this state, and is not found in the^ statute of New York. The instrument of eonveyance in question: has received the atten- tion of the courts of New York in litigation arising thereon in that state. Heermans v. Rohertson, oi.'N. Yi 332; Fellows v. Heermans, e Lansing, 230; 13 abb. Pr. Eep. (N. S.) 1.; . �In Heermans v. Robertson, supra, the f aot was, that af ter the execution of the trust eonveyance from Fellows to Heer- mans, Fellows sold to Eobertson a pprtion of the lands em- ��� �
