over A takes only an estate for life, coupled with a power, which if not exercised gives effect to the remainder.9

§ 1247. Limitation Over After Absolute Interest is Void. It is well established that, notwithstanding any formal limitation over, the limitation over is void when the will shows a clear purpose to give an absolute power of disposition to the first taker,1 for a limitation over after a bequest of personal property with unlimited power of disposition in the first taker would be an inconsistent estate.2

A bequest unlimited and accompanied by an absolute power of disposition, passes, moreover, the whole interest, notwithstanding precatory words of the will as to the manner of the disposal, or a restriction on alienation.*

The rule that a bequest of personalty with power of disposition creates an absolute estate, though there is a limitation over of property undisposed of will not be applied

1. Ross v. Ross, Jack. & W. 154; Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Jackson v. Bull, 10 Johns. 18; Fall River Print Works v. Fall River, 110 Mass. 432; 4 Leigh. 408; Howard v. Carusi, 109 U. S. 725, 27 L. Ed. 1089; Davis v. Callahan, 78 Me. 313, 5 A. 73; Warner v. Willard, 54 Conn. 470, 9 A. 136; Bolman v. Lohman, 79 Ala. 63; In re Baker, 151 N. Y. S. 954, 88 Misc. Rep. 341, decree modified 154 N. Y. S. 695; Hyde v. Hyde, 102 A. 830, 88 N. J. Eq. 358; Early v. Arnold. 9 S. E. 900, 119 Va. 500; In re Hoffman's Will, 124 N. Y. S. 1089, 140 App. Div. 121, affirming decree (Sur. 1909) 121 N. Y. S. 100, 65 Misc. Rep. 126; Appeal of Strong, 81 A. 1020, 84 Conn. 665; Gloodgood v. Lewis, 102 N. E. 610, 209 N. Y. 95; In re Rogers' Estate, 91 A. 351, 245 Pa. 206; Jenne v. Jenne, 271 Ill. 526, 111 N. E. 540; Pierce v. Pierce, 114

Me. 11, 96 A. 143; Turnbull v. Johnson, 116 N. W. 1009, 153 Mich. 228, 15 Detroit Leg. N. 403; Cornelison v. Million, 124 S. W. 366; Dallinger v. Merrill, 113 N. E. 279, 224 Mass. 534; Settles v. Shafer, 129 S. W. 897.

2. This unlimited power of disposition which defeats an attempted limitation may be gathered from the whole intent of the will rather than express words. Meacham v. Graham, 98 Tenn. 190, 39 S. W. 12; Collins v. Wickwire, 162 Mass. 144, 38 N. E. 365, and cases cited.

3. Tuellenwider V. Watson, 113 Ind. 18, 14 N. E. 571; §§ 595-597; Miller v. Stubbs, 90 A. 1132, 244 Pa. 482.

4. Hacker v. Hacker, 138 N. Y. S. 194, 153 App. Div. 270, reversing judgment 133 N. Y. S. 266, 75 Misc. Rep. 380; In re Wadskier's Will, N. J. 98 A. 402.

->

where there has been no exercise of the right of disposition."

An absolute estate cannot readily be cut down by subsequent inconsistent expressions, but where the later clauses of the will show clearly that a lesser interest is intended the prior gift will be restricted accordingly."

§ 1248. Limitation Over After Life Estate With Power is Valid.

Where a life estate with power of disposition is devised a gift over of the part of the estate not disposed of is valid, and a devise over of what remains after a life estate does not give an absolute title to the first taker. A gift to A with power to transfer with a gift over of what remains may give A a life estate with power of consumption.1

§ 1249. Exercise of Power.

Where a power of conveyance given a life tenant is not exercised the remainder over is not thereby defeated, and where a life tenant with an absolute power of disposal con

5. In re Watson's Estate, 88 A. 433, 241 Pa. 271.

6. Mullaney v. Monahan, 122 N. E. 387; Murray V. Roman Catholic Home for Orphan and Destitute Children of Boston, 122 N. E. 557.

7. In re Hoopes' Estate, 80 A. 537, 231 Pa. 232.

8. Mims v. Davis, 197 Ala. 88, 72 So. 344; Bynum v. Swoope, 201 Ala. 19, 75 So. 170; Scott v. Gillespie, 103 Kan. 745, 176 P. 132; Park v. McCombs, 146 Ky. 327, 142 S. W. 401; Angel v. Wood, 153 Ky. 195, 154 S. W. 1103; Trustees Presbyterian Church, Somerset v. Mize, 181 Ky. 567, 205 S. W. 674; Phelps v. Stoner's Adm'r, 466 Ky. 184, 212 S. W.

423; Richards v. Morrison, 101 Me.
424, 64 A. 768; Reed v. Reed, 194
Mass. 216, 80 N. E. 219; Gibson v.
Gibson, 239 Mo. 490, 144 S. W. 770;
Schneider v. Kloepple, 270 Mo. 389,
193 S. W. 834; Seaward v. Davis,
198 N. Y. 415, 91 N. E. 1107, modi-
fying judgment (1909) 117 N. Y. S.
468, 133 App. Div. 91; In re Olson's
Will, 165 Wis. 409, N. W. 429.
9. Haviland v. Haviland, 130 Iowa,
611, 105 N. W. 354; Laberteaux v.
Wll, 165 iWis. 409, 162 N. W. 429.

124 N.

1. Pratt v. Skiff, Ill., E. 534; In re Keown's Estate, 238 Pa. 343, 86 A. 20. 2. Buckner 371, 164 S. W. 513.

V.. Buckner, 255 Mo.

veys the fee while insane the remaindermen may be relieved in equity.3

§ 1250. Whether Power Given Life Tenant is to Convey a

Fee.

Where a life estate is devised with general expressions indicating a power of disposal this means only such power as the life tenant had and gives no power to sell more than a life interest, unless the will clearly gives a larger power, and hence a devise of property to the wife with full power of control during her life and then to be divided as directed gives the wife only a life estate without power to sell, except her life estate, and where the holder of a life estate with an unlimited power of sale conveys, the grantee has only the title which the life tenant had, but still the power given the life tenant may be a power to dispose of the fee, or the power may give a limited right to dispose of the fee.

3. Head v. Lane, 186 Ala. 335, 65 So. 343.

4. Wardner v. Seventh Day Baptist Memorial Board, 232 Ill. 606, 83 N. E. 1077; Pratt v. Skiff, 124 N. E. 534; Southwick v.

Ill. -
South-

wick, Iowa, -,
168 N. W. 807;
Heilwig v. Nybeck, 179 Mich. 292,
146 N. W. 141; Scruggs v. Mayberry,
135 Tenn. 586, 188 S. W. 207.

5. Hoefliger v. Hoefliger, 132 Iowa, 575, 107 N. W. 312.

6. Goss v. Withers, 153 Ky. 5, 154 S. W. 398.

7. Bilger v. Nunan, 186 F. 665; Head v. Lane, 186 Ala. 335, 65 So. 343; Ward v. Caverly, 276 Ill. 416, 114 N. E. 924; Barton v. Barton, 283 Ill. 338, 119 N. E. 320; Paxton v. Paxton, 141 Iowa, 96, 119 N. W. 284;

Greenwalt v. Keller, 75 Kan. 578, 90
P. 233; Pedigo's Ex'x v. Botts, 28
Ky. Law Rep. 196, 89 S. W. 164;
Sutton v. Johnson, Ky.
· - 127 S.
W. 747; Reed v. Reed, 194 Mass. 216,
80 N. E. 219; Warren v. Ingram, 96
Miss. 438, 51 So. 888; Grace v. Perry,
197 Mo. 550, 95 S. W. 875; Threlkeld
v. Threlkeld, 238 Mo. 459, 141 S. W.
1121; Dunbar v. Sims,
Mo. -
222 S. W. 838; Dodin v. Dodin, 191
N. Y. 530, 84 N. E. 1112, affirming
101 N. Y. S. 488, 116 App. Div. 327;
Kennedy v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co.,
216 Pa. 575, 65 A. 1102; Gelb v.
Weisberger, 24 Pa. 416, 93 A. 499.

--

8. Smith v. Winsor, 239 Ill. 567, 88 N. E. 482; Phelps v. Stoner's Adm'r, 466 Ky. 184, 212 S. W. 423.

§ 1251. Rights of Life Tenant in Proceeds of Sale or Reinvestment.

Where a life tenant having absolute power to sell does sell, he may retain from the proceeds of the sale only the value of his life estate, and where the life tenant sells under the power and buys other land he still has only a life estate in the land purchased.1

So where the life tenant has a power of sale and to purchase a new place, he is entitled to the use for life of any surplus remaining after the reinvestment by the purchase of the new place.2

§ 1252. Effect of Creation of Trust.

A mere requirement that personal property be placed in the hands of a trustee does not change it from an absolute estate to a less estate where it is devised without limitations.3

§ 1253. Effect of Statutes.

A statute passed after a will takes effect cannot affect a remainder after a fee. A statute providing that an absolute power of disposition for years converts the estate into a fee for some purposes, but subject to future estates if the power is not exercised has no application to remainders by implication.5

CHAPTER VIII.

VESTED AND CONTINGENT REMAINDERS; GENERAL RULES.

SECTION 1254. Definitions of Vested and Contingent Remainders.

1255. Distinctions Between Vested and Contingent Remainders. 1256. Construction in Favor of Vesting.

1257. Intention of Testator Controls Rule in Favor of Vesting.
1258. Presumption in Favor of Early Vesting.

1259. Certainty of Beneficiaries and Time of Enjoyment.
1260. Postponement of Time of Payment or Distribution.
1261. Vested Interest in Contingent Remainder.

1262. Rule Against Perpetuities.

1263. Vesting Dependent on Several Contingencies.

1264. Rule Against Double Possibilities.

1265. Rule That Contingent Remainder Must Take Effect at the Instant the Particular Estate Determines.

1266. Words Indicating Time of Vesting.

1267. Inconsistent Words Added to Present Gift.

1268. Conditions Precedent or Subsequent.

1269. Character of Remainder Subject to Gift Over.
1270. Character of Gift Over on Death of Remainderman.
1271. Statutes.

§ 1254. Definitions of Vested and Contingent Remainders. An estate is vested when there is an immediate right of present enjoyment or a present fixed right of future enjoyment.1 A vested remainder is one that takes effect in interest and right immediately on the death of the testator, though it may not take effect in possession or enjoyment until the death of the devisee for life or other determination of the present estate, while in case of a contingent

1. Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill. 389, 88 N. E. 246.

2. Ward v. Sage, 185 F. 7; Golladay v. Knock, 235 Ill. 412, 85 N. E. 649; Pingrey v. Rulon, 246 Ill. 109, 92 N. E. 592; Davie's Ex'r v. City of Louisville, 171 Ky. 663, 188 S. W.

911; Craig's Adm'r v. Williams, 179 Ky. 329, 200 S. W. 481; Nunnelly's Guardian v. Nunnelly, 180 Ky. 131, 201 S. W. 976; Trowbridge v. Coss, 195 N. Y. 596, 89 N. E. 1114, affirming 110 N. Y. S. 1108, 126 App. Div. 679; In re Hitchcock's Will, 222 N.