Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Distinction-between-vested-and-contingent-remainders-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:15:21+00:00

Document:
The possibility that the remainder may never take effect in possession is immaterial in determining whether it is vested or contingent, not only when, as above explained, this possibility arises from the character of the particular estate or of that in remainder, but also when it arises from the fact that the remainder may be divested by the exercise of a power of appointment.83 And so the existence of an executory limitation over in favor of another person84 does not render the remainder upon an estate tail is necessarily contingent, are, it is submitted, unsound on principle.
82a. The present writer cannot agree with Professor Gray's view (Perpetuities, Sec. 111) that a remainder on an estate in fee tail is vested because "the barring of the estates by the tenant in tail is considered in the nature of a condition subsequent divesting the whole series of estates," but he entirely agrees with that scholar's criticism of the reason given in Smith's Executory Interests, Sec. 192, "that a failure of issue is considered certain to happen some time or other." Whether a remainder upon an estate tail, as upon any other particular estate, is vested or contingent, depends on whether it is subject to a condition precedent or is in favor of uncertain persons. Any assumption that every such remainder is vested is, it is submitted, as erroneous as the assumption that no such remainder is vested.
II N. E. 762; Buckner v. Buckner, 255 Mo. 371, 164 S. W. 513; Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 267, 13 Am. Rep. 23; Sandford v. Blake, 45 N. J. Eq. 247; Van Axte v. Fisher, 117 N. Y. 401, 22 N. E. 943; Caples v. Ward, 107 Tex. 341, 179 S. W. 856; Lantz v. Massie, 99 Va. 709, 40 S. E. 40; Hare v. Congregational Society, 76 Vt. 362, 57 Atl. 964; Fearne's Cont. Rem. 226 et seq. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 112.
146 Ind. 227, 45 N. B. 101; Cal-lison v. Morris, 123 Iowa, 297, 98 N. W. 780; Watson v. Cressey, 79 Me. 381, 10 Atl. 59; Marshall v. Safe Deposit etc. Co. 101 Med. 1, 60 Atl. 476; Kelso v. Lorillard, 85 N. Y. 177; Lee v. Oates, 171 N. Car. 717, 88 S. E. 889.
85. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 104-108; Sumpter v. Carter, 115 Ga. 893, 42 S. E. 324, 60 L. R. A. 274; Ducker v. Burnham, 146 111. 9, 34 N. E. 558, 37 Am. St. Rep. 135; Remmers v. Remmers, 280 111. 93, 117 N. E. 474; Aldred v. Sylvester, 184 Ind. 542, 111 N. E. 914; Mercantile Bank v. Ballard, 83 Ky.
481, 4 Am. St. Rep. 160; Forsythe v. Lansing, 109 Ky. 518, 59 S. W. 854; Robinson v. Palmer, 90 Me. 246, 38 Atl. 103; Clark v. Cox, 115 N. Car. 93, 20 S. E. 176 In re Neel's Estate, 252 Pa. 394, 9 Atl. 502; Walker v. Alverson, 87 S. Car. 55, 68 S. E. 966; Caples v. Ward, 107 Tex. 341, 179 S. W. 856.
86. Blanchard v. Blanchard, 1 Allen (Mass.) 223; Jeffers v. Lampson, 10 Ohio St. 101; Collins v. Collins, 40 Ohio. St. 353; Harrison v. Foreman, 5 Ves. Jr. 207.
87. Olney v. Hull, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 311; Thomson v. Luding-ton, 104 Mass. 193; Robinson v.
Palmer, 90 Me. 246; Smith v. Block, 29 Ohio St. 488; Whitesides v Cooper, 115 N. C. 570.
1 Allen (Mass.) 223; Kemp v. Bradford, 61 Md. 330.
89. Whitesides v. Cooper, .115 N. Car. 570, 20 S. E. 295.
Fla.. 473; Hoover v. Hoover. 116 Ind. 498; Archer v. Jacobs, 125 Iowa 467, 101 N. W. 195; Bowling v. Dobyns, 5 Dana (Ky.) 442; Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. 390; Schuyler v. Hanna, 31 Neb. 307; Ken-nard v. Kennard, 63 N. H. 303; Bentley v. Long, 1 Strobb Eq. 43, 47 Am. Dec. 523; Bufford v. Hal-liman, 10 Tex. 572, 60 Am. Dec. 223; Lantz v. Massie, 99 Va. 709, 40 S. E. 50.

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.