Where a contingent remainder in fee simple is created by a conveyance at common law, as distinct from one taking effect under the Statute of Uses, the reversion in fee, according to some authorities, remains in the grantor until the remainder vests;48 while by other authorities it is considered that the fee is "in abeyance"-that is, that no person has the fee-until the condition precedent is satisfied, and that there is a mere possibility of reverter in the grantor.49 In the case of a contingent remainder in fee simple created by a conveyance operating under the Statute of Uses or by devise, there appears to be no question that the fee, until the remainder vests, is in the grantor,50 or, in the case of a devise, in his

47. Smith v. Packhurst, 3 Atk. 135; Vanderheyden v. Crandall, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 9; Fearne, Cont, Rem. 221.

48. Fearne, Cont. Rem. 360; Williams, Real Prop. (21st Ed.) 359; Pinkney v. Weaver, 216 111. 185, 74 N. E. 714, See Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 11 note.

49. 2 Blackst. Comm. 107; 2 Preston, Abstracts 101-107; Cornish, Remainders, 175-178; Bohon v. Bohon, 78 Ky. 410. See 4 Kent, Comm. 257; Bigley v. Watson, 98 Tenn. 353, 38 L. R. A. 679, 39 S. W. 525.

50. Fearne, Cont. Rem. 351; 4 Kent, Comm. 257; Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 11, notes; Davis v. Speed, Carth, 262; Coots v. Yewell, 95 Ky. 367, 25 S. W. 597, 26 S. W. 179; Bigley v. Watson, 98 Tenn. 353, 38 L. R. A. 679, 39 S. W. 525; Presumably a like view would be taken in any state as regards a heirs,51 or residuary devisees,52 or it might he, it seems, in a specific devisee.53 Even by those authorities which consider that the fee is, in the case of a common law conveyance, in aheyance, it is recognized that, if the contingent remainder ultimately fails, the grantor becomes entitled to immediate possession upon the termination of the particular estate, unless there is an alternative limitation to another, as explained in the next section.54