 | Great Britain. Court of Chancery, John Herman Merivale - 1819 - 766 էջ
...we KANDALL know that, by our law, there could be no limitation RUSSELL. over of a chattel, but that a gift for life carried the absolute interest. Then...distinction was taken between the use and the property. The use might be given to one for life, and the -property afterwards, to another. A gift for life of... | |
 | New York (State). Court of Chancery, William Johnson - 1822 - 622 էջ
...Rolls observed upon the case, that originally, by the English law, there could be no limitation even of a chattel, but a gift for life carried the absolute...distinction was taken between the use and the property. The use might be given to one for life, and the property, afterwards, to another. A gift for (life... | |
 | James Kent - 1827 - 544 էջ
...remainder over to B., and the limitation over after the life interest in the chattel has expired, is good. Anciently, there could be no limitation! over of a...but a gift for life carried the absolute interest. T*""" 3 distinction was taken between the use and thp pmnBjjjf- and it was held llistl lllS UscTnught... | |
 | Joseph Tate - 1841 - 992 էջ
...life. Originally we know that, by our law, there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but that a gift for life carried the absolute interest. Then...distinction was taken between the use and the property. The use might be given to one for life, and the property afterwards to another. "A gift for lifo of... | |
 | William David Lewis - 1843 - 878 էջ
...notice. " Originally we know that by our law there could be no limitation-over of a chattel, but that a gift for life carried the absolute interest. Then,...distinction was taken between the use and the property. The use might be given to one for life, and the property afterwards to another. A gift for life of... | |
 | Georgia. Supreme Court - 1850 - 660 էջ
...content myself with transcribing what this Court has said, through my brother LOMPKIN, in Kirkpatrick vs. Davidson, (2 Kelly, 301.) "Anciently, there could...finally, however, settled, that there was nothing iu that distinction, and that a gift for life of a chattel, was a gift of the use only, and the remainder... | |
 | James Kent - 1848 - 1046 էջ
...and the limitation over, after the life interest in the chattel has expired, is good. At common law, there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but...afterwards to another, though the devise over of the « Manning's case, 8 Co. 95. Lampett's case, 10 Co. 46. Child v. Bailey, Cro. J., 459. b 2 Blacks.... | |
 | Louisiana. Supreme Court - 1855 - 710 էջ
...delivery to the first taker, could not be created except by deed, or testament. Anciently, at common law, there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but a gift for life carried the absolute interest But afterwards a distinction was made between M« tux and 44« property, and It finally became a settled... | |
 | James Kent - 1858 - 966 էջ
...and the limitation over, after the lifeinterest in the chattel has expired, is good. At common law there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but...the devise over of the chattel itself would be void, (a) It was finally settled that there was nothing in that distinction, and that a gift for life of... | |
 | James Kent - 1866 - 954 էջ
...and the limitation over, after the life-interest in the chattel has expired, is good. At common law there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but...the devise over of the chattel itself would be void. (e) It was finally settled that there was nothing in that distinction, and that a gift for life of... | |
| |
At common law there could be no limitation over of a chattel, but a gift for life carried the absolute interest. 
