Merrimon, C. J.

after stating the case: The defendant has ample power and authority and it is capable in all pertinent respects to take, receive, have, own and possess property, both real and personal, to be used for, applied and devoted to the purposes for which it is created as the donors thereof may direct by will or otherwise. The Constitution, Art. 9, §6; The Code §§2610, 2630.

It was therefore competent for the testatrix named, to make the bequest mentioned to the defendant for the particular purpose specified in connection therewith. The defendant has and holds the fund charged with a trust for that *28 purpose, and not for its general business purposes. The fund cannot be applied or made subject to the payment of its debts, whether the same be reduced to judgment or not. The defendant is charged with it only for the purpose to which the donor devoted it.

When the will of the testatrix was established by the proper orders and judgment of the Court, the defendant became entitled to have the fund bequeathed therein to it, not by virtue of any compromise, as suggested by the plaintiff, but by virtue of the will. Neither the defendant nor the Court had power to change the nature or purpose of the bequest. The Court had authority, in a proper ease, to determine what it was, give effect to it and enforce the trust provided by it, but it could not change the intent and purpose of the testratrix. That the defendant failed for any cause to get all the fund bequeathed to it, could not change the nature or purpose of so much of it as it did receive. It may well be that it had the power, with the sanction of the Court, to make a compromise as to litigation about the will, but it could not change its provisions, or the intent and purpose of the testratrix. These must remain and have effect.

Affirmed.