205. At common law the rents and profits of land could be directed to be accumulated for the period allowed by the rule against perpetuities for the vesting of estates, but in a number of states statutes have prescribed a different period.

At common law, rents and profits of an estate can be directed to be accumulated during the time allowed by the rule against perpetuities.309 This, however, has been restricted to a shorter time, in many states, by statute. In some states these periods are measured by minorities; in others, a definite number of years, as 10 or 21, is prescribed, regardless of lives or minorities.310 This rule differs, however, from the rule against perpetuities, in that directions for accumulations are void only as to the excess after the time permitted.311 There is some doubt as to whether the rule against accumulations applies to gifts to charities. Where there is a present gift to a charity, with directions to accumulate the profits, if the directions are void the property will be applied to the use of the charity at once.312

308 I stim. Am. St Law, §§ 1440, 1442. The rule in these states has been discussed at length in Chapl. Suspen. Power. And see'dean v. Mumford, 102 Mich. 510, 61 N. W. 7; Morris v. Bolles, 65 Conn. 45, 31 Atl. 538; Ketchum v. Corse, 65 Conn. 85, 31 Atl. 486.

309 Thellusson v. Woodford, 11 Ves. 112.

310 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1443; Brandt v. Brandt, 13 Misc. Rep. 431, 34 N. Y. Supp. 684. The English statute on this subject is called the "Thellusson Act" (39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 98). And see In re Woods [1894] 3 Ch. 381.

311 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1444; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 1; Martin v. Maugham, 14 Sim. 230. But compare Southampton v. Hertford, 2 Ves. & B. 54; Curtis v. Lukin, 5 Beav. 147. The right to the income may be vested and only the enjoyment postponed. Smith v. Parsons, 146 N. Y. 116, 40 N. E. 736.

312 Gray, Perp. § 678.