Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-21
ANCIENT LAW REVIVED
Iowa Supreme Court Holds That
the Rule In Shelly's Case
Is Law
wEAvER's scA74lNe DISSENT
He Declares IL In Effect Applies Con.
dtions of FeudaI Times to Present
Day civilization-Law of the Land
oil Aristocraey Held to be Good =
State News
State New:

lies Moines, Jan. 21.-The supreme
court of Iowa has adopted what law
yers know as 1.-The rule in Shelly's
| case"
Forty-tw years ago Robert p. Andis,
| Of Tama county conveyed certain yalu-
able lands to Samuel s. Andis during
his natural life and then to his heirs"
The grantee subsequently, sold the land
and 1t thus came into the possession OF
Ellen Doyle. After the death Of Sam
-uel s. Andis. his heirs claimed the land
and Ellen Doyle sued to quiet the title
in herself.
The majority Of the court yesterday
decided the title was in her under "the
rule in Shellys case" Justices Weaver
and Sherwin Joined in a vigorous and
caustic dissenting opinion written by
the former.
The rule in Shelly's case" is that
when person takes an estate in free
hold, legally or equitably. under deed,
will or other writing, and in the same
instrument there is Limitation by way
of remainder, either with or without
| the interposition Of another estate Of
| an interest of the same legal or equit-
able quality to his heirs or heirs of his
body, as a class of persons, or take in
| succession from generation to genera
ton, the limitation to the heirs entit-
les the ancestor to the whole estate"
| In the Doyle-Andis case the convey
ance was to Samuel S. Andis during
| his natural life and then to his heirs"
The limitation upon the conveyance
| Ito his heirs" the supreme court de-
cided, was illegal under "the rule in
shelly's case"
| However, if the bequest had been to
| his children, or wife and children or to
persons specifically named, instead of
| to "his heirs" the conveyance would
have been sustained.
Weaver is Caustio.
In the dissenting opinion Justice
| Weaver declares that under the rule
| the father who conveys the land to his
son to have and hold during his nat
ural life and after death of his son to
| go to his sons heirs. may awake the
next day after the conveyance is eff
fected to see that land seized and sold
for his sons debt, or to see his son
himself, squander the entire Inherit
ance in the nearest bucket shop or up
on race horses.
Too late" says Justice Weaver, "he
goes with his troubles to lawyer, who
after busting his Kent's commentaries
and making sure that he RENDERS the
rule correctly, tells his client that there
| q M ;, f,,,,&
yer, you intend to give your son a
simple life estate in the land and it is
equally true you stated that intention
In so many plain, English words, but
unfortunately you gave the remainder
after his death to his heirs. If instead
Of this word, you had said children or
wife and children, or had described
these persons by their individual names
or had made the heirs Of stranger
instead of your own son, the objects of
your bounty, the property might have
been saved, but you failed to- under
| stand that it is sometimes a legal
mistake to clearly express a legal in
tention. Having used the fatal word
the fact that every person of common
sense and intelligence understands that
you did not mean to give this land to
your son absolutely; the fact that you
had the unquestioned right to give him
life estate only, and the fact that you
have expressed that intention with all
the clearness and exactness of which
our mother tongue is capable, all these
things count as nothing and the inher-
itance you designed for your helpless
grand children must go to swell the
list Of offerings upon the altar of Shell
lys case'"
Declare Rule Obsolete.
| Justice Ladd wrote the opinion of
the court. He said the court had al
ways heretofore avoided the necessity
Of saying whether it should be recog-
nized as a part Of the common law of
this state" referring to the rule in
| Shelly's case"
Justice Weaver says that the rule
has not only never been recognized
| or enforced in Iowa, but 1t has been
expressly condemned and repudiated
| by this court" Moreover, Justice
| Weaver declares that the rule has been
| abolished or become obsolete in a
great majority Of the states, and Iowa,
"involuntarily adopting it at this late
day." puts itself out Of harmony with
the law as 1t exists in sister jurisdic-
tions. OF the forty-f1ve states, twen-
| ty-seven have abolished the rule by
statute, though in seven the abolition
applies to Wills and not deeds.
The rule in Shelly's case has come
down from the feudal period in Eng
land. 1t has gone thru controversy
extending over 600 years In that coun-
try. Kent and Blackstone defined and
| discussed it. 1t was applied as early
| as 1925 A. D., and decisions in the year
book of Edward III. In the words of
| Blackstone, do most explicitly war
rant the doctrine extracted from them
by that great and learned Judge" The
rule was first explicitly stated by Lord
Coke in 1890, in the case from which
it was derived. The controversy over
it became SO vehement, says Kent. that
it reused the scapter of Elizabeth Dis
cussion revived in ITO, In Jamaica
case, Perrin VS.. Blake, and the rule
| was sustained
Decision Of Majority.
Says the majority. opinion respect
ing the establishment Of the rule into
the English common law, and SO it's
transposition into America:
IF anything in the habits of our
people or in the genius Of our institu-
lions essentially differentiates their
situation from that of the English peo-
pie in the time Of Perrin VS.. Blake, etc.
in respect to this rule, it has not been
called to our attention.