Source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/kent-commentaries-american-law/kent-59/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:38:18+00:00

Document:
(1.) Of the history of executory devises.
Executory limitations were next resorted to, that men might attain the same object. Mr. Hargrave7 has gleaned from the oldest authorities a few imperfect samples of an executory devise; but this species of limitation may be considered as having arisen since the statutes of uses, and of wills. It was slowly and cautiously admitted prior to the leading case of Pells v. Brown.8 Springing uses of the inheritance furnished a precedent for similar limitations in the form of executory devises; and it was decided in Pells v. Brown, that a fee might be limited upon a fee by way of executory devise, and that such a limitation could not be barred by a common recovery.9 That case was silent as to executory bequests of chattels, and Mr. Justice Doderidge was opposed to the doctrine of the decision, and showed that he was haunted with the apprehension of reviving perpetuities under the shelter of an executory devise. The case, however, established the legality of an executory devise of the fee upon a contingency not exceeding one life, and that it could not be barred by a recovery. The same point was conceded by the court in Snowe v. Cutler;b and the limits of an executory devise were gradually enlarged and extended to several lives wearing out at the same time. Thus, in Goring v. Bickerstuffe,10 a limitation of a term from one to several persons in remainder in succession, was held to be good, and not tending to a perpetuity, if they were all alive together; for, as Ch. B. Hale observed in that case, all the candles were lighted together, and the whole period could not amount to more than the life of the last survivor.
The great case of the Duke of Norfolk,11 on the doctrine of perpetuities, was finally decided in 1685, and the three senior judges at law were associated with Lord Chancellor Nottingham. The question arose upon the trust of a term for years upon a settlement by deed, and it was whether a limitation over upon the contingency of A. dying without issue, was valid. The subject of executory devises was involved in the elaborate and powerful discussion in that case. The judges were exceedingly jealous of perpetuities, and would not allow limitations over upon an estate tail to be good; but the chancellor was of a different opinion, and he supported the settlement, and his opinion was affirmed in the House of Lords. While he admitted that a perpetuity was against the reason and policy of the law, he insisted, that future interests, springing and executory trusts, and remainders, that were to arise upon contingencies, if not too remote, were not within the reason of the objection, and were necessary to provide for the exigencies of families. The principle of that case was, that terms for years were, equally with inheritances, subject to executory devise, and to trusts of the same nature, and it led to the practice of a strict settlement of that species of property, by executory devise, to the extent of lives in being, and twenty-one years afterwards.
The doctrine of executory devises grew and enlarged, pari passu, in its application to terms for years, and to estates of inheritance. In Scatterwood v. Edge,12 the judges considered lives in being as the ultimatum of contingency in point of time, and they showed that they inherited the spirit of the old law against such limitations. Every executory devise was declared to be a perpetuity as far as it went, and rendered the estate unalienable during the period allowed for the contingency to happen, though all mankind should join in the conveyance.13 The question which arose about the same time, in Lloyd v. Carew,14 was, whether a limitation could be extended for one year beyond co-existing lives. The decision in Chancery was, that it could not, but the decree was reversed upon appeal, and the limitation, with that advance, allowed, though not without great efforts to prevent it, on the ground that perpetuities had latterly increased to the entanglement and ruin of families. Afterwards, in Luddington v. Kime,15 Powell, J. was of opinion, that a limitation by way of executory devise, might be extended beyond a life in esse, so as to include a posthumous son. But Ch. J. Treby was of a different opinion, and he held, that the time allowed for executory devises to take effect, ought not to be longer than the life of a person, according to Snow and Cutler’s case. At last, in Stephens v. Stephens, in 1736,16 the doctrine was finally settled and defined by precise limits. The addition of twenty-one years to lives in being, was held to be admissible, and that decision received the sanction of the Court of Chancery, and of the judges of the King’s Bench. A devise of lands in fee, to such unborn son of a feme covert as should first attain the age of twenty-one, was held to be good; for the utmost length of time that could happen before the estate would vest, was the life of the mother, and the subsequent infancy of the son.
Since that time, an executory devise of the inheritance to the extent of a life, or lives in being, and twenty-one years, and the fraction of another year, to reach the case of a posthumous child, has been uniformly allowed; and the same rule equally applies to chattel interests.17 And thus, notwithstanding the constant dread of perpetuities, and the jealousy of executory devises, as being an irregular and limited species of entail, a sense of the convenience of such limitations in family settlements, has enabled them, after a struggle of nearly two centuries, to come triumphantly out of the contest. They have also become firmly established (though with some disabilities in New York, as we have already seen,18) as part of the system of our American testamentary jurisprudence.
(2.) Of the several kinds, and general qualities of executory devises.
on that condition, for a common recovery bars all subsequent and conditional limitations.29 It is not so with a recovery suffered by a tenant in fee, for that will not bar an executory devise, as was decided in Pells v. Brown;30 and the reason of the distinction is, that the issue in tail is barred in respect of the recompense in value, which they are presumed to recover over against the vouchee, whereas the executory devisee is entitled to no part of the recompense, for that would go to the first taker, or person having the conditional fee.
(3.) Of executory devises limited upon a failure of heirs or issue.
It’ an executory devise be limited to take effect after a dying without heirs, or without issue, the limitation is held to be void, because the contingency is too remote, as it is not to take place until after an indefinite failure of issue. Nothing is more common, in cases upon devises, than the failure of the contingent devise, from the want of a particular estate to support it as a remainder, or by reason of its being too remote, after a general failure of issue, to be admitted as good by way of executory devise. If the testator meant that the limitation over was to take effect on failure of issue living at the time of the death of the person named as the first taker, then the contingency determines at his death, and no rule of law is broken, and the executory devise is sustained. The difficult and vexed question which has so often been discussed by the courts is, whether the testator, by the words dying without issue, or by words of similar import, and with or without additional expressions, meant a dying without issue living at the time of the death of the first taker, or whether he meant a general or indefinite failure of issue. Almost every case on wills, with remainders over, that has occurred within the last two centuries, alludes, by the use of such expressions, to the failure of issue, either definitely or indefinitely.
A definite failure of issue is when a precise time is fixed by the will for the failure of issue, as in the case of a devise to A., but if he dies without lawful issue living at the time of his death. An indefinite failure of issue is a proposition the very converse of the other, and means a failure of issue, whenever it shall happen, sooner or later, without any fixed, certain, or definite period within which it must happen. It means the period when the issue, or descendants of the first taker, shall become extinct, without reference to any particular time, or any particular event; and an executory devise, upon such an indefinite failure of issue, is void, because it might tie up property for generations. A devise in fee, with remainder over upon an indefinite failure of issue, is an estate tail, and in order to support the remainder over as an executory devise, and to get rid of the limitation as an estate tail, the courts have frequently laid hold of slender circumstances in the will, to elude or escape the authority of adjudged cases. The idea that testators mean by a limitation over upon the event of the first taker dying without issue, the failure of issue living at his death, is a very prevalent one, but it is probable that, in most instances, testators have no precise meaning on the subject, other than that the estate is to go over if the first taker has no posterity to enjoy it. If the question was to be put to a testator, whether he meant by his will, that if his son, the first taker, should die leaving issue, and that issue should become extinct in a month, or a year afterwards, the remainder over should not take effect, he would, probably, in most cases, answer in the negative. In the case of a remainder over upon the event of the first devisee dying without lawful issue, Lord Thurlow, following the whole current of cases, held the limitation over too remote, and observed, that he rather thought the testator meant the remainder persons to take whenever there should be a failure of issue of the first taker.35 Lord Macclesfield declared,36 that even the technical rule was created for the purpose of supporting the testator’s intention. If, says he, lands be devised to A., and if he dies without issue, then to B., this gives an estate tail to the issue of the devisee. And this construction, he observes, “is contrary to the natural import of the expression, and made purely to comply with the intention of the testator, which seems to be, that the land devised should go to the issue, and their issue, to all generations.” So, in Tenny v. Agar,37 the devise was to the son and daughter in fee, but if they should happen to die without having any child or issue lawfully begotten, then remainder over. Lord Ellenborough said, that nothing could be clearer than that the remainder-man was not intended by the testator to take any thing until the issue of the son and daughter were all extinct, and the remainder over was, consequently, void. The same construction of the testator’s real intention was given to a will in Bells v. Gillespie,38 where there was a devise to the sons, and if either should die without lawful issue, his part to be divided among the survivors. Mr. Justice Carr declared, that the testator meant that the land riven to each son should be enjoyed by the family of that son, so long as any branch of it remained. He did not mean to say, “you have the land of C. if he has no child living at his death, but if he leave a child you shall not have it, though the child dies the next hour.” A father, as he justly observed, is not prompted by such motives.
The opinions of these distinguished judges would seem to prove, that if the rule of law depended upon the real fact of intention, that intention would still be open to discussion, and depend very much upon other circumstances and expressions in the will, in addition to the usual words.
The New York Revised Statutes57 have put an end to all semblance of any distinction in the contingent limitation of real and personal estates, by declaring, that all the provisions relative to future estates should be construed to apply to limitations of chattels real, as well as of freehold estates; and that the absolute ownership of personal property shall not be suspended by any limitation or condition whatever, for a longer period than during the continuance, and until the termination of not more than two lives in being at the date of the instrument containing the limitation or condition, or if it be a will, in being at the death of the testator. In all other respects, limitations of future or contingent interests in personal property, are made subject to the rules prescribed in relation to future estates in land.
(4.) Of other matters relating to executory devises.
This is the most extraordinary instance upon record of calculating and unfeeling pride and vanity in a testator, disregarding the ease and comfort of his immediate descendants, for the miserable satisfaction of enjoying in anticipation the wealth and aggrandizement of a distant posterity. Such an iron hearted scheme of settlement, by withdrawing property for so long a period, from all the uses and purposes of social life, was intolerable. It gave occasion to the statute of 39 and 40 Geo. III. c. 98. prohibiting thereafter any person from settling or devising real or personal property, for the purpose of accumulation, by means of rents or profits, for a longer period than the life of the grantor or testator, or twenty-one years after his death, or during the minority of any person, who, under the deed or will directing the accumulation, would, if then of full age, be entitled to the rents and profits.
The New York Revised Statutes65 have allowed the accumulating of rents and profits of real estate, for the benefit of one or more persons, by will or deed; but the accumulation must commence on the creation of the estate, out of which the rents and profits are to arise, and it must be made for the benefit of one or more minors then in being, and terminate at the expiration of their minority; or if directed to commence at any time subsequent to the creation of the estate, it must commence within the time authorized by the statute for the vesting of future estates, and during the minority of the persons for whose benefit it is directed, and terminate at the expiration of such minority. If the direction for accumulation be for a longer time than during the minorities aforesaid, it shall be void for the excess of time; and all other directions for the accumulation of the rents and profits of real estate are void. It is further provided, that whenever there is, by a valid limitation, a suspense of the power of alienation, and no provision made for the disposition, in the mean time, of the rents and profits, they shall belong to the persons presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate.
2. 3 Term Rep. 763.
3. Lord Ch. J. Willes, in Goodtitle v. Wood, Willes’ Rep. 211.
4. Duke of Marlborough v. Earl Godolphin, 1 Eden’s Rep. 417.
5. Vide supra, p. 126.
6. Use of the Law, in Bacon’s Law Tracts, p. 145.
10. Pollex. Rep. 31. 1 Cases in Chancery, 4. 2 Freeman, 163. Lord Bridgman’s MS. Report of the case, cited by Mr. Hargrave in 4 Ves. Rep. 258.
12. l Salk. Rep. 229. 12 Mod. Rep. 278.
13. This last observation of Mr. Justice Powell is supposed to be rather too strong; for the owner of the contingent fee, together with the executory devisee. may bar it by a common recovery, and it may be barred by fine by way of estoppel. But in those states where there are no fines or recoveries, the executory devise is a perpetuity as far as it goes.
14. Prec. in Ch. 72. Shower’s P. C. 137. S. C.
15. 1 Lord Raym. 203.
16. 2 Barnard, K. B. 375. Cases temp. Talbot, 228.
17. Atkinson v. Hutchinson, 3 P. Wms. 258. Goodman v. Goodright, 1 Blacks. Rep. 188. 2 Blacks. Com. 174. Long v. Blackall, 7 Term Rep. 100.
19. This is the classification made by Powell, J. in Scatterwood v. Edge, 1 Salk. Rep. 229 and it has been followed by Mr. Fearne, Mr. Preston goes on to a greater subdivision, and he says there are six sorts of executory devise applicable to freehold interests, and two, at least, if not three sorts of executory bequests applicable to chattel interests. Preston on Abstracts of Title, vol. ii 124. I have chosen not to perplex the subject by divisions too refined and minute. The object in elementary discussions, according to the plan of these lectures, is to generalize as much possible.
20. Marks v. Marks, 10 Mod. Rep. 419. Prec. in Chan. 486.
21. Bate v. Amherst, T. Raym. 82. Lent v. Archer, 1 Salk. Rep. 226. Lord Ch. J. Treby, in Clarke v. Smith, 1 Lutw. 798.
22. Vol. ii. P. 285.
23. Cotton v. Heath, 1 Equ. Cas. Abr. 191. pl. 2.
24. Hoare v. Parker, 2 Term Rep. 376. Fearne on Executory Devices, 46.
25. 2 Blacks. Com. 173, 174.
26. Pells v. Brown, Cro. Jac. 590. Fearne on Executory Devises, 46. 51-58.
27. Jackson v. Bull, 10 Johns. Rep. 19. Attorney General v. Hall, Fitzg. 314. Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. Rep. 500. Jackson v. Robin, 16 Johns. Rep. 537.
28. Mullineux’s case, cited in Palm. 136.
29. Driver v. Edgar, Cowp. Rep. 379. Fearne, 66, 61. 107.
31. N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 728. sec. 14, 15, 16.
32. N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 724. sec. 24.
33. Ibid. vol. i. 727. sec. 45.
34. We may not be able to calculate with certainty upon the future operation of the changes which have been recently, made in the do trine of expectant estates by the New York revised code of statute law. But the first impression is, that these innovations will be found to be judicious and beneficial. It appears to be wise to abolish the technical distinctions between contingent remainders, springing or secondary uses, and executory devises, for they serve greatly to perplex and obscure the subject. It contributes to the simplicity, and uniformity, and certainty of the law, to bring those various executory interests nearer together, and resolve them into a few plain principles. It is convenient and just that all expectant estates should be rendered equally secure from destruction by means not within the intention of the settlement, and that they should all be controlled by the same salutary rules of limitation. Some of the alterations are not material, and it is doubtful whether confining future estates to two lives in being, was called for by any necessity or policy, since the candles were all lighted at the same time, let the lives be as numerous as caprice should dictate. It was a power not exposed to much abuse, and, in the case of children, it might be very desirable and proper that the father should have it in his power to grant life estates in his paternal inheritance to all his children in succession. The propriety of limiting the number of lives was much discussed recently before the English Real Property Commissioners. The objection to a large number of lives is, that it increases the chance of keeping the estate locked up from circulation to the most extended limit of human life; and very respectable opinions are in favor of a restriction to the extent of two or three lives only, besides the lives of the parties in interest, or to whom life estates maybe given. The New York statute has carried the restriction too far.
35. Jeffery v. Sprigge, 1 Cox’s Cases, 62.
36. Pleydell v. Pleydell, 1 P. Wins. 750.
37. 12 East’s Rep. 253.
39. The number of cases in which that point has been raised, and discussed, and adjudged, is extraordinary, and the leading ones are here collected for the gratification of the curiosity of the student. Assize, 35 Edw. III. pl. 14. Sonday’s case, 9 Co. 127. King v. Rumbail, Cro. Jac. 448. Chadock v. Cowly, ibid. 695. Holmes v. Meynel, T. Raym. 452. Forth v. Chapman, 1 P. Wms. 663. Brice v. Smith, Willes’ Rep. 1. Hope v. Taylor, 1 Burr. Rep. 268. Attorney General v. Bayley, 2 Bro. 553. Knight v. Ellis, ibid. 570. Doe v. Fonnereau, Doug. Rep. 504. Denn v. Slater, 5 Term Rep. 355. Doe v. Rivers, 7 Term Rep. 276. Doe v. Ellis, 9 East’s Rep. 38.2. Tenny v. Agar, 12 East’s Rep. 253. Romilly v. James, 6 Taunt. Rep. 263. Bartow v. Salter, 17 Vesey’s Rep. 479.
41. Forth v. Chapman, 1 P. Wms. 663. Romilly v. James, 6 Taunt. Rep. 263. Daintry v. Daintry, 6 Term Rep. 307. Croly v. Croly, 1 Batty, 1. Carr v. Porter, 1 McCord’s Ch. Rep. 60. Newton v. Griffith, 1 Harr. & Gill, 111.
42. Chadock v. Cowly, Cro. Jac. 695. Newton v. Griffith, 1 Harr. & Gill, 111. Bells v. Gillespie, 5 Randolph, 273. Broaddus v. Turner, ibid. 308.
44. Porter v. Bradley, 3 Term Rep. 143.
45. Hughes v. Sayer, 1 P. Wms. 533.
46. Roe v. Jeffrey, 7 Term Rep. 489.
47. Doe v. Webber, 1 Barnw. & Ald. 713.
49. 3 Halsted’s Rep. 29.
50. 16 Johns. Rep. 382.
52. N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 722. sec. 4. Ibid. 724. sec. 22.
53. Ibid. p. 724. sec. 30, 31.
54. The great objection to legislative rules, and to all kinds of codification, when it runs into detail, is, that the rules are not malleable; they cannot accommodate to circumstances;-they are imperative; and such interference is the more questionable when a permanent, inflexible construction, is attempted to be prescribed even for the words used by a testator in his will. The noted observation of Lord Ch. J. Wilmot, naturally occurs, that “the statute is like a tyrant, where he comes he makes all void; but the common law is like a nursing father, and makes only void that part where the fault is, and preserves the rest.” The different bearings of the sections of the N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 748. sec. 2. and vol. i. 724. sec. 22. on this subject, present quite a contrariety of prescription. In the one, every instrument conveying an estate or interest, must be carried into effect according to the intent of the party, so far as that intent can be collected from the whole instrument, and is consistent with the rules of law. In the other, certain words shall be construed to mean heirs or issue living at the death of the person named as ancestor, when, perhaps, the other parts of the instrument would show clearly, that the words were not so meant; or when, perhaps, in a great majority of cases, without any further explanation, the testator, under a comprehensive view of the subject, never did so mean, and would have resented the imputation of such a construction.
55. 1 P. Wms. 663.
56. Fearne on Executory Devises, by Powell, 186. 239. 259. Doe v. Lyde, 1 Term Rep. 593. Dashiell v. Dashiell, 2 Harr. & Gill, 127. The conflict of opinion as to the solidity of the distinction in Forth v. Chapman, is very remarkable, and forms one of the most curious and embarrassing cases in the law, to those well disciplined minds that desire to ascertain and follow the authority of adjudged cases. Lord Hardwicke, (2.Atk. Rep. 314.) Lord Thurlow, (1 Bro. 188. 1 Ves. jr. 286.) Lord Loughborough, (3 Vesey’s Rep. 99.) Lord Alvanley, (5 Vesey’s Rep. 440.) Lord Kenyon, (3 Term Rep. 133. 7 Term Rep. 595.) Sir William Grant, (17 Vesey’s Rep. 479.) and the Court of K. B. in 4 Maule & Selw. 62. are authorities against the distinction. Lord Hardwicke, (2 Atk. Rep. 288. 2 Ves. Rep. 180. 616.) Lord Mansfield, (Cowp. Rep. 410.) Lord Eldon, (9 Ves. Rep. 203.) and the House of Lords, in Keily v. Fowler, 6 Bro. P. C. 309. are authorities for the distinction. As Lord Hardwicke has equally commended, and equally condemned the distinction, without any kind of explanation, his authority may be considered as neutralized, in like mariner as mechanical forces of equal power, operating in contrary directions, naturally reduce each other to rest. The American cases, without adopting absolutely the distinction in Forth v. Chapman, are disposed to lay hold of slighter circumstances in bequests of chattels, than in devises of real estate, to sustain the limitation over, and this is the extent to which they have gone with the distinction. Executors of Moffat v. Strong, 10 Johns. Rep. 12. Newton v. Griffith, 1 Harr.& Gill, 111. Royall v. Eppes, 2 Munf. Rep. 479.
57. N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 724. sec. 23. vol. i. 773. sec. 1 and 2.
58. Attorney General v. Bayley, 2 Bro. 553. Knight v. Ellis, ibid. 570. Lord Chatham v. Tothill, 6 Bro. P. C. 450. Britton v. Twining, 3 Merivale, 176.
59. Fearne on Executory Devises, 159, 160. Phipps v. Kelynge, ibid. 84.
61. Chapman v. Blissel, Cases temp. Talbot, 145. Duke of Bridgewater v. Egerton, 2 Vesey’s Rep. 122.
62. Pinbury v. Elkin, 1 P. Wms. 563. Goodright v. Searle, 2 Wils. Rep. 29. Fearne on Executory Devises, 529-535. N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 725. sec. 35. Higden v. Williamson, Cases temp. Talbot, 131. 2 Saund. Rep. 388. k. note.
63. 4 Vesey’s Rep. 227.
64. The testator died in 1797. He left three sons and three daughters, and half a million sterling, on an accumulating fund. If the limitation should extend to upwards of 100 years, as it may, the property will have amounted to upwards of one hundred millions sterling.
65. N.Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. 726. sec. 37-40.
66. Stephens v. Stephens, Cases temp. Talbot, 228.
67. Clarke v. Smith, 1 Lutw. 798. Hopkins v. Hopkins, Forrest, 44.Gibson v. Lord Mountfort, 1 Vesey’s Rep. 485. Mb. 93. S.C.
68. Rogers v. Ross, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 388.

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. 
 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.