The statutes involved on this appeal are printed in the margin on pages 411 and 412.1 sThe testator, Mary A. Lott, by her will devised and bequeathed, for the *411benefit of the Free Will Baptist Church in the village of Oakfield, all the residue of her estate, not otherwise disposed of, in the following language:

“Seventh. All the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, I give, devise, and bequeath for the benefit of the Free Will Baptist Church in the village of Oakfield, to wit: I hereby direct that the same shall be converted into money and deposited in the Bank of Oakfield, at Oakfield, Wisconsin, on interest, with instructions to pay one hundred dollars per annum on the minister’s salary. The interest to be added to the principal each year and the donation of one hundred dollars per annum be made on the minister’s salary until the entire sum is exhausted.”

*412The property bequeathed and devised was converted by the trustee into cash, and the fund in trust amounted to some $2,000. Up to the time of the trial of the case the principal remained intact, the interest being sufficient to carry out the trust. The trust was properly executed until the time when the Free Will Baptist Church of Oakfield ceased to exist, after which time the Wisconsin Baptist State Convention applied to the county court to have the residue of said trust fund paid over to it. No question is raised by the appellant as to the constitutionality of ch. 64, Laws of 1907, and we think the statute is valid.

The Wisconsin constitution provides that the common law *413shall remain in force in Wisconsin until changed by the legislature. At the common law, under the English government, the king had power to dispose of charitable trusts where the express purpose of the trust had failed but the general charitable intent remained, and the courts have held that under our system of government the legislature succeeds to the prerogatives of the crown. Mormon Church v. U. S. 136 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 792, 34 Lawy. Ed. 478; Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N. W. 595. This being so, we are here to consider the purposes and intent of the testator as provided in the seventh clause of her will, and the meaning of ch. 64, Laws of 1907, as applied to this situation.

It seems reasonably clear that the testator, in devising and bequeathing certain of her property for the benefit of the Free Will Baptist Church of the village of Oakfield, created a trust whereby the trustee held, for the use and benefit of such church, the property in question. There is nothing in the will which provides for disposition of the property in case of failure of the trust.

Ch. 64, Laws of 1907, provided:

“All property of any kind belonging to, or held in trust for any Baptist church, or Baptist church and society, or Baptist society, organized under the laws of this state, that has become or shall become extinct by death of all its members or otherwise, shall vest in and become the property of the Wisconsin Baptist State Convention.”

And it further declared its intent, to wit:

“It being the intent and purpose of this act, to preserve to the Baptist denomination of this state all property owned by or held in trust, for any such church, or church and society, or society, for religious uses. This act shall not affect re-versionary interests of any person or persons, in said property, or any valid legal liens of creditors thereon.”

From the provisions of the law quoted it is plain that the legislature intended what in plain words it expressed, that is, that “all property of any kind belonging to, or held in trust *414for any Baptist church . . . organized under the laws of this state, that has become or shall become extinct by death of all its members or otherwise, shall vest in and become the property of the Wisconsin Baptist State Convention,” unless it may be said that the heirs of Mary A. Lott have a reversionary interest in said property, within the meaning of such act. No reversionary interest is expressed in the will in favor of such heirs, and if they had any it must be an implied reversionary interest. Nothing appears in the will to indicate any such implied reversion. On the contrary, such statute was in existence when the testator made her will, and she is presumed to have known the law; hence it is reasonable to infer that the testator intended that in case the express trust should fail, the statute would apply and the church to which she was attached would have the benefit of the trust. This would seem to most nearly carry out the will of the testator and the intent of the legislature. It has been held that no implied reversion exists under the law of this state. Maxcy v. Oshkosh, 144 Wis. 238, 128 N. W. 899, 1138.

Considerable discussion is had of the doctrine of cy pres in the briefs of counsel. It is admitted, however, that this court has refused to follow the doctrine in the exercise of its judicial powers. The doctrine as here considered is interesting only in disclosing its origin and the power of the crown which has descended to the legislature.

It follows that the order of the county court must be reversed.

.By the Court. — The order of the county court is reversed, with directions to enter an order according to this opinion.