240p8137

A reversion, or "possibility of reverter," after a base fee is not
within the Rule against Perpetuities: Penna. Horticultural Society
vs. Craig, 240 Pa., 137.

SECTION 220. The Rule against Accumulations is somewhat in
line with the Rule against Perpetuities and is mentioned now because
of the analogy. The Act of 1853 Sec. 9. Pur. under "Real Estate,"
page 4036, provides that no rents, issues and profits shall be wholly
cr partly accumulated for a period longer than the life of the grantor
or settlor and during the minority of the person who is to enjoy the
accumulation: Washington Dist., 75 Pa., 102. The most celebrated case
upon the subject is that of Thelluson vs. Woodford, 4 Vesey, 227, af-
firmed in the House of Lords in 11 Vesey, 112. Peter Thelluson died
in 1797 leaving a will which disposed of about 600,000 pounds to be
accumulated during the lives of his children and the living grand-
children. It was estimated that the accumulations would amount to
27,182,000 pounds. The will was sustained. In 1800 the Act of 39 and
40, George III, c. 98, was passed to prevent large accumulations.
Our Pennsylvania Act is more stringent. The report of the case in
4 Vesey, requires 116 pages-if you insist on reading it remember
that the law of England and of Pennsylvania is now different. Even
before the Act the Supreme Court had ruled against accumulations in
Hillyard vs. Miller, 10 Pa., 326, 1849 The Act does not apply to de-
vises to public charities Compare Derbyshire's Estate 239 Pa.,
389, Sec. 213, supra. But other Acts, those of 1889, 1893, and 1915,
Pur. under "Charities," pages 594, 5527, provide that no accumula-
tion for a charity shall be allowed to exceed the amount which would
yield $50,000 per annum, unless with leave of court a larger sum is
named.

SECTION 221. "A reversion is the residue of an estate left in the grantor to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him." If there could be a fee tail (there cannot since the Act of 1855, Sec. 66, supra) the failure of issue in the line of the tenant in tail would justify a reversion to the grantor or his heirs. After an estate for life or for years there is a reversion to the lessor or heirs of the grantor. After a widower's death and following his estate by the curtesy the heirs at law of the wife have a reversion. It is said that a reversion arises from con

struction of law and is never created by deed or will as a remainder or executory devise: 21 Corpus Juris, 1018.

SECTION 222. It is generally said that a property owner has a reversion in the event of cessation of public use of a street abutting upon his land which justifies a claim of the absolute title to the middle line of what was the street: Paul vs. Carver, 24 Pa., 207; Sec. 413, post. If a railroad right of way is abandoned the owner of the land over which it was condemned claims a "reversion." This may be an improper use of the term for it is said that "the interest of the person who grants a determinable or base fee is a possibility of a reverter": Slegel vs. Lauer, 148 Pa., 245; Sec. 60, supra.

ESTATES OF CO-TENANTS

SECTION 223. Blackstone enumerates estates: in severalty; in joint-tenancy; in coparcenary; and in common: 2 Blackstone, 179.

200 Pe 24

SECTION 224. The principal incident of joint-tenancy was the doctrine of survivorship. The Act of 1812, Pur., under "Joint-Tenancy," p. 2031, requires that such estates shall be considered to every intent and purpose as estates of tenants in common The Act abolished the doctrine of survivorship except in cases of trust estates of trustees and except where the jus accrescendi is expressly provided for by deed or will: Redemptorist Fathers vs. Lawler, 205 Pa., 24xxx SECTION 225. Estates in coparcenary are practically merged into estates in common: Sec. 14 of Interstate Act of 1834, Pur., 2002; Sec. 19, Intestate Act of 1917, P. L., 441.

SECTION 226. At the present time the most important sorts of cotenancies are: in common; by the entireties; and of partners.

SECTION 227. Tenancy in common was favored in equity before the passage of the Act of 1812 (Carnes vs. Grant, 5 Binney, 122) and now any conveyance to two or more individuals (other than man and wife), whether by deed or will, constitutes them tenants in common with the unity of possession.

SECTION 228. For injury to this possession or interference with the enjoyment by trespass the tenants in common should all join in an action: Shields vs. Penn. Co., 56 P. LJ., 174; Irwin's Adm. vs. 1 vs. Brown 35 Pa., 331. But the tenants do not necessarily have unity of title and therefore one tenant may have his action of ejectment to recover or as

f