Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1896 edition. Excerpt: ...by Sargent, J., in Kealey v. Tappan: "Where a testator makes a general gift of his estate generally, to or in trust for, any person for life with remainder over, so much of the property as is of a perishable nature must be converted and invested in permanent securities for the benefit of the remainderman and the tenant for life shall have only the income arising therefrom. The same rule applies to articles quo ipso consum antur, when, instead of being specifically bequeathed, are included in such a general gift, of all, or the residue of the testator's estate generally, to one for life with remainder over. But the rule is different where the bequest is of specific articles to one for life, with remainder over. There the tenant for life is entitled to the possession and use of the property and should the article be worn out, damaged or wholly destroyed during the life estate, the remainderman has no remedy." This is a concise statement of the doctrine of Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth referred to in the text of the illustration to this article. The doctrine of that case i8 fully followed in the United States. Weeks v. Weeks, 5 N. H. 326; Williamson v. Williamson, 6 Paige, 298; De Peystero. Clendenning, 8 Paige, 295; Spear o. Tinkham, 2 Barb. Ch. 211; Kennard o. Kennard, 5 Watts, 108; The above rule, known as thi! rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth (1), is really only a corollary of the principle stated in Article 36, viz., that the trustee must act impartially between the beneficiaries. For if wasting property (such as leaseholds, terminable annuities, and the like) were to be retained, the tenant for life would profit at the expense of the remaindermen; and if reversionary property were not converted, the remaindermen would profit at the...
