Land held for long term enlarged into fee simple.

(e) Whitchurch v. Whitchurch, 2 P. W. 236; 9 Mod. 124; Good-right v. Sales, 2 Wils. 329, 331.

(f) Vapel v. Girdler, 9 Ves. 509; Sug. V. & P. 625, 626; and see Saxton v. Saxton, 13 Ch. D. 359, and cases there cited.

(q) Belaney v. Belaney, L. R. 2 Ch. 138.

(h) Gunter v. Gunter, 23 Beav. 571.

(i) Stat. 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25 (4), which commenced on the 1st Nor. 1875; stat. 37 & 38 Vict. c. 83.

(j) See Ingle v. Vaughan Jen-kins, 1900, 2 Ch. 368; ' Thellusson v. Liddard, ib. 635; Capital & Counties Bank, Ltd. v. Rhodes, 1903, 1 Ch. 631; Lea v. Thursby, 1904, 2 Ch. 57; Re Gibbon, 1909, 1 Ch. 367, 373.

(k) Stats. 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41, s. 65, amended by 45 & 46 Vict, c. 39, s. 11.

On the purchase of leaseholds settled on such trusts as shall correspond, as nearly as the rules of law and equity will permit, with the uses declared of some freehold lands assured in strict settlement (o), it must not be forgotten that the leaseholds are not thereby converted in equity into real estate (p). On the contrary, they remain personal estate and will therefore vest absolutely (subject to any prior life interests) in the person, who becomes entitled to the first estate of inheritance, whether in fee or in tail, in the settled freeholds (q); unless the settlement contain the usual proviso that the leaseholds shall not vest absolutely in any person thereby made tenant in tail by purchase unless he shall attain the age of twenty-one years, but shall devolve on his death as if they were freeholds of inheritance limited to the uses of the settlement. Such a proviso is only effective if confined to tenants in tail taking by purchase; and does not of course prevent the leaseholds from vesting absolutely in the person, who becomes entitled to the first estate tail, if he take by purchase and be of or attain full age, or if he should become entitled thereto by inheritance (whether of full age or not) (r). Leaseholds settled in this way do not, of course, require to be disentailed at any time. If a re-settlement be made, they should be assigned, as the absolute property in reversion of the tenant in tail, upon trusts to correspond with the uses declared of the freeholds thereby assured, subject to the above-mentioned proviso (s).

Leaseholds settled on trust to go with freeholds.

(l) See above, pp. 106 - 108, 208 - 210.

(m) See above, pp. 97 101, 192, 208-210.

(n) See Hood & Challis, Cony. and Settled Land Act.-, 160 sq., 9th ed.

(o) As to this mode of settlement. see Davidson, Prec. Conv.

vol. 3, pp. 599 - 605, 1130, 3rd ed.; vol. 4, p. 435, 3rd ed.: Williams on Settlements, 223.

(p) See Re Walker, 1908, 2(h. 705, 712; Be Gibbon, 1909, 1 Ch. 367, 378.

(q) See Foley v. Burnell, 1 Bro. C. C. 274. 4 Bro. P. C. 319; Wms. Pers. Prop. 363, 409. 410, 16th ed.; and authorities cited in note (o), above.

W

Sometimes leases contain an agreement giving to the lessee, his executors, administrators or assigns, the option of purchasing the freehold from the lessor, his heirs or assigns, either at any time during the continuance of the term or within some shorter period. It must be remembered that covenants of this kind are collateral covenants, not touching or concerning the demised premises as such, and are subject to the same law as options to purchase conferred by agreements independent of leases (t). Contracts giving options exercisable at any future time (without limit) to purchase land are so far subject to the rule against perpetuities that the Courts will not enforce them specifically against persons not parties to the contract, who have acquired the original contractor's estate by succession after death or by assignment with notice of the contract, in any case where the effect of ordering such specific performance would he to secure to the person entitled to the option a contingent equitable interest in the land, which would not necessarily vest (if at all) within the period allowed by the rule (u). It has been held, however, that such agreements are not void at law as contracts, but are enforceable by action for damages in case of their breach (x). And it has been considered that contracts of this kind are specifically enforceable against the original contractor, even though made by a corporation enjoying immortal existence (y). The result is that, to be perfectly effective, options to purchase land must be limited so as to be exercisable only within some period not exceeding that allowed by the rule against perpetuities, namely, the duration of some specified life or lives in being at the date of the contract giving the option and twenty-one years thereafter (z), and this is equally the case where the contract is contained in a lease as where it is not. If therefore the lease be for a term exceeding twenty-one years and the option be for the lessee, his executors, administrators or assigns, to purchase of the lessor, his heirs or assigns, at any time during the term, the option is only partially effective.

Options to purchase contained in leases.

How far options of purchase are subject to the rule against perpetuities.

(r) See authorities cited in note (o), above. Personal chattels such as furniture, pictures, plate and jewels, are governed by the same law when settled on trust to accompany freeholds; see Wms. Pers. Prop. 408 - 410, 16th ed.; but see Re Chesham's Settlement, 1909, 2 Ch, 329, and Mr. Charles Sweet's criticism of this decision in 54 Sol. J. 26; Re Parker, 1910, 1 Ch. 581.

(s) See 2 Key & Elph. Prec. Conv. 710, 715, 4th ed.; 744, 748, 9th ed.

(t) Woodall v. Clifton, 1905, 2 Ch. 257; and see an article by the writer in 42 Sol. J. 628, 650.

(u) London & South Western Ry. Co. v. Gomm, 20 Ch. D. 562, 580, sq.; and see South Eastern Ry. Co. v. Associated "Portland etc, Ltd., 1910, 1 Ch. 12, 28 - 34, the decision in which case is criticised by the writer in 54 Sol. J. 471, 501.