Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Rule-Against-Perpetuities-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:40:27+00:00

Document:
1 Kay & J. 74; Trotter v. Oswald, 1 Cox, Ch. 317; Ex parte Davies, 2 Sim. (N. S.) 114; Roe v. Jeffery, 7 Term R. 589; Barlow v. Salter, 17 Ves. 479.
288 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1415.
289 Sanders v. Cornish, Cro. Car. 230; Love v. Wyndham, 1 Mod. 50.
290 Tatton v. Mollineux, Moore, 809; Retherick v. Chappel, 2 Bulst 28.
291 Gray, Perp. §§ 155-158; Davenport v. Kirkland, 156 111. 169, 40 N. E. 304; Terrell v. Reeves, 103 Ala. 264, 16 South. 54. But, contra, Child v. Baylie, Cro. Jac. 459.
292 Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn. 114; Vanderplank v. King, 3 Hare, 1; Parfitt v. Hember, L. R. 4 Eq. 443; Humberston v. Humberston, 1 P. Wins. 332; Elliott v. Elliott, 12 Sim. 276; Kevern v. Williams, 5 Sim. 171. Cf. Hampton v. Holman, 5 Ch. Div. 183; Routledge v. Dorril, 2 Ves. Jr. 358; Hale v. Pew, 25 Beav. 335. But see St. Amour v. Rivard, 2 Mich. 294.
293 see Gray, Perp. §§ 287-294. Contra, that they are void, Whitby v. Mitchell, 44 Ch. Div. 85.
294 Brattle Square Church v. Grant, 3 Gray (Mass.) 142; Hunt v. Wright, 47 N. H. 396. Contra, Dunn v. Flood, 25 Ch. Div. 629. See, however, Lon don & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Gomm, 20 Ch. Div. 562.
295 See Abbiss v. Burney, 17 Cb. Div. 211; Bull v. Pritchard, 5 Hare, 567; Blagrove v. Hancock, 16 Sim. 371.
296 rbiladelpbia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. St 9; Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 95. Contra, Slade v. Patten, 68 Me. 380.
297 Gray, Perp. §§ 562-571.
298 Lovvry v. Muldrovv, 8 Rlcb. Eq. (S. C.) 241; Hills v. Simonds, 125 Mass. 536; Boughton v. Bougbton, 1 H. L. Cas. 406; Storrs v. Benbow, 3 De Gex, M. & G. 390; Wilkinson v. Duncan, 30 Beav. Ill; Elliott v. Elliott, 12 Sim. 276.
299 Goldsborough v. Martin, 41 Md. 488; Caldwell v. Willis, 57 Miss. 555; Dillon v. Reilly, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 152; Liley v. Hey, 1 Hare, 580; Wainman v. Field, Kay, 507.
300 Gray, Perp. § 473; Hillen v. Iselln, 144 N. Y. 865, 39 N. E. 368; In re Powell's Trusts, 39 Law J. Ch. 188. Contra, Rous v. Jackson, 29 Ch. Div. 521.
301 Morgan v. Gronon. L. R. 16 Eq. 1. The appointment is bad if it might vest at a too remote period, though it does not. Smith's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 492. An appointment over on a contingency after an appointment whicb violates the rule is void also. Routledge v. Dorril, 2 Ves. Jr. 357. A power collateral to an estate tail is not void, since the tenant in tail may bar it at any time. Lantsbery v. Collier, 2 Kay & J. 709. A void clause may be rejected, and the rest of the appointment stand. In re Teague's Settlement, L. R. 10 Eq. 564.
302 Gray, Perp. § 593; Brattle Square Church v. Grant, 3 Gray (Mass.) 142; Wells v. Heath, 10 Gray (Mass.) 17; Society for Promoting Theological Education v. Attorney General, 135 Mass. 285; Palmer v. Bank, 17 R. I. 627, 24 Atl. 109.
303 Gray, Perp. § 594; Leonard v. Burr, 18 N. Y. 96; Smith v. Townsend, 82 Pa. St. 434; Commissioners of Charitable Donations & Bequests v. De Clifford, 1 Dru. & War. 245; Attorney General v. Gill, 2 P. Wms. 3G9; In re Johnson's Trusts, L. R. 2 Eq. 716.
304 Gray, Perp. §§ 595, 596.
305 Christ's Hospital v. Grainger, 16 Sim. 83, 1 Mcn. & G. 460, approved Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1, 9; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 185, 2 Sup. Ct. 336; Chamberlayne v. Brockett, 8 Ch. App. 206.
306 Gray, Perp. §§ 597-603.
307 Sinnett v. Herbert, 7 Ch. App. 232.
204. In the United States the rule against perpetuities exists as at common law, except: Exception-in some states it is provided by statute that all future estates must vest -within two lives in being.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1415
 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. 
 § 473
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 593
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 594
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.