Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-185-Limitations-on-failure-of-issue.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:35:57+00:00

Document:
Since a limitation which is always subject to destruction at the option of one having an estate in fee tail in the land is not invalid under the rule, however remote may be the possible time of vesting thereunder,45 it follows that, in jurisdictions where estates in fee tail are still recogBrewst. (Pa.) 383; Thaw v. Gaff-ney, 75 W. Va. 229, 83 S. E. 983; Contra, Morrison v. Rossignol, 5 Cal. 64.
41. See e. g. London & S. W. R. Co. v. Gomm, 20 Ch. 562, 579; In re Tyrell's Estate (1907) 1 Ir. R. 194.
42. "The covenant to renew is part of the lessee's present interest." Gray, Perpetuities Sec. 230.
43. See ante Sec. 183, notes 25, 26.
44. See ante Sec. 183, note 13.
45. Ante 184, note 38.
46. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 212, 213; Marsden, Perpetuities, 183; Lewis, Perpetuity, c. 15; 1 Jarman, Wills, 217; Barter v. Pittsburg Ft. W. & C. R. Co., 166 U. S. 83, 41 L. Ed. 925; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481. In 4 Kent's Comm. 276, the author says: "The series of cases in the English law have been uniform, from the time of the Year Books down to the present day, in the recognition of the rule of law that a devise in fee, with a remainder over if the devisee dies without issue or heirs of the body is a fee cut down to an estate tail; and the limitation over is void, by way of executory devise, as being too remote, and founded on an indefinite failure of issue." The first clause of this statement is correct if restricted to cases in which a "definite" failure is not intended (see ante, 24); but the second clause is singularly incorrect, since the presence of the estate tail prevents invalidity for remoteness. Of the numerous authorities cited by the learned chancellor, all but two support merely the statement that an estate tail is created by such a devise. Of these two, one (Doe d. Fonnereau v. Fonnereau. 2 Doug. 504) decided that a limitation after an estate tail so created is valid, and the other (Barlow v. Salter, 17 Ves. 479) decided that a limitation over of personalty after an indefinite failure of issue is void. There was no rule against renoteness in the time of the Year Books.

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