Letter from Minor to McGowan, 3 September 1878

ReadAboutContentsHelp

Pages

1
Complete

1

[D?] "To James Graham as his [o?], [but?] if She' die without having male heirs, then to [William?]," his mother. -

University of [Va.?] Sept. 3, 1978.

dear Mr McGowan,

Your's of 2d [rec?], and I hasten to express upon the case you State [?] an opinions as I can from in the Short Time allowed for deliberation.

I think these can be no reasonable doubt that the effect of the devise in England, would be to [vest?] in James Graham, by implication, and the rule in Shelley's case, an estate in [trail?]-male, with remainder to [William?], his brother, for life. (2 Miss. [?]. 394, 347; Bailey's Case. 1 [Ve?]. 230; White & Collin's, Com. 301: [Richard's?] [&?] [Beryavenny?], 2 Vern. 325, [dn?](1); Dubber & [Jr?], 2 [?]. 453, [dn?] (2): [Blaik?] & Stables, 2 Ves. [?], 370,-71).

You Say that by your law, an estate [trial?] is [remanded?] to its former State, (prior to Stat. de donis), of a Conditional fee. The remainder to [Williams?] would then become

Last edit almost 7 years ago by Lily Ha
2
Complete

2

void as a remainder, (being [hinted?] after a [fee-simple?], which although determinable, leaves no [?] in the grantor). (2 Min. [?]. 335-6. Fearne's Rem. 13, [?] (h).). With as it would be void as an execratory or Conditional limitation, [e?] though [William's?] est. for [want?] of the [?] heirs, should continue to be an estate only for life. (2 Min. [?] 394,-5). I should [think?] by [p?] of reason if [sought?] to be [so] with you [also?], but that much depend upon the [adju?] of your Counts. Supposing you to have, or [?] have, a State [dispensary?] with the [would?] heirs to create an inheritance, then these is an additional [?] why the Conditional limitation to [William?] should be void, namely [remoteness?]. (2 Min [?], 395-6. 378,-9).

The limitation to [William?], not to take effect except upon the [ultimate?] [freedom?] [destination?] of James' heirs of his body, is of course too remote; but you may have enacted [?] a State as [?]. I have obviated both objections to his [takeup?] (2 Min. [?]/ 396,-7). So that you must look.

Last edit almost 7 years ago by Lily Ha
3
Complete

3

You may have, as in do, another [State?] [shall?], abolishing, or seeking to abolish. this rule in Shelley's Case. If so, James takes I apprehend, an estate for life, with remainder in fee, to the heirs-male of his body, remainder, upon a [doable?] contingency, to [Willim?] for life or in fee, [according?] as you have or have not dispensed with [body?] of inheritance in order to create an est. in fee; {(2 [Min.] [?]} with the {p?} possible consequence that upon the [?] of James' [for?], the [f?] remainder become [vested?], I [?] was defeated. (2 [Min.?] [?] 397). I rather think however, that the remainder to James' male heirs remained in contingency [with?] his death, and as he died without [male?] heirs, that [William's?] alternate remainder took effect.

Having [repand?] to one [?] [S?] (2 [Min.] [?], 392 to 394), I am of opinion that [?], that devise in questions would [?] in James, an estate in fee simple, reduced by implication, without the aid of the rule is Shelley's Case, to an estate in fee-Fail, which by [own?] Stat. of 1776, [wd?] be [c?] into a fee-simple. And that [William?]

Last edit almost 7 years ago by Lily Ha
4
Complete

4

by valid conditional limitation

[liam?] would take {by?} an estate in fee-simple, dependent upon the Contingency that James should die without leaving male-heirs, living of his death which Contingency having happened, [?] estate would take effect, and the purchaser from James would lose the land. (2 [Min.?] [?] 398).

Last edit almost 7 years ago by Lily Ha
Displaying all 4 pages