2

The possession should become vacant by the death
of Mg.P, RO.P's remainder would have a
present capacity to take [effect?] in possession,
but what if MG.P's estate [were?] determined [before?]
her death, by [S?] or forfeiture, RO.P's
remainder would not then have the need [for?]
present capacity to take effect in possession, and
therefore I conclude it is not [vested?].

Of course this assumes that a life estate may
be determined in the life-time of the [?] for life.
That it may be to determined by [?] is, I
suppose, [?], but I [conceive?] that it
may be with [like?] [certainly?], determined by forfeiture,
[as?] by the life-tenant [con?] to an [a?],
or to a corporation, [?] [no?] legal power
to receive a [conveyance?] of lands. ([F?] [Re?]
217.-18: 2 min. [?]. 170.-71([t?]). 1k.)

2. [Suppository?] the remainder to RO.P to be Contingent,
a [s?] question presents [?], whether
the Rule in [Sha?'s] Case (which I am pleased
that you have had the good sense to retain in [N?].
[C?]), would [?] the [limitation?] to RO.P's heirs
with that to [RS.P?], and then [?] in [?] an [e?]
estate in fee. [?] [ate?] the limitations [as?] equitable,

The possession should become vacant by the death
of Mg.P, RO.P's remainder would have a
present capacity to take [effect?] in possession,
but what if MG.P's estate [were?] determined [before?]
her death, by [S?] or forfeiture, RO.P's
remainder would not then have the need [for?]
present capacity to take effect in possession, and
therefore I conclude it is not [vested?].

Of course this assumes that a life estate may
be determined in the life-time of the [?] for life.
That it may be to determined by [?] is, I
suppose, [?], but I [conceive?] that it
may be with [like?] [certainly?], determined by forfeiture,
[as?] by the life-tenant [con?] to an [a?],
or to a corporation, [?] [no?] legal power
to receive a [conveyance?] of lands. ([F?] [Re?]
217.-18: 2 min. [?]. 170.-71([t?]). 1k.)

2. [Suppository?] the remainder to RO.P to be Contingent,
a see