This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
One could not, at common law, create an estate of freehold to commence upon the grantor's death, so that he might have the enjoyment for the balance of his life,7 nor could one convey an estate of freehold to commence immediately, subject to an estate for the grantor's life to he retained by him.8 The former involved the attempted creation of an estate to commence in futuro, and the latter involved an attempt, by one transaction, to dispose of one's own estate and to acquire another estate. The Statute of Uses, however, made it possible for one to create an estate in favor of another to commence upon the grantor's death, a springing use, in which case the estate vesting in the grantee upon the grantor's death would divest the estate previously vested in the grantor and his heirs.9 And that an estate can be created in favor of another to commence in enjoyment upon the grantor's death has been generally recognized in this country.10 In a number of cases the grantor has been regarded as having, in such case, a life estate by way of reservation,11 an effect being thus given to a reservation which
7. Co. Litt. 48b; 1 Hayes, Conveyancing, 111; Doe d. Wilkinson v. Tranmer, 2 Wils. 75; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 139.
8. Perkins, Conveyancing, 704; Youde v. Jones, 13 Mees. & W. 534.
9. Osman v. Sheafe, 3 Lev. 370; Roe v. Tranmer, 2 Wils. 75; 1 Sanders, Uses & Trusts, 142.
10. Barrett v. French, 1 Conn 354, 6 Am. Dec. 241; Ripperdan v. Weldy, 149 Cal. 667, 87 Pac. 276; White v. Willard, 232 111. 464, 83 N. E. 954; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 139; Brewer v. Hardy, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 376, 33 Am. Dec. 747; Mc-Daniel v. Johns, 45 Miss. 632, Rogers v. Eagle Fire Co. 9 Wend.
(N. Y.) 611; Savage v. Lee, 90 N. C. 320; Cribb v. Rogers, 12 S. C. 564, 32 Am. Rep. 511.
11. Farr v. Perkens, 173 Ala. 923, 55 So. 923; Graves v. Atwood, 52 Conn. 512, Am. Rep. 610; Rollins v. Davis, 96 Ga. 107, 23 S. E. 392; Harshbarger v. Carroll, 163 111. 636, 45 N. E. 656; Haines v. Weirick, 155 Ind. 548, 80 Am. St. Rep. 251, 58 N. E. 712; Martin v. Stewart, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 729, 111 S. W. 281; Steel v. Steel, 4 Allen (Mass.) 417; Engel v. Ladewig, 153 Mich. 8, 116 N. W. 550; Hart v. Gardner, 74 Miss. 153, 20 So. 877; Dozier v. Toalson, 180 Mo. 546, 103 Am. St. Rep. 586, 79 it did not and could not have at common law.12 These latter cases in effect assume that one may create a remainder in another upon a particular estate created by the same instrument in favor of one's self, and not infrequently the grantee has, under such circumstances, been spoken of as having a remainder.13