3

no [?] would arise from the [fort?] if their equitable character, (2min. [?]. 402-3 ([t?]):
but their [?] [?] is [over?] the Rule in [Sh?] Case apply where the [C?] [?]
hold is Contingent. It seems to me that the Ru;e demands that it should be [?],
but I can [cite?] [you?] [s?] to that effect, [?] that in [?] [F?] [?], which contains
a [?] of very [?] example, the [C?] estate is in [?] Contingent, [be?]
[?] [?], [h?] [708?] [rev?], Rule in [Sh?] Case.

I [?] if [therefore?], that this seemed [question?] must be [answered?] in the negative.

The [Continuation?] of this limitations, if apprehend, would be that whilst MGP. [?]
husband [au?] [with?] [?], MGP would take an equitable estate for life, and RO.P. an equitable
Contingent remainders for his wife, dependent on his [s?] his wife, with an equitable Contingent remainders, to RO.P's heirs.

If R O. P should [s?] his wife, then he would have a [vested?] equitable estate for his
wife, which would [wrath?] with the equitable estate to his heirs, and [back?] in him an equitable
estate in fee.

Should RO.P die in his [?] life-time, then limitations to him would fail, and his heirs
[?] them [d?], would take a [vested?] remainder in fee, after the [e?] of mgp's
life-estate.

With[?] [?[ and [?], I am
Truly [Yours?],
John B. Minor

[?] [] Manning
[?]
[N.e]