If an estate in fee simple is clearly given to a person, a limitation over to another upon such person's death, or in case of his death, not coupled with any contingency of time or otherwise, would, if regarded as referring to his death after that of testator, be invalid as an attempt to change the fee simple into a life estate. Consequently, in order to give effect to such a limitation, it is almost invariably construed as referring to a death before testator, a substitutionary clause, as it is frequently termed, naming a person to take in case the person first named is not in existence to take at the time when the will goes into effect.58 Occasionally such a limitation might operate to show that the first taker has a life estate only, but it would not so operate if he is clearly given an estate in fee simple.59

When a devise over upon the death of a prior devisee in fee simple couples with death other circum56. Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sen. 409, 2 Preston, Abstracts, 140; Hinkle v. Hinkle, 168 Ky. 286, 181 S. W. 1116.

57. Winter v. Second Presbyterian Church, 248 111. 368, 94 N. E. 35; Doe v. Kinney, 3 Ind. 50; Nlckerson v. Hoover, - Ind. App. -,115 N. E. 588; Strom v. Wood,

100 Kan. 556, 164 Pac. 1100; Stimpson v. Murch, 197 Mass. 381, 83 N. E. 1107; Register v. Elder, 231 Mo. 321, 132 S. W. 699; Felton v. Billups, 21 N. C. 584; Money v. Evans, 41 N. C. 363; Smith v. Coffman, 224 Pa. 411, 73 Atl. 457.

58. Ante Sec. 32, note 38.

59. Ante Sec. 32, note 37.

Real Property.

[Sec. 166 stances which may or may not occur, as for instance when it is upon death under age, or death without children or issue, the devise over is regarded, in some jurisdictions, like a devise over simply upon death, as referring prima facie to death in the testator's lifetime.60 In other jurisdictions, including England, a different view is asserted, that the devise over upon death under contingent circumstances is presumed to refer to death after as well as before testator's death.61 But in any jurisdiction, it seems, if there is a particular estate created,62 or a trust for a limited per60. Lawlor v. Holohan, 70 Conn. 87; Kohtz v. Eldred, 208 111. 60, 69 N. E. 900; Morgan v. Rob-bins, 152 Ind. 362, 53 N. E. 283; Nickerson v. Hoover,-Ind. App-,

115 N. E. 588; Collins v. Collins,

116 Iowa 705; Vanderzle v. Slin-gerland, 103 N. Y. 47, 57 Am. Rep. 701, 8 N. E.247; In re Cramer, 170 N. Y. 271, 63 N. E. 279; Richards v. Bentz, 212 Pa. 93, 61 Atl. 613; Neubert v. Colwell, 219 Pa. 248, 68 Atl. 673; In re Johnson, 23 R. I. 11, 49 Atl. 695; Frank v. Frank, (Tenn.) 111 S. W. 1119; Scruggs v. Mayberry, 135 Tenn. 586, 188 S. W. 207; Peyton v. Perkinson, 98 Va. 215, 35 S. E. 450, (semble); Louvass v. Olson, 92 Wis. 616, 67 N. W. 605; In re Owens' Will, 164 Wis. 260, 159 N. W. 906. And see cases cited ante, Sec. 26, note 1.

61. Omahoney v. Burdett, L. R. 7 H. L. 388; Cowan v. Allen, 26 Can. Sup. 292; Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526, 28 L. Ed. 816; Wilson v. Linder, 18 Idaho, 438, 110 Pac. 274; Fifer v. Allen, 228 111. 507, 81 N. E. 1105; Welch v. Crowe, 278 111. 244, 115 N. E. 859; Guilford v. Gardner, 180 Iowa 1210, 162 N. W. 261; Bradshaw v. Williams, 140 Ky. 160, 130 S. W. 985; Wilson v. Wilson, 151 Ky. 635, 152 S. W. 770; Rogers v. Bailey, 78 N. J. Eq. 589, 81 Atl. 1134, aff'g 76 N. J. Eq. 29, 73 Atl. 243; Buchanan v. Buchanan, 99 N. C. 308, 5 S. E. 430; Williams v. Lewis, 100 N. C. 142, 6 Am. St. Rep. 574, 5 S. E. 435; Perrett v. Bird, 152 N. C. 220, 67 S. E. 507; St. Paul's Sanitarium v. Freeman, 102 Tex. 376, 117 S. W. 425. And see cases cited in reference to the creation of an estate in fee tail by a limitation over on death without issue, ante Sec. 26, note 90.

62. Harrington v. Cooper, 126 Ark. 53, 189 S. W. 667; Hollister v. Butterworth, 71 Conn. 57, 40 Atl. 1044; Sumpter v. Carter, 115 Ga. 893, 69 L. R. A. 274, 42 S. E. 324; Violet v. Purdy, 151 Ky. 307, 151 S. W. 920, (life estate reserved); Baker v. Thomas, 172 Ky. 334, 189 S. W. 215; Wilson v. Bull, 97 Md. 128, 54 Atl. 629; Engel v. State, 65 Md. 539, 5 Atl. 249; Sims v. Conger, 39 Miss. 235; Patterson v. Madden, 54 N. J. Eq. 714, 36 Atl. 273; In re Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 189 N. Y. 202, 82 N. E. 181; Price v. Johnson, 90 N. C. 592. And see iod,63 the courts tend to construe the reference to death as to a death before the end of such particular estate or trust. And whatever general rule of const ruction may be adopted in this regard, it readily yields to any indication in the instrument of a contrary intention.64

The question whether a limitation over upon the death of one, given a fee simple, without having disposed of the land, or without having disposed of it by conveyance inter vivos, or by will, as the case may be, is invalid as depriving the fee simple estate of one of its essential characteristics, has been but seldom a subject of discussion in this country, for the reason that here the courts have, as is subsequently explained,65 ordinarily regarded the mention of such contingency as involving a power to destroy the limitation over, rendering such limitation void. In England the tendency appears to be to regard such a limitation over as invalid for the reason that it in effect deprives the owner of the fee simple estate of the privilege of having the property descend to his heirs on his death intestate, or of the privilege of disposing of the land either by conveyance inter vivos, or by will, one or both.66

- On death without issue. In jurisdictions where estates tail are still recognized, on a devise to A and his heirs, with a devise over to B upon the indefinite failure of A's issue, A takes, unless the devise over is substitutionary merely,67 an estate tail, and the

Walton v. Bohannon, 150 Ky. 486, 150 S. W. 648; Murchison v. Whitted, 87 N. C. 465.

63. Gormley v. Overstreet, 155 Ky. 820, 160 S. W. 483; Gerting v. Wells, 100 Md. 93, 59 Atl. 177; Colby v. Doty, 158 N. Y. 323, 53 N. E. 35.

64. Wilson v. Wilson, 151 Ky. 635, 152 S. W. 770; In re Cramer

170 N. Y. 271, 63 N. E. 279; Burdge v. Walling, 45 N. J. Eq. 10, 16 Atl. 51; Chandler v. Woelp-per, 126 Pa. 562, 17 Atl. 870; Fisher v. Eggert (N. J. Ch.) 64 Atl. 957; Koon v. Friz, 128 Wis. 428, 107 N. W. 659.

65. Post Sec. 167.

66. Post Sec. 167, notes 98, et seq.

67. Ante, this section, note 60.