The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-03-22

j
dren have attained majority or ma ried
Some of the acts complained of by the com
claimants, are that the defendant had feileG
| a great number Of trees, and cleared psrloi
of WOO tland that he had suffered the man
| sion house 10 go TO decay, and had moFe'
! the cabins to different parts of the farm but
| fappears from) from the evidence that the re
moval of the cabins aud the clearing OF IN
| land enhanced rather than diminished III
yalte OF the inheritance. Defendant also per
mitted portion of the lands to be forfeitur
| for taxes.
Thos E. Bugg and Houston Reynolds fol
appellant.
Barry &. Beckett. eon.ro.
CHALMERS, c, j.,
Held
/. The rule in Shellys case applies as vel
10 trust estates as il does to cOnveyahces Q
the legal title but the conveyance in question
does not como within its scope
9 To set the rule In operation there must D.
by the same instrument a freehold conveyed
to the ancestor with remainder over OF the
same character of estate to his heirs or heirs
of his body generally, as denomination OF
class of persons 10 take in succession as helrs
because of their charac or as such. In other
words the heirs must take limitees and no
as purchasers.
5. In determining the construction Of any
instrument ofentailment, the word children
is ra rely held synonymous with heirs or heirs
OF the body but is generally TO be construed as
word of purchase and not OF limitation.
A. The principal cases in which the word
children is held synonymous with heirs or
heirs Of the body are instances illustrating the
rule announced in Wild's case, that is TO say
where there is an immediate grant or devise
to 4 man and his children and the grantee IS
without children, 1t being manifest IN such
cases, that the intent was to vest an estate
IN present. and that being impossible by reason
Of the non-existence OF portion oil those
named in order to etfectuate the Intention,
the worl chi lren must be construed as a
word of Limitation and not of purchase
5. The rule in Wild $ case does not apply %
the conveyance before US. Though
Cannon WIS without children at the
its execution, 50 far from there being
tested any intention of cUnyeya
present. to the children, the contrary j
is plainly eyinced by giving them ire
only after the termition of a precedCS
estate in the iather. 1t follows that the
tation over TO the children was TO the
purchasers and thattbe liieestate OF the fa
was not by the rule in Sheily's case conVefaN =
into Tee.
6. Neither does the Limitation offenl ag tinst
the rule against perpeiuties, nor against our
statutes on that subject. No state OF facts can
be imagined in which according to the terms OF
the deed before us, the limitation can be
prolonged more than q years and 10 months
when il was executed and wherever this is So
the limitation isgood regar less of the length
of time that may elapse from I he date of ITS
execution.
T. As the pfoviso in the statute (Hutch
Code, 607 section 2l) declares that convey
ance NAV be made TO a succession of donees
then living and to the heir or heirs OF the
body of he renal nd er-Inan, the Chancellor
was of opinion, that the limitation in this case
was void because il was not the heirs of the
l. IL, hut IN
to specified class of such heirs to-wit: to
those who should attain majority or marry
This is erroneous. The object Of the Statute is
TO establish limit beyond which the grantOr
cannot go, but within which he may limit the
remainder to the first born, or to the last born,
or to the mar led Or single, or to the adult, or
minor heirs of the life tenant; taking care al
ways that the fee shall vest within the period
prescribed by the rule against perpetuities.
g. The deed of the grandfather conveyed the
legal title to the trustees esiing in r. l.. Can
non life estate in us with shifting u.s.
contingent remainder in fee in his children
such use or remainder to become fixed and YES
ted upon the happening of the contingencies
specified.
8. Il L. Cannon being still alive, the inter
est OF complainant remain contingent depen-
dent upon the double contingency of their sur
viving item and oftaeir attainment of majori-
ty or marrying, hence the bill cannot be main
tained so farlas it seeks account of past
waists since their interest not being vested
and il being doubtful whether il will ever be.
come so, they have no right to any recovery
which might be obtained.
10. With US, speaking generally, il may be
said, that thing will ordinarily be held to
constitute waste, which is dictated by good
and promotes rather than dimin-
ishes the permanent value of the property as
VI estate of inheritance and that such is the
nature and effect in the main of the acts Of de.
PENDANT in removing the cabins and clearing
the lands is established by the testimony in
this case.
IL. The defendant has been guilty of per- |
missiye waste in allowing the Mansion House
TO go to decay, and also perhaps with respect
to the orchard, but courts of equity take no |
jurisdiction Of permissive waste by the life |
tenant
r. The defendant was bound to pay the |
taxes on all the land. The taxes were his in |
iividual debt. He received the estate as q |
whole and was bound so to preserve it and |
ought not to have permitted any portion Of it |
10 be forfeited for taxes thereby casting bur-
len upon the tenants IN remainder Though /
the sale for taxes was void, the purchaser
Ihereat still has lien on the land for the
money expended and the damages and this |
will add to The burdens Of the tenants in re-
nainder. he should be required to redeem or
repurchase the forfeited lands, and upon his
failure so to do commissioner should be APP 1
pointed to sequesteT the rents or so much of 1
hem as may he necessary.
ID. The trustees being clothed with the legal
isle to the estate the bill should be amended
~ making them parties.
IA. ]. N. Cannon, and his children, If he has
my, should be made parties. They stand in
he same attitude as complainants and equal
y with them, are contingent remainder men.
10. II is only where the first tenant in tall
n esse has = vested estate Of Inheritance, that
Ieis held note SO far to represent all subsequent
enants in Gail as to dispense with the neces.
ity Of joining them. The doctrine does not
pply to contingent remainder man. with
10 vested interest Reversed and re5Handed
TO be reported.l