In many states it is provided that a freehold estate may be created to commence in futuro by deed or by will, with or without a precedent estate.65 Provisions of this character not only dispense with the necessity of a particular estate to support the limitation of an estate to arise in the future, but also, it would seem, prevent the possibility of the failure of a limitation under the rule that a contingent remainder must vest before the termination of the particular estate. But in some of these same states there are express statutory provisions, which have been previously referred to, against the failure of a remainder by the premature termination of the particular estate.66

Sec. 178. Statutes extending executory interests

In a number of states there are statutes undertaking, in effect, to assimilate remainders to executory interests, it being sometimes provided that any contingent remainder will be valid if it. would be valid as a conditional limitation;67 sometimes that any estate which would be good by way of executory devise is equally good if created by deed.68 In a few states it is provided that a fee may be limited on a fee,69 and in several that a contingent remainder of Freehold may be created expectant on the termination of a term of years,70 this being in fact a corollary of the provisions in the same states allowing an estate to commence in faturo to be created without a freehold to support it. As before stated, in a few states, though the Statute of Uses is not in force, and there is no statute expressly allowing the creation of future estates, it has been decided that interests involving a right of future possession may be created without reference to the common-law rules on the subject.71

58. Goodright v. Searle, 2 Wils. 29; Barnitz's Lessee v. Casey, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 456; Edwards v. Bibb, 43 Ala. 666; McKean's Lessee v. Hoffecker, 2 Har. (Del.) 103; Collins v. Smith, 105 Ga. 525, 31 S. E. 449; Winslow v. Goodwin, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 363; Brooks v. Kip, 54 N. E. Eq. 462, 35 Atl. 658; Hennessy v. Patterson, 85 N. Y. 91; Kenyon v. See, 94 N. Y. 563; Clark v. Cox, 115 N. C. 93, 20 S. E. 176; Chess's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 362; Medley v. Medley, 81 Va. 265.

59. Roe d. Perry v. Jones, 1 H. Bl. 30; Jones v. Roe d. Perry's Lessee, 3 Term R. 88; Collins T.

Smith, 105 Ga. 525, 31 S. E. 449; Winslow v. Coodwin, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 363.

60-64. Roe d. Noden v. Griffith's, 1 W. Bl. 605; Kean's Lessee v. Hoffecker, 2 Har. (Del.) 103; Collins v. Smith, 105 Ga. 525, 31 S. E. 449; Smith, Executory Interests, Sec. 744, 4 Kent, Comm. 261.

65. Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1421. These states are New York, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi.

66. See ante Sec. 140.

VII. The Rule Against Perpetuities.