3

Overview Transcribe Versions Help

Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is ~~highlighted in red~~, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

5 revisions	Lily Ha at May 06, 2017 01:16 AM	Compared with
May 06, 2017 Lily Ha Apr 20, 2017 Lily Ha Apr 20, 2017 Lily Ha Apr 20, 2017 Lily Ha Mar 30, 2017 UVA Law Library	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]	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 [?], 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]

3

5 revisions

3

3