FUTURE INTERESTS - RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE - WHERE REMAINDER TO HEIRS IS "CONTINGENT"

Authors

Abstract

A grantor conveyed premises to his daughter and her husband "For and during their lifetime, then to the heirs of the body of our daughter, Henrietta Ann Briegel, and if she leaves no child or children surviving her, then to her heirs according to law." Henrietta died without ever having had children and devised all her property to her husband, defendant herein. Plaintiff as heir at law of Henrietta brought suit for partition. Held, the remainders created were contingent with a double aspect. The rule in Shelley's case does not apply where the remainder in the heirs is contingent. Defendant took nothing by the devise. Plaintiff and other heirs took the fee by purchase subject to defendant's life estate. Gehlbach v. Briegel, (Ill. 1934; rehearing denied, 1935) 194 N. E. 591.

Recommended Citation

FUTURE INTERESTS - RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE - WHERE REMAINDER TO HEIRS IS "CONTINGENT", 33 Mich. L. Rev. 1112 (1935).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol33/iss7/17