Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/The-transfer-of-remainders-a-Vested-remainders-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:50:42+00:00

Document:
It may so pass by estoppel, even though the person estopped by his conveyance was not ascertained to be the remainderman at the time of making it. Myers v. McClurg, 129 Md. 112, 98 Atl. 491; Robertson v. Wilson, 38 N. H. 48; Jackson v. Everett (Tenn.) 58 S. W. 340.
11. Morse v. Proper, 82 Ga. 13, 8 S. E. 625; McDonald v. Bayard Sav. Bank, 123 Iowa, 413, 98 N. W. 1025; Nutter v. Russel, ' 3 Mete. (Ky.) 163; Defreese v.
Lake, 109 Mich. 415, 32 L. R. A. 744, 67 N. W. 505, 63 Am. St. Rep. 584; Godman v. Simmons, 113 Mo. 122, 20 N. W. 972; Griffin v. Shepard, 124 N. Y. 70, 26 N. E. 339; Young v. Young, 89 Va. 675, 23 L. R. A. 642, 17 S. E. 470.
12. See Gardener v. Hooper, 3 Gray (Mass.) 398; Pierce v. Lee, 9 Gray (Mass.) 42; Dunn v. Sargent, 101 Mass. 336; Cummings v. Stearns, 161 Mass. 506; Grayson v. Tyler, 80 Ky. 358; Beacom v. Amos, 161 N. Car. 357, 77 S. E. 407.
13. Bishop v. Fountaine, 3 Lev. 427.
14. Doe d. Perry v. Jones, 1 H. Bl. 30; Jones v. Perry's Lessee, 3 Term R. 88; See note 9 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 546.
15. Morse v. Proper, 82 Ga. 13, 8 S. E. 625; Collins v. Smith, 105 Ga. 525, 31 S. E. 449; Mohn v. Mohn, 148 Iowa, 288, 126 N. W. 1127; Fisher v. Wagner, 109 Md. 243, 21 L. R. A. N. S. 121, 71 Atl.
999; Heard v. Read, 169 Mass. 216, 47 N. E. 778; Eckle v. Ryland, (Mo.) 165 S. W. 1035; Havens v. Seashore Land Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 365; Pond v. Bergh, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 141; Loring v. Arnold, 15 R. I. 428 8 Atl. 335.
16b. Post, this section, note 18.
17. In re Hoadley, 101 Fed. 233; Kean v. Hoffecker, 2 Harr. (Del.) 103, 29 Am. Dec. 336; Morse v. Proper, 82 Ga. 13, 8 S. E. 625; Robeson v. Cochran, 255 111. 355, 99 N. E. 649; Mohn v. Mohn, 148 Iowa 288, 126 N. W. 1127; Fisher v. Wagner, 109 Md. 243, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 121, 71 Atl. 999; Scha-piro v. Howard, 113 Md. 360, 78 Atl. 58; De Lassus v. Gatewood, 71 Mo. 371; Teets v. Weise, 47 N. J. L. 154; Clark v. Cox, 115 N. C. 93, 20 S. E. 176; Smith v. Block, 29 Ohio, St. 488; Loring v. Arnold, 15 R. I. 428, 8 Atl. 335; Roundtree v. Roundtree, 26 S. C. 450, 2 S. E. 474; Cooper v. Cooper, 78 S. C. 317, 88 S. E. 950.
Brown v. Fulkerson, 125 Mo. 400, 28 S. W. 632; Clowe v. Seavey, 208 N. Y. 486, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 284, 102 N. E. 521; Harris v. Mc-Elroy, 45 Pa. 216; Rembert v. Evans, 86 S. C. 445, 68 S. E. 659; Young v. Young, 89 Va. 675, 23 L. R. A. 675.
19. Fearne, Cont. Rem. 364; Strode v. McCormick, 158 111. 142; Eckle v. Ryland, 256 Mo. 424, 165 S. W. 1035; Kelso v. Lorillard, 85 N. Y. 177; Hennessy v. Patterson, 85 N. Y. 95; Brown v. Williams, 5 R I. 308. See Whitesides v. Cooper, 115 N. C. 570, 20 S. E. 295. For instance, a remainder limited to B, provided C survive A, will pass to the heirs of B, but this will not happen if the remainder is to B, provided B survive A and A is still living at B's death, since the death of B before A destroys the remainder.
A contingent remainder has occasionally been held to be subject to sale under execution for the debts of the remainderman,21 while a contrary view has also been taken,22 it being to a great extent a question of the const ruction of the state statute as to executions.
IV. The Rule in Shelley's Case.

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