shall not take the grant or bequest before he settles down and marries, or reforms from intemperate and bad habits, such condition is valid11.

$191. Conditions of Restraint or Alienation.

It is well settled that provisions in restraint of alienation are not to be favored12, and it is manifest that at common law a condition or restriction which would suspend all power of alienation of vested estates in fee, even for a single day, is void13

$192. Construction of Conditions.

Conditions are not favored in law when they defeat estates, and they should not for a moment be subject to be continued at the option or through the misconduct or neglect of others where any other commission is reasonable11.

Mich. 142, 81 N. W. 1087.

11. Markham v. Hufford, 123 Mich. 505, 48 L. R. A. 580, 81 Am. St. Rep. 222, 82 N. W. 222. 12. Walton v. Torrey, Har.

259.

13. Mandelbaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78, 18 Am. Rep. 61.

14. Calkins v. Smith's Estate, 41 Mich. 409, 1 N. W. 1048; Walton v. Torrey, Har. 259.

CHAPTER XIII.

PERPETUITIES AND CHARITABLE DEVISES.

$193. Perpetuity. Definition.

$194. Distinction Between the Three Aspects of the Rule. $195. The Object of the Rule.

§196. Origin of the Rule.

$197. The Rule at Common Law.

$198. The Nature of the Contingency.

$199. Actual As Well As Possible Events Considered.

$201. To What Estates and Rights the Rule is Applied.

$202. To What Estates and Rights the Rule Is Not Applied.

§203. The Common Law Rule Modified by Statute.

$204. Statute.

$205. The Object of the Statute.

$206. The Application of the Doctrine of Perpetuities Under the

Statutes.

$207. What Rules Obtain Under the Statute.

$208. The Effect of the Rule.

$209. When Power of Alienation is Suspended.

$210. When Power of Alienation is Not Suspended.

$211. The Test of What Constitutes Suspension of Alienation.

$212. Restraints Upon Alienation Are Not Favored in Law.

$213. All Rights of Property Alienable.

$214. To What Estates the Rule Relating to the Power of Alienation is Applied.

$215. Creation of Future Estates.

$216. When Estate Created.

$217. Time of Remoteness. From What Period to Be Reckoned.

$218. Remainder Created in Favor of One Not Being at Time of

Testator's Death.

$219. Valid Devises and Bequests Under the Statute.

$220. Invalid Devises and Bequests Under the Statute.

$221. Invalid Provisions Cannot be Made by Widow Exercising Her Election.

$222. Effect of Violation of the Rule Under the Statute.

$223. Effect of Partial Violation of the Rule Under the Statute. $224. The Prevailing Question Under the Statute.

$225. All Executory Devise Exceeding the Period of Limitation Set by Statute.

$226. When the Power of Alienation Never Would be Suspended.

$227. Where a Contingent Remainder Vests as to Alienation. §228. Avoiding the Statute in Restraint of Alienation by Clothing Trustees With Power of Sale.

§229. Charges of Legacies on Real and Personal Property.

$230. The Distinction Between the Palms' Will Case and the Niles' Will Case.

$231. An Estate Placed in Trust and Alienation.

$232. What Law Governs.

$233. Construction of Statute.

$234. Accumulation.

$235. The Rule That Obtains as to Accumulations of Income From Personal Property.

$236. The Object of the Statute Forbidding Accumulations.

$237. The Rule That Obtains as to Accumulation of Rents and Profits -Annuities to Children.

$238. The Rule Concerning a Trust for Accumulation Beyond Period Prescribed.

$239. Charitable Devises or Uses.

$240. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions as to Charitable Devises

or Uses.

§241. Statutes Relating to Time When Charitable Devises Must be Made.

$242. Who May be Beneficiaries.

§193. Perpetuity. Definition.

Perpetuity may be defined as "a future limitation, whether executory or by way of remainder, and of either real or personal property, which is not to vest until after the expiration of, or will not necessarily vest within, the period fixed and prescribed by law for the creation of future estates and interests, and which is not destructible by the persons for the time being entitled to the property subject to the future limitation, except with the concurrence of the individual interested under that limitation." Again, per

petuity may be defined as a future limitation whereby the vesting of an estate or interest is unlawfully postponed, not because the grant as written would make them perpetual, but because it transgresses the limits which the law has set

1. Mr. Lewis' Work on Perpetuities.

in restraint of grants that tend to a perpetual suspense of the title or its vesting2. These definitions, although not perfect, come more nearly to expressing the true meaning of perpetuity than any other. The difficulty in formulating an exact definition arises from the fact that a series of decisions have maintained that alienability of the property may be regarded as the test of perpetuity, while others1 maintained that alienable estates may create a perpetuity. Thus, under the general doctrine of perpetuity by which restraints upon property are created, three aspects of the subject are to be considered:

First, postponement of the vesting;

Second, unlawful restraint on alienation;
Third, unlawful accumulation of property.

§194. Distinction Between the Three Aspects of the Rule.

The distinction between the rule against perpetuity and the rule against restraint upon alienation lies in that the first refers to the time when the devise vests, while the second refers to the power the devisee has over his devise after it has been vested. The application of the rule against perpetuity depends upon the fact whether the interest or estate devised is vested or not", while the application of the rule against restraint upon alienation depends on there being no persons in being by whom an absolute fee in possession can be conveyed or where the power of alienation in the

2. Johnstone's Estate, 185 Pa. St. 179.

3. Winsor v. Mills, 157 Mass. 362; French v. Old South Soc., 106 Mass. 479; Battle Square Church v. Grant, 3 Gray (Mass.) 142, 63 Am. Dec. 725; Odell v.

Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1; Barnum v. Barnum, 26 Md. 119, 90 Am. Dec. 88.

4. Avern v. Lloyd, L. R. 5 Ey. 383.

5. Toms v. Williams, 41 Mich. 552, 2 N. W. 814.

devisee is suspended for a period beyond the time allowed by law. Thus both rules are infringed where a devise is made for a time specified-not based upon lives-and the devise is to be used for a certain named purpose by which the power of alienation is affected, after which it is to pass to a beneficiary named. The rule against unlawful accumulation distinguishes itself from the others in that the period of accumulation under a will of the income of personal property may be made for any number of lives in being and for twenty-one years longer, while the rule against accumulation of rents and profits is that the period of accumulation must not be for a period longer than during the minority of the persons intended to be benefited thereby, but a provision for accumulating until the youngest of several minors arrives at the age of twenty-one is no violation of the rule".

$195. The Object of the Rule.

The object of the rule against perpetuities is to have "a limit beyond which the hand of the dead may not fetter the property of the living." It is manifestly unreasonable to allow a man to accumulate property after his death so as to cast moral turpitude and economic blights upon his descendants and thereby perpetrate a wrong upon the community. Thus, its object was to prevent the tying up of estates beyond a certain period and "making them incapable of answering the ends of social commerce and providing

6. Fitzgerald v. City of Big Rapids, 123 Mich. 281, 82 N. W.

56.

7. Toms v. Williams, 41 Mich. 552, 2 N. W. 814.

8. Toms v. Williams, 41 Mich 552, 2 N. W. 814.

9. Toms v. Williams, 41 Mich. 552, 2 N. W. 814.