Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Freehold-In-Futuro.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:09:10+00:00

Document:
29 Phelps v. Phelps, 17 Md. 120, 134; Nelson v. Russell, 135 N. Y. 137, 31 N. E. 1008; Livingston v. Greene, 52 N. Y. 118; Jones v. Swearingen, 42 S. C. 58, 19 S. E. 947; Doren v. Gillum. 136 Ind. 134, 35 N. E. 1101.
30 See ante, p. 34.
31 Cook v. Hammond, 4 Mason, 467, Fed. Cas. No. 3,159.
32 See 2 Wasbb. Real Prop. (5th Ed.) 586.
33 1 stim. Am. St. Law, § 1424d.
34 Proprietors of Church in Brattle Square v. Grant, 3 Gray (Mass.) 142.
35 Driver v. Edgar, 1 Comp. 379.
36 Dareus v. Crump, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 363; Macknet's Ex'rs v. Macknet, 24 N. J. Eq. 277; Yeaton v. Roberts, 28 N. H 459. But see Blatchford v. Newberry, 99 111. 11.
37 Buckler v. Hardy, Cro. Eliz. 585.
38 See ante, p. 32.
39 See ante, p. 133.
40 Doe v. Considine, 6 Wall. 458, 474; Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 390, 398; Wilkes v. Lion, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 333.
41 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 1421.
*Sawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 3; Parker v. Parker, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 134; Stehman v. Stehman, 1 Watts (Pa.) 466; Manderson v. Lukens, 23 Pa. St. 31; Doe v. Selby, 2 Barn. & C. 926; Hasker v. Sutton, 1 Bing. 500.
†Manderson v. Lukens, 23 Pa. St. 31; Crozier v. Bray, 39 Hun, 121; Doe v. Howell, 10 Barn. & C. 191; Purefoy v. Rogers, 2 Saund. 3S0. But see Doe v. Roach, 5 Maule & S. 482.
‡Hopkins v. Hopkins, Cas. t. Talb. 44; Doe v. Howell, 10 Barn. & C. 191.
166. Successive Remainders - One remainder may be limited to take effect after another, until the fee is exhausted. Such limitations are called successive remainders.
167. Cross Remainders - Remainders after two or more particular estates which all go over to the last survivor of the particular tenants are called cross remainders.
**Thompson v. Hoop, 6 Ohio St. 480; Wells v. Ritter, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 208. At common law, future estates cannot be created out of chattel interests. A life estate and a remainder cannot be limited out of a term of years, though the duration of the term be greater than the possible duration of the life of the first taker. Maulding v. Scott, 13 Ark. 88; Merrill v. Emery, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 507. But such limitations may be made either as future uses or executory devises. Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. G8; Gillespie v. Miller, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 21; Maulding v. Scott, 13 Ark. 88; Wright v. Cartwright. 1 Burrows, 282; Lampet's Case, 10 Coke, 46.
42 2 Washb. Real Prop. (5th Ed.) 589.
43 Whitcomb v. Taylor, 122 Mass. 243.
44 Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 3; Seabrook v. Mlkell, 1 Cheves (S. C.) 80. But see, for cases where the whole does not go to the last survivor,.
168. Alternate Remainders-when remainders are so limited after a particular estate that only one of them can ever take effect they are called alternate remainders.
McGee v. Hall, 26 S. 0. 179, 1 S. E. 711; Reynolds v. Crispin (Pa. Sup.) 11 Atl. 236.
45 Bohon v. Bohon, 78 Ky. 408. But they will not be raised in a deed by implication. Doe v. Worsley, 1 East, 416; Doe v. Dorvell, 5 Term R. 518.
46 Atherton v. Pye, 4 Term R. 710. Cf. Doe v. Cooper, 1 East, 229. In a will they may arise by implication. Watson v. Foxon, 2 East, 36; Doe v. Webb, 1 Taunt. 234; Ashley v. Ashley, 6 Sim. 358.
47 See post, p. 333. But It is not necessary that the four unities which are required for joint tenants be present in the case of cross remainders.
48 Terrell v. Reeves, 103 Ala. 264, 16 South. 54; Loddington v. Kime, 1 Salk. 224; Goodright v. Dunham, Doug. 264; Smith v. Horlock, 7 Taunt. 129.
49 See Demill v. Reid, 71 Md. 175, 17 Atl. 1014; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481; Beckley v. Leffingwell, 57 Conn. 163, 17 Atl. 766; Bank v. Ballard's Assignee, 83 Ky. 481.
50 See Whitesides v. Cooper, 115 N. C. 570, 20 S. E. 295.
169. Vested Remainders-a vested remainder is one where neither the right to the estate nor the person entitled is uncertain. The only uncertainty is as to the enjoyment.
51 Croxall v. Shererd, 5 Wall. 268, 288; Haward v. Peavey, 128 111. 430, 21 N. E. 503; Marvin v. Ledwith, 111 111. 144; Hill v. Bacon, 106 Mass. 578; In re Young, 145 N. Y. 535, 40 N. E. 226; Crews' Adm'r v. Hatcher, 91 Va, 378, 21 S. E. 811.
52 Kemp v. Bradford, 61 Md. 330; Gourley v. Woodbury, 42 Vt. 395.
53 Scofleld v. Olcott, 120 111. 362, 11 N. E. 351; Wedekind v. Hallenberg, 88 Ky. 114, 10 S. W. 368; Anthony v. Anthony, 55 Conn. 256, 11 Atl 45; Weatherhead v. Stoddard, 58 Vt. 623, 5 Atl. 517; Dingley v. Dingley, 5 Mass. 535.
54 Doe v. Considine, 6 Wall. 458; Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491; Van Giesen v. White (N. J. Ch.) 30 Atl. 331; Doe v. Perryn, 3 Term R. 484.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1424
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1421
 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.