It has been frequently stated, by courts of the highest standing, that the effect of the making of a contract for the sale of land which is specifically enforcible, is to cause an equitable conversion of the vendor's interest in the land into money and of the purchaser's interest in the money to be paid into land.68 The introduction of the theory of conversion in this connection appears however to be entirely unnecessary, and calculated to confuse rather than to clarify the matter under discussion.69 The confusion resulting from this effort to explain the results of the making of a contract of sale in terms of equitable conversion has been particularly exemplified in discussions of the effect of an option of port Water Works v. Sisson, 18 R. I. 411, 28 Atl. 336.

66. Farrar v. Winterton, 5 Beav. 1; Watts v. Watts, L. R. 17 Eq. 219; Weeding v. Weeding, 1 Johns. & H. 424; Donahoo v. Lea, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 119; Newport Water Works v. Sisson. 18 R. I. 411, 28 Atl. 336; Contra: In re Le-fevre's Estate, 100 Wis. 192, 75 N. W. 951; and see Covey v. Dins-moor, 226 111. 438. 80 N. E. 998. 25467 take 156 Aug. 21 Myrtle.

67. Drant v. Vause, 1 Y. & C. C. 580; Pyle v. Pyle, (1895) 1 Ch. 724; Covey v. Dinsmoor, 226 111. 438, 80 N. E. 998. But see Newport Water Works v. Sisson, 18 R. I.

411, 28 Atl. 336.

68. See e. g. Flomerfelt v. Siglin, 155 Ala. 633. 130 Am. St. Rep. 67, 47 So. 106; Henson v. Ott. 7 Ind. 512; Keep v. Miller, 42 N. J. Eq. 100, 6 Atl. 495; Lewis v. Smith, 9 N. Y. 512, 61 Am. Dec. 706; Bender v. Luckenbach, 162 Pa. 18, 29 Atl. 295; Blair v. Snod-grass, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) Shaw v. Foster, 5 H. L. 321.

69. The matter is most excellently discussed in an article by Professor Harlan F. Stone, in 13 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 369, to which the present writer desires to acknowledge his indebtedness.

70. See discussion in 13 Colum-bil Law Rev. at p. 378. But that the personal representative is not entitled, see Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. Leary, 203 N. Y. 469 L. R. A. 1916 P. 352, Ann. Cas. 1913 B 62, 97 N. E. 43 {dictum); Smith v. Lowenstein, 50 Ohio St. 346, 34 N. E. 159; Inghram v. Chandler, 179 Iowa, 304 L. R. A. 1917 D. 713, 161 N. W. 434; Adams v. Peabody Coal Co., 230 111. 469, 82 N. E. (semble).

71. Lawes v. Bennett, 1 Cox. 167; In re Isaacs (1894) 3 Ch. 506; Kerr v. Day, 14 Pa. 112, 53 Am. Dec. 526; Corson v. Mulvaney, 49 Pa. 88, 88 Am. Dec. 485; Newport Water Works v. Sisson, 18 R. I. 411, 28 Atl. 336.

Though the doctrine is well established in England, doubts have been expressed by courts even there as to its soundness. See Emuss v. Smith, 2 De G. G. & Sm. 734; Collingwood v. Row, 3 Jur. N. S. 786; Edwards v. West, 7 Ch. D. 863. For criticisms of the doctrine that the conversion relates back, see 13 Columbia Law Rev. 376 et seq., 17 Id. 430; 18 Harv. Law Rev. 10 et eq., 27 Id. 79; 24 Law Quart. Rev. 406; 26 Yale Law Journ. 783; and cases cited ante, note 70.

152. Effect of qualifying words.

153. Application to equitable limitations.

154. Application to chattel interests.

155. Abolition of the rule.

V. Executory Interests.

Sec. 156. Springing uses.

157. Shifting uses.

158. Creation by bargain and sale.

159. Estate to commence on grantor's death.

160. Executory devises.

161. Uses by way of remainder.

162. Devises by way of remainder.

163. The nature of an executory interest.

(a) General considerations.

(b) As divesting estate.

(c) Contingent remainder distinguished. Sec. 164. Changing effect of limitation.

165. Classes of executory interests.

166. Limitations over on death.

167. Power of destruction in first taker-Repugnancy.

168. Construction in favor of vesting.

169. Limitations to survivors.

170. Gifts to a class.

171. Alternative limitations.

172. Cross limitations.

173. Chattel interests.

174. Failure of preceding limitation.

175. Failure of executory limitation. 176 Transfer of executory interests.

VI. State Statutory Provisions.

Sec. 177. Statutes dispensing with a particular estate.

178. Statutes extending executory interests.

VII. The Rule Against Perpetuities.

Sec. 179. The nature of the rule.

180. The application of the rule.

181. Alienability of interest immaterial.

182. The period allowed for vesting.

183. Interests subject to the rule.

184. Limitations within control of owner.

185. Limitations on failure of issue.

186. Effect of remoteness of limitation.

187. Charitable gifts.

188. Accumulations.

189. Statutory modifications of the rule.

I. Reversions.1