Seaver v. Fitzgerald
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hochberg v. Proctor (Mass. 2004)
- Continental Cablevision Of New England, Inc. v. United Broadcasting Company (4th Cir. 1989)
- Continental Cablevision of New England, Inc. v. United Broadcasting Co. (4th Cir. 1989)
- Emerson v. Campbell (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1951)
- Emerson v. Campbell (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1951)
- Story Ex Rel. Story v. First National Bank & Trust Co. (Fla. 1934)
- Tramell v. Tramell (Tenn. 1930)
- Galland v. Seattle Trust Co. (Wash. 1918)
- Pulitzer v. Livingston (Me. 1896)
- Forbringer v. Romano (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1950)
- Olmsted Estate (Dauphin County Orphans' Court 1947)
- Schee v. Boone (Mo. 1922)
- O'Hare v. Johnston (Ill. 1916)
- Anderson v. Menefee (Tex. App. 1915)
- Whitman's Estate (Pa. 1915)
- Lembeck v. Lembeck (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1907)
- Hull v. Osborn (Mich. 1907)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
There is no objection, on the ground of remoteness, to a gift to unborn children for life, and then to an ascertained person, provided the vesting of the estate in the latter is not postponed too long. Loring v. Blake, 98 Mass. 253. Evans v. Walker, 3 Ch. D. 211. In re Roberts, 19 Ch. D. 520. Lewis on Perp. 417, 511. In all the cases cited by the demandant’s counsel, the gift over was to persons who might not be ascertainable with certainty within the allowed time. But the present case is not of that class. There was no contingency or uncertainty as to who should finally take. The estate or interest vested in the Augustinian Society, a body corporate, absolutely and at once, upon the testator’s death, subject to the preceding life estates. All that is required by the rule against perpetuities is, that the estate or interest shall vest within the prescribed period. The right of possession may be postponed longer.
Moreover, the devise was to take full effect, with right of possession, upon the death of the testator’s daughter Annie, if she should leave no child. In point of fact, she left none. Therefore, in this alternative contingency, not only the estate, but the right of possession, would certainly vest within the permitted period; and, as this contingency is the one which happened, the validity of the devise would not be affected by the consideration that the other contingency might be too remote. Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, 572, and cases there cited. On both grounds, the entry must be,
Judgment for the tenant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.