Excerpt from A Treatise on the Law of Deeds, Vol. 2 of 3: Their Form, Requisites, Execution, Acknowledgment, Registration, Construction and Effect; Covering the Alienation of Title to Real Property by Voluntary Transfer; Together With Chapters on Tax Deeds and Sheriff's Deeds Dec. 516; Graham v. Long, 65 Pa. St. 383; Little v. Dodge, 32 Ark. 453; Shryock v. Cannon, 39 Ark. 434; Dengenhart v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio St. 549; Purcell v. Goshorn, 17 Ohio, 105; 49 Am. Dec. 448; Chesnut v. Shane. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Originally published: 5th ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1956.

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: -- ...