Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Estates-On-Limitation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:51:56+00:00

Document:
108. An estate on limitation is one which is created to continue until the happening of a contingency upon which it comes to an end without an entry.
28 See ante, p. 147.
39 These are by some writers called "estates on conditional limitation." That term is also used to designate estates which vest on the happening of a contingency. As we shall see later, such estates can take effect only as springing uses, post, p. 299, or executory devises, post, p. 300. Still other writers use "conditional limitation" as meaning the event which terminates an estate, rather than the estate which is terminated, or the one coming into existence on the happening of the event. See Leake, Prop. Land, 214.
40 2 Bl. Comm. 155.
41 Henderson v. Hunter, 59 Pa. St. 335; Bennett r. Robinson, 10 Watts (Pa.) 348; Vanatta v. Brewer, 32 N. J. Eq. 268.
100. A base or determinable fee is a fee simple, which may be terminated by the happening of a contingency.
A fee which is liable to be terminated by a limitation is called a base or determinable fee. This is the kind of an estate which passed when a tenant in tail attempted to convey a fee simple by a conveyance which barred the issue under the entail, but not the remainder-men. The grantee took a fee determinable on the extinction of the issue who were entitled under the entail.44 A base fee dependent on a collateral condition may also arise by express provision of the conveyance.45 The most usual cases at the present time are where land is granted for a specified use, to revert to the grantor when that use ceases.46 Mr. Gray, however, takes the position that a valid determinable fee cannot be created since the stat43 scheetz v. Fitzwater, 5 Pa. St 126; Henderson v. Hunter, 59 Pa. St 335; Ashley v. Warner, 11 Gray (Mass.) 43; Miller v. Levi, 44 N. Y. 489; Stearns v. Godfrey, 16 Me. 158. An example of the importance of this distinction arises in connection with conditions in restraint of marriage. Thus an estate to A. until she marries is valid as an estate on limitation. But an estate to A. provided she does not marry is void because it is an estate on condition, and the condition is in restraint of marriage. Bennett v. Robinson, 10 Watts (Pa.) 348; Mann v. Jackson, 84 Me. 400, 24 Atl. 886; Jones v. Jones, 1Q.B Div. 279.
44 For a discussion of these base fees, see Challis, Real Prop. 264.
45 Leonard v. Burr, 18 N. Y. 96.
46 As for school purposes, Board of Education of Village of Van Wert v. Inhabitants of Village of Van Wert 18 Ohio St 221; or for public streets, Gebhardt v. Reeves, 75 111. 301; Helm v. Webster, 85 111. 116. And see People v. White, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 26; Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Brown, 27 N. J. Law, 13; Henderson v. Hunter, 59 Pa. St. 335; Boiling v. Mayor, etc., 8 Leigh (Va.) 224; Thayer v. Mcgee, 20 Mich. 195.
47 since the grantor has only a possibility of reverter. Gray, Perp. 19. Contra, Graves, Real Prop. 135.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.