Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Power-of-destruction-in-first-taker-Repugnancy-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:05:59+00:00

Document:
64 S. E. 761; Bowlby v. Thunder, 105 Pa. 173; Johnson v. Johnson, 48 S. C. 408, 26 S. E. 722.
91. Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Law v. Douglass, 107 Iowa, 606. 78 N. W. 212; Wilson v. Turner, 164 111. 398, 45 N. E. 820; Loosing v. Loosing, 85 Neb. 66, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 920, 122 N. W. 707: Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Me 582, 61 L. R. A. 455, 73 S. W. 664: McNutt v. McComb, 61 Kan. 25. 58 Pac. 965; Fisher v. Wister, 154 Pa. 65, 25 Atl. 1009; Rolley v. Rol ley's Ex'x, 109 Va. 449. 21 L. R. A (N. S.) 64, 63 S. E. 988; Stowell v. Hastings, 59 Vt. 494, 59 Am Rep. 748, 8 Atl. 738.
[Sec. 167 qualified or determinable fee, while if he has a power of disposition by which the limitation over can be defeated he has a fee simple, and that a limitation over on a fee simple is invalid, is, it is conceived, absolutely erroneous. What would otherwise be a fee simple estate is not a qualified or determinable fee merely because there is a limitation over,92 and even were it otherwise a qualified or determinable fee by reason of the limitation over, it would not, it is conceived, be an estate in fee simple merely because the donee thereof is given a power to dispose of the land in fee simple.
In so far as the limitation over on the death of the first taker, without mention of any other contingency, may be regarded as invalid on the ground favored by Chancellor Kent, that a power of disposition given to the first taker, by the exercise of which the limitation over may be defeated, is so inconsistent with such a limitation as to render it invalid, it may be remarked that the general rule that an executory limitation cannot be defeated by the act of the tenant of an estate previously created by the same instrument,93 refers to an act by him based on his ownership of such estate. It no more means that the gift to him of a power by which he can destroy the limitation invalidates the limitation than would the statement that a particular tenant cannot destroy a vested remainder mean that the remainder is invalid if the particular tenant is given a power by the exercise of which he can destroy the remainder.
92. Ante Sec. 163(b), notes 35-40.
93. Ante, this section, note 71.
Occasionally, after a gift in fee simple to testator's widow, a limitation over is in terms to take effect upon her marriage, as well as upon her death, and the question may arise whether the fact that there is a power of disposition expressly given to her, or that the limitation over is in terms of what she has not disposed of, affects of the latter character might also perhaps be regarded as invalid as depriving the first taker of the right to enjoy the land without alienating it during his life,2 a right which would seem to be incident to an estate in fee simple to the same extent as the right of alienation.
94. Park v. Powledge (Ala.) 73 So. 483; Channell v. Aldinger, 121 Iowa, 297, 96 N. W. 781; Tar-bell v. Smith, 125 Iowa, 388, 101 N. W. 118; Cralle v. Jackson, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 417, 81 S. W. 669; Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 499; Spence v. Scovil, 70 Neb. 87, 96 N. W. 1016; Jackson v. Bull, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 19, 98 N. W. 843; Armstrong v.
Kent, 6 N. J. Eq. 559, 21 N. J. L. 509; Kent v. Armstrong, 6 N. J. Eq. 637; Fisher v. Wister, 154 Pa. 65, 25 Atl. 1009; Hoxie v. Chamberlain, 228 Pa. 31, 76 Atl. 423; Wil-moth v. Wilmoth, 34 W. Va. 426, 12 S. E. 731.
95. See Gray, Restraints on Alienation, Sec. 56c.
96. Becker v. Roth, 132 Ky. 429, 115 S. W. 761; Little v. Giles, 25 Neb. 313, 41 N. W. 186.
97. Holmes v. Godson, 8 De G., M. & G. 152; Barton v. Barton, 3 Kay & J., 512; Wilcocks Settlement, 1 Ch. D. 229; In re Han-bury (1904) 1 ch. 415. But a devise over on the death of the first taker in case he fails to devise to one of a class of persons named has been regarded as valid. Com-iskey v. Bowring Hanbury (1905) App. Cas. 84. This latter decision is criticized by Mr. Edward Jenks in an article in 33 Law Quart. Rev. at p. 12, and supported by Mr. Charles Sweet, in 33 Id. at pp. 253, 361.
98. In re Dixon (1903) 2 Ch. 458. In re Crutchley (1912) 2 Ch. 335.
99. 2 Jarman, Wills, (5th ed.) 856. Theobald, Wills, 16th ed.; 15 Halsbury's Laws of England, 423. It has lately been there held, however, that the limitation over is valid and effective if, owing to the death of the person first named during testator's life, the prior limitation never takes effect. In re Dunstan, Dunstan v. Dunstan (1918) 2 Ch. 304, discussed in editorial note, 17 Mich. Law Rev. 434. See also Gray, Restraints on Alienation, Sec. 64 note.
1. Rea v. Bell, 147 Pa. 118.

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

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.