Wills — Construction — Vesting of estates — Rule against perpetuities — Exercise of power of appointment — Effect of void remainder on life estate — Consideration of validity of remainders.
1. The exercise of a power of appointment is not rendered void as in violation of the rule against perpetuities because of the fact that within its terms an estate may be created which possibly would be too remote; the question depends upon the validity of the appointment which is in fact made. [114]
2. The validity of a life estate is not affected by the fact that the remainder is void as in violation of the rule against perpetuities, where the creation of the life estate is not part of a general scheme or design to circumvent the rule. [121]
3. Where there is a gift of a life estate, with a general power of appointment, subject to a gift over in default of appointment, the alternative gift over precludes an absolute ownership. [120-21]
4. Where the life tenant of a trust estate, the daughter of testator, was given a general power of appointment by will over the trust estate, and by will appointed the estate in trust for the life of her husband and after his decease to her children then living and descendants then living of deceased children, such trust as respects income to continue until the decease of the last survivor of her children, at which time the principal was to be divided among the living descendants, such appointment was held to create valid life estates in the donee's children for the life of the survivor, where it appeared that at the death of the donee, the children surviving had then been living. [118-21]
5. Where a life estate is validly appointed, it is premature for the court to pass upon the validity of the remainders. [120]
Argued December 2, 1935.
PER CURIAM, January 6, 1936:
This case was correctly determined by the orphans' court sitting in banc, as will appear by that part of the opinion of Judge STEARNE set forth in the reporter's notes.
Decree affirmed at appellants' cost.