Definition
A phrase used in testamentary instruments — wills and trust documents — expressing the testator's confidence or expectation that a named person will carry out a stated purpose. When a testator writes "not doubting that my daughter will provide for my son," the phrase signals an expectation directed at the recipient of property. Whether that expectation creates a legally enforceable trust, or merely expresses a moral wish with no binding effect, is the central legal question the phrase raises.
The legal significance of "not doubting" lies in the law of precatory words: language that requests, hopes, desires, or expresses confidence rather than commands. Courts have held that "not doubting" can be sufficient to raise a trust — meaning it can cross the line from unenforceable sentiment to binding obligation — but only when two additional conditions are met: the subject matter of the trust (the property) is sufficiently certain, and the object of the trust (the beneficiary or purpose) is sufficiently certain. Without certainty on both counts, the phrase remains precatory and imposes no enforceable duty.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Not doubting" is an ordinary English construction meaning having no uncertainty or reservations about something. It expresses confidence or belief.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To doubt is to waver in opinion or judgment; to be uncertain. "Not doubting" therefore carries its natural meaning of being free from uncertainty or hesitation.
The gap between common and legal meaning is consequential. In ordinary speech, "not doubting" is purely expressive — it describes a speaker's mental state. In testamentary law, the same phrase may do legal work: depending on context, it can create a fiduciary obligation binding on the person named. A researcher reading a will who treats "not doubting" as mere personal sentiment may miss an operative trust.
---
Common Confusion
"Not doubting" belongs to the contested class of precatory words — language that sits on the boundary between a command and a wish. It is frequently analyzed alongside "trusting," "confident that," "hoping," "desiring," and "requesting." The confusion matters because courts have not treated all precatory phrases identically. Some courts have been more willing to enforce trust obligations from "not doubting" than from softer expressions like "hoping." Researchers should not assume that decisions on one precatory phrase control outcomes for another. The phrase must be analyzed within the full context of the instrument, not in isolation.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Research involving "not doubting" in historical legal sources almost always arises in the context of will construction disputes. The core question — did the testator intend to impose a binding trust or merely express a moral expectation? — has been litigated across centuries and jurisdictions, and the answer has shifted over time. Nineteenth-century courts were sometimes more willing to find enforceable trusts from precatory language than modern courts, which generally require clearer evidence of mandatory intent.
Bouvier cites a Kentucky case from 1878 for the proposition that "not doubting" can raise a trust when subject and object are certain. Researchers working in other jurisdictions should not assume this rule transfers uniformly. Some jurisdictions treat precatory words with considerable skepticism; others apply a contextual analysis that looks to the whole instrument.
A critical research trap: when reading older equity cases, the presence of "not doubting" in a will does not tell you whether the court found a trust — you must read the full opinion. Courts applying the same phrase have reached opposite results based on surrounding language and the nature of the property involved. Corpus searches on this phrase should be filtered by jurisdiction and date, and results should always be checked for how the court resolved the certainty-of-subject and certainty-of-object questions.
This phrase also surfaces occasionally in non-testamentary instruments — settlements, deeds of gift, and family arrangements — where the same trust-creation analysis applies.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary addresses "not doubting" specifically in the context of wills, stating that the phrase is sufficient to raise a trust where subject and object are sufficiently certain, citing a Kentucky authority. Bouvier's treatment is brief but accurate as a statement of the majority rule in American equity practice at the time of the dictionary's composition.
What Bouvier does not address: the evolution of judicial attitudes toward precatory language in the twentieth century, which moved toward requiring clearer mandatory intent before imposing a trust. Bouvier also does not flag the distinction between "not doubting" as used in a will directing a devisee to act for a third party (classic precatory trust territory) versus its use in other instruments. Researchers relying solely on Bouvier for this term will have a sound starting point but an incomplete picture of how modern courts approach the question.
No other historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus include a dedicated entry for this phrase.
---
Jurisdictional Note
American courts have divided on how readily precatory words create enforceable trusts. The Restatement (Third) of Trusts and the general modern trend require that intent to create a trust be established with reasonable certainty; "not doubting," standing alone, may not satisfy that standard in jurisdictions following the modern approach. English equity practice historically was somewhat more permissive. Research on this term must be anchored to the specific jurisdiction and era at issue.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia, "Burden of Proof — Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (In re Winship)": relevant for researchers who encounter "not doubting" in the distinct context of reasonable doubt standards in criminal proceedings — a separate and unrelated legal use of the doubt concept.
The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia, "Benefit of the Doubt — 38 U.S.C. Section 5107(b) and the Equipoise Standard": relevant only if the researcher is studying the concept of legal doubt across different doctrinal frameworks; not directly related to testamentary use.
---