« ForrigeFortsett »
* V. Chattels may be limited over by way of re- 352* mainder, after a life interest in them is created, though not after a gift of the absolute property. The law was very early settled, that chattels real might be so limited by will.* A chattel personal may also be given by will (and it is said, that the limitation may also be equally by deed,b) to A. for life, with remainder over to B., and the limitation over, after the life interest in the chattel has expired, is good. At common law, there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but a gift for life carried the absolute interest. Then a distinction was taken between the use and the property, and it was held that the use might be given to one for life, and the property afterwards to another, though the devise over of the
• Manning's case, 8 Co. 95. Lampctt's case, 10 Co. 46. Child v. Bailey, Cro. J., 459.
b 2 Black: Com. 398. Langworthy v. Chadwick, 13 Conn. Rep. 42. The cases are generally upon wills; but in Child v. Bailey, Cro. J., 459, the court speak of such a remainder as being created equally by grant or devise. In Powell v. Brown, 5. C. Law Journal, No. 3, 442, it was held, that a limitation over of a personal chattel, by deed, was good, though it was not by way of executory trust or a conveyance to uses. See, also, Powell v. Brown, 1 Bailey's S. C. Rep. 100. But if the limitation in remainder, after a life estate in personalty, be not by executory devise, it can only be by conveyance in trust . Betty v. Moore, 1 Dana's Ken. Rep. 237. So, in Morrow v. Williams, 3 Dev. N. C. Rep. 263, it was said to be a settled rule in North Carolina, that a remainder in chattels, after a life estate, could not be created by deed. In Rathbone v. Dyckman, 3 Paige's Rep. 1, it was held, that a limitation over of personal estate to A. in case of the death of B., without lawful issue, was valid; for the N. Y. Rev. Stat. vol. i. p. 724, sec. 22. p. 773. sec. 2, have declared, that the words dying without issue, mean issue living at the death of the first taker. See infra, vol. iv. p. 283. In the English chancery, in bequests of chattel interests, the words living a t the time of the testator's death, are often supplied by intendment to avoid uncertainty. Thus a bequest to the children of A., or a legacy to A. for life, and then to the children of B., the law, in the case of real estates, restricts the bounty to the children living at the death of A. or B., as the case may be. Equity will not presume that a party who is not in esse is intended, unless such intention be manifest. Bartleman v. Murchausen, 3 Russ. Mylne. 136.
chattel itself would be void.1 1 It was finally settled, that there was nothing in that distinction, and that a gift for life of a chattel, was a gift of the use only, and the rema jader over was good as an executory devise.b This limitation over in remainder is good as to every species of chattels of a durable nature; and there is no difference in that respect between money and any other chattel interest. The general doctrine is established by numerous English equity decisions,0 and it has been very extensively recognized and adopted as the existing rule of law in this country; but not until the question had *353 been very ably *and thoroughly discussed, particularly in the supreme court of errors of the state of Connecticut.'1
* 37 Hen. VI. abridged in Bro. tit. Devise, pi. 13. Hastings v. Douglass, Cro. C. 343.
b Hyde v. Parralt, 1 P. Wms. I. It has been frequently held, Mr. J. Buller observed, in Doe v. Perryn, 3 Term, 484, that the words dying without issue, mean without issue at the time of the death of the party in cases of personal property, though it be not so in the limitation ol freehold estates.
« Smith v. Clever, 2 Vern. Rep. 59. Hyde v. Parralt, 1 P. Wma. 1. Tissen v. Tissen, Ibid, 500. Pleydell v. Pleydell, Ibid. 74a Porter v. Tourney, 3 Ves. 311. Randall v. Russell, 3 Merivale's Rep. 190.
« Moffat v. Strong, 10 Johns. Rep. 12. Westcott v. Cady, 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 334. Griggs v. Dodge, 2 Day's Rep. 28. Taber v. Packwood, Ibid. 52. Scott v. Price, 2 Serg. 4> Raiele, 59. Deihl v. King, 6 Ibid. 29. Reyall v. Eppes, 2 Munf. Rep-479. Mortimer v. Moffat, 4 Hen. $ Munf. 503. Logan v. Ladson, 1 S. C. Eq. Rep. 271. Geiger v. Brown, 4 M'Cord's Rep. 427. Brummet v. Barber, 2 Hill's S. C. Rep. 443. By the N. Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 773. sec. 1—5, the absolute ownership of personal property cannot be suspended by any limitation or condition for a longer period than two lives in being at the date of the instrument creating it, or if by will, in being at the death of the testator. The accumulation of the interest or profits of personal property may be made as aforesaid, to commence from the date of the instrument, or from the death of the person executing the same, for the benefit of one or more minors then in being, and to terminate at the expiration of their minority; and if directed to commence at a period subsequent to the date of the instrument, or death of the person executing it, the period must be during the minority of the persons to be benefitted, and terminate at the expire
There is an exception to the rule in the case of a bequest of specific things, as, for instance, corn, hay, and
tiou of thoir minority. All direction for accumulation contrary hereto, are void, and for a longer term than such minority, are void as to the excess of time. But if a minor for whoso benefit a valid accumulation of interests or profits is directed, be destitute, the chancellor may apply a suitable sum from the accumulated moneys for his relief, as to support or education. See infra, vol. iv. p. 286, the regulation of the accumulation of the income of real estates; and see Vail v. Vail, 4 Paige's Rep. 317, where it was held, that if the trust of accumulation of income of personal estate be void under the statute, such income goes as unbequeathed property. Whenever the proceeds of personal property are not validly disposed of, by the testator, they are to be distributed, as of course, to the widow and next of kin. The N. Y. Revised Statutes have not defined the objects for which express trusts of personal estate may be created, as has been the case in relation to trusts of real estate. (Infra, vol. 4. 310.) They may therefore be created for any purposes which are not illegal, and except as to the mere vesting of the legal title to the property in the trustee, instead of the cestui que trust, the conveyance or bequest of personal property is governed by the same rules applicable to a grant or devise of a similar interest in real property. The Revised Statutes, vol. i. 773. tit. 4, restrict, as above stated, the power of suspending the right of alienation of personal property and the right of accumulation within similar limits. Gott v. Cook, 7 Paige, 534-5. In all other respects limitations of future or contingent personal estates are the same as if the subject was real estate. Hone v. Van Schaick, 7 Paige, 222. Kane v. Gott, 24 Wendell, 641. The N. Y. R. Statutes, concerning uses and trusts, are confined to real property. They do not interfere with the mere appropriation of the fund as to personal property, and only as to limitations of future or contingent interest therein, for if the limitation be on a contingency, it must be confined within certain boundaries of time, otherwise you run into an objectional perpetuity. The rules of real property are not impressed upon personal property, except as to future contingent limitations. See the remarks of Mr. Justice Cowen on this subject in Kane v. Gott, ut. sup. p. G62, 663. 666. If personal estate be vested in trustees upon various trusts, some being valid and others void, the court will sustain the valid ones if they can be separated from those which are illegal. Van Vechten v. Van Veghten, 8 Paige's Rep. 105.
The testator may direct the payment of legacies out of the income of the estate by anticipation. He may bequeath the same as a future estate undiminished in amount, subject to the rules against perpetuities. He may carve such intermediate interests, estates, and portions out of the income, in the mean time, as he pleases, if it can be done without an actual accumulation of the rents and profits for that purpose. But an accumulafruits, of which the use consists in the consumption. The gift of such articles for life is, in most cases, of necessity, a gift of the absolute property; for the use and the property cannot exist separately.1 1 If not specifically given, but generally as goods and chattels with remainder over, the tenant for life is bound to convert them into money and save the principal for the remainder-man.b It is a general principle that where any interest short of absolute ownership is given in the general residue of personal estate, terms for years and other perishable funds or property which may be consumed in the use, are to be converted or invested, so as to produce a permanent capital, and the income thereof only is to go to the residuary legatee.0 There cannot be any estate tail in a chattel interest, unless in very special cases for that would lead to a perpetuity, and no remainder over can
tion of rents and profits for the purpose of raising a legacy or portion at a future day, is not permitted in New-York, except such legacy orportion be for the sole benefit of a minor in existence when the accumulation commences. N. Y. R. S. vol. i. p. 726. sec. 37. 38. Ibid. 773. sec. 3. 4.
* Randall v. Russell, 3 Merivale's Rep- 194. Evans v. Eglehart, 6 Gill
Johns. 171. Henderson v. Vaulx, 10 Yerger, 30. If the specific personal property bequeathed for life with remainder over, be capable of increase, as cattle, &c., the tenant for life taking the increase to himself, is bound to keep up the number of the original stock. 1 Domat, b. 1. tit. line. 5. But if the animals do not produce young ones, the tenant for life, called the usufructuary in the civil law, is not bound to supply the place of those that die without his fault. Ihid. sec. 6. In the southern states, slaves may be bequeathed for life and remainder over, and the tenant for life is bound in equity to account for them. Horry v. Glover, 2 Hill's S. C. Ch. Rep. 520. Though property be of a perishable nature, it may, when the case will admit of it, be bequeathed to A. for life, with remainder over; but as such property becomes less valuable, from year to year, it may, under the direction of chancery, be converted into government stock, for the protection of the remainder-man. 4 Russell's Rep. 200.
b Patterson v. Devlin, 1 M'Mullan, S. C. R. 459. The rights of the tenant for life and of the remainder-man, in perishable articles, and in other things which deteriorate or wear out by use and time, are discussed at large in that case, and many illustrations given and distinctions stated.
« How v. Earl ol Dartmouth, 7 Vesey, 137. Fearns v. Young, 9 Ibid. be permitted on such a limitation.* It is a settled rule, that the same words which, under the English law would create *an estate tail as to freeholds, give *354 the absolute interest as to chattels.b
The interest of the party in remainder in chattels, is precarious, because another has an interest in possession; and chattels, by their very nature, are exposed to abuse, loss, and destruction.0 It was understood to be the old rule in chancery,d that the person entitled in remainder could call for security from the tenant for life, that the property should be forthcoming at his decease, for equity regards the tenant for life as a trustee for the remainderman; but that practice has been overruled.e Lord Thurlow said, that the party entitled in remainder could call for the exhibition of an inventory of the property, and which must be signed by the legatee for life, and deposited in court, and that is all he is ordinarily entitled to.f But it is admitted, that security may still be required, in a case of real danger, that the property may be wasted, secreted or removed.g And where there is a general
* Dyer s Rep. 7. pL 8. 2 Blacks. Cent. 398.
D Seale v. Sealo, 1 P. Wms. 290. Chandles v. Price, 3 Vesey, 99. Brouncker v. Bagot, 1 Merisale's Rep. 271. Tothill v. Pitt, 1 MaddoeVs Ch. Rep. 488. Garth v. Baldwin, 2 Vesey, 646. Jackson v. Ball, 10 Johns. Rep. 19. Paterson v. Ellis, 11 Wendell's Rep. 259. Moody v. Walker, 3 Arkansas Rep. 147.
< The interest in remainder in a chattel was held in Allen v. Scurry, 1 Yerger's Tenn. Rep. 36, not to be the subject of sale on fi. fa., for no delivery could be made by the sheriff. The remainder of a term in a live chattel was a contingent interest.
* 2 Freeman's Rep. 206, case 280. Bracken v. Bentley, 1 Rep. in Ch. 59]
* Foley v. Burnell, 1 Bro. Rep. 279. Sutton v. Craddock, 1 Iredell's H. C. Eq. Rep. 134.
f The rule in New-York, as declared in De Peyster v. Clendining, 8 Paige's Rep. 295, is in the case of a specific bequest for the legatee to give to the personal representative of the testator an inventory of the articles bequeathed, stating his possession of them, and that when his interest expires, they are to be delivered np.
s Fearne on Executory Deeises, vol. ii. p. 35, 4th ed. by Powell. Mortimer v. Moffat, 3 Hen. $ Munf. 503. Gardner v. Harden, 2 M'Cord's