FUTURE INTERESTS-PARTIES-UNBORN PERSONS-VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION

Authors

A. E. Anderson S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Testator devised land to his six children for life with provision for a division into six equal parcels, and with remainder over to each life tenant's surviving issue. Subsequently, four of the life tenants brought an action against the other two life tenants and the three children of the life tenant then living, and obtained a decree ordering a sale of the land, and requiring each life tenant to file a bond conditioned that he safely keep such portion of his share of the proceeds as would be necessary to, protect the interests of any after-born child. The vendee gave no consideration, and immediately reconveyed a separate parcel of land to each of the six life tenants in fee simple. Plaintiff's father, one of the life tenants, had no children at this time and later sold his parcel to defendant at a fair price. Several years later plaintiff was born, and she brought this action to vacate the partition decree on the ground that the court had had no jurisdiction over her interests as an unborn contingent remainderman, and for a declaration of her interest in the land held by defendant. Held, the partition decree is conclusive under the doctrine of virtual representation, plaintiff being represented there by the three contingent remaindermen made parties. Garside v. Garside, (Cal. App. 1947) 181 P. (2d) 665.

Recommended Citation

A. E. Anderson S.Ed., FUTURE INTERESTS-PARTIES-UNBORN PERSONS-VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 569 (1948).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss4/15