Author: John Chipman Gray

Publisher: Theclassics.Us

Published: 2013-09

Total Pages: 262

ISBN-13: 9781230328904

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ...who reaches twenty-five, grandchildren living at the testator's death will take the legacy, although those born afterwards cannot.1 356. There is a special class of cases which seems to form an exception to the rule that a gift not split by the donor cannot be split by the law, but which, from its peculiar character, is not likely to be extended. When personal property is bequeathed to a series of persons not in esse by words which would create successive estates tail if the subject of the gift were real estate, and the first person does not come in esse, the next will take. For instance, suppose the bequest takes this, which is the usual, form: Leaseholds or other personal property are given to A. for life, remainder to the first and other sons of A. in succession, and the heirs male of their respective bodies; and in default of such issue of A., to B. for life, remainder to the first and other sons of B. in succession, and the heirs male of their respective bodies. Here if A. and B. die, and A. has no sons, then the first son of B. will take. 1 See App. G, $ 857 et seq., 1 See these cases discussed, post. 389 et seq., post. 357. Mr. Lewis 1 and Mr. Jarman 2 do not seem to regard this as any exception to the ordinary mode of applying the Rule against Perpetuities. But an exception, it is submitted, it really is.3 If there were no Rule against Perpetuities the limitations over would take effect not merely if A. never had sons, but also if A. had sons whose issue afterwards failed. Now applying the Rule against Perpetuities, the limitation on the latter contingency is certainly too remote, and the limitation over in case A. has in fact no sons can only be preserved in one of the two following ways: -- ...

Download or read book The Rule Against Perpetuities written by John Chipman Gray and published by Theclassics.Us. This book was released on 2013-09 with total page 262 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ...who reaches twenty-five, grandchildren living at the testator's death will take the legacy, although those born afterwards cannot.1 356. There is a special class of cases which seems to form an exception to the rule that a gift not split by the donor cannot be split by the law, but which, from its peculiar character, is not likely to be extended. When personal property is bequeathed to a series of persons not in esse by words which would create successive estates tail if the subject of the gift were real estate, and the first person does not come in esse, the next will take. For instance, suppose the bequest takes this, which is the usual, form: Leaseholds or other personal property are given to A. for life, remainder to the first and other sons of A. in succession, and the heirs male of their respective bodies; and in default of such issue of A., to B. for life, remainder to the first and other sons of B. in succession, and the heirs male of their respective bodies. Here if A. and B. die, and A. has no sons, then the first son of B. will take. 1 See App. G, $ 857 et seq., 1 See these cases discussed, post. 389 et seq., post. 357. Mr. Lewis 1 and Mr. Jarman 2 do not seem to regard this as any exception to the ordinary mode of applying the Rule against Perpetuities. But an exception, it is submitted, it really is.3 If there were no Rule against Perpetuities the limitations over would take effect not merely if A. never had sons, but also if A. had sons whose issue afterwards failed. Now applying the Rule against Perpetuities, the limitation on the latter contingency is certainly too remote, and the limitation over in case A. has in fact no sons can only be preserved in one of the two following ways: -- ...