tions re the statute of the persons for the time being entitled to the estates. Evans v. Hellier, 1 M. & Cr. 135; 5 Cl. & F. 114; Re Clulow's Trust, 1 J. & H. 639. But the effect of the statute is not to accelerate any gifts in the will. Green v. Gascoyne, 4 D. J. & S. 565. Accumula- Therefore accumulations released by the statute, if the leased by fund to be accumulated is not a residue, in the case of pass to the personalty, go to form part of the capital of the residue : heir or next Ellis v. Maxwell, 3 B. 587; A.-G. v. Poulden, 3 Ha. 555; Jones v. Maggs, 9 Ha. 605; Crawley v. Crawley, 7 Sim. 427. of kin, as the case may be, or to the residuary legatee if there is one. Accumulations of residue. The income of accumula part of the In the case of realty the residuary devisee or heir is entitled according as the will is governed by the Wills Act or not. Nettleton v. Stephenson, 3 De G. & S. 366. If the fund to be accumulated is residuary, the void accumulations go to the heir or next of kin, according to the nature of the property, and if the fund is mixed, to the heir and next of kin proportionately. Green v. Gascoyne, 4 D. J. & S. 565; Halford v. Stains, 16 Sim. 488; Eyre v. Marsden, 2 Kee. 564; 4 M. & Cr. 431; Wildes v. Davies, 1 Sm. & G. 475; Ralph v. Carrick, 5 Ch. D. 984; 11 Ch. D. 873; see Elborne v. Goode, 14 Sim. 165. It seems that the income of accumulations not being a residue belongs to the tenant for life of the residue as tions forms income, and does not form part of the capital of the capital of residue. In re Phillips; Phillips v. Levy, 49 L. J. Ch. 198; 28 W. R. 340; see, however, Crawley v. Crawley, 7 Sim. 427. the re sidue. Income of accumulations of rents and profits retains its character of realty. Eyre v. Marsden, 2 Kee. 577. When there is a contingent gift to A. with accumulation in the meantime, and the gift is given over to B. if the contingency does not happen, B., upon taking an indefeasible interest, is entitled to the accumulations within twenty-one years from the testator's death, together with the income of those accumulations. Morgan v. Morgan, 20 L. J. Ch. 111, 441; 15 Jur. 319; but see Bryan v. Collins, 16 B. 14. G G subsequent CHAPTER XXXV. CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT. Conditions In the case of conditions subsequent, if the condition is impossible, impossible, impolitic, or illegal, the gift remains, at any impolitic, rate, where there is no gift over. Thomas v. Howell, 1 Salk. 170; Walker v. Walker, 2 D. F. & J. 255; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 12 Eq. 604. or illegal, are ineffectual, whether there is a gift over or not. with con And it seems, even where there is a gift over, but the performance of the condition has become impossible, the previous gift remains. Graydon v. Hicks, 2 Atk. 16; Jones v. Suffolk, 1 B. C. C. 528; Collett v. Collett, 35 B. 312; Sutcliffe v. Richardson, 13 Eq. 606; and see Wedgwood v. Denton, 12 Eq. 290. In most of these cases, however, the condition, being marriage with consent, became, by the death of the person, whose consent was required, a condition in general restraint of marriage. See, too, Yates v. University of London, L. R. 7 H. L. 438. A condition forfeiting a legacy in the event of the legatee marrying a certain person without the testator's consent has been limited to a marriage in the testator's lifetime. Booth v. Meyer, 38 L. T. N. S. 125. Condition A condition subsequent requiring the consent of several requiring marriage persons becomes impossible and is discharged by the death of all, or even of one of them, though in the latter case it would seem the condition is satisfied by the conbecomes sent of the survivors. Peyton v. Bury, 2 P. W. 625; impossible Grant v. Dyer, 2 Dow. 73; Jones v. Suffolk, 1 B. C. C. sent of several persons of some. 528; Aislabie v. Rice, 3 Mad. 256; see Dawson v. Oliver by death Massey, 2 Ch. D. 753. not per through A condition subsequent not performed owing to the Condition ignorance of the legatee of its existence, nevertheless formed works a forfeiture, where the property is given over, ignorance whether in the case of personalty or of realty. Hodges' takes Trusts, 16 Eq. 92; Porter v. Fry, 1 Vent. 197; Astley v. Earl of Essex, 18 Eq. 290. effect, devisee is But this does not apply, where the devisee is the heir unless the who has a title independent of the will. Doe d. Kenrick, heir. v. Lord Beauclerk, 11 East, 667; Doe d. Taylor v. Crisp, 8 Ad. & E. 778; Murphy v. Lineham, I. R. 9 C. L. 123. a legacy if claimed. So, when there is a clause forfeiting a legacy, if not Condition forfeiting claimed within a given time, the forfeiture takes effect, if the legacy is not claimed, though the legatee received no not notice of the legacy or of the death of the testator. Burgess v. Robinson, 3 Mer. 7; Tulk v. Houlditch, 1 V. & B. 248; Powell v. Rawle, 18 Eq. 243. amounts to a claim. But the filing of a bill for the administration of the What estate before the time appointed is equivalent to a claim by the legatees, though they may not be parties to the suit. Tollner v. Marriott, 4 Sim. 19. Cooke In the case of realty a valid condition subsequent is A condieffectual even where there is no gift over. Turner, 15 M. & W. 727; 14 Sim. 493; 15 Sim. 611; Sim. 482; and see Evanturel v. Evanturel, L. R. 6 tion is V. effectual 16 without a gift over in P. the case of realty. In Cooke v. Turner there was a gift over, but the case seems to have been decided at common law independently of the gift over. And a condition subsequent may operate to destroy a contingent, as well as to divest a vested estate. Egerton v. Earl Brownlow, 4 H. L. 1. With regard to personalty, a condition subsequent is Personalty follows the effectual without a gift over, except as far as the rules of rule as modified the civil law have been adopted with regard to certain by the classes of conditions, see post, p. 454. Dickson's Trust, interrorem. 1 Sim. N. S. 37; Craven v. Brady, 4 Eq. 209; 4 Ch. 296. doctrine of Test of validity of a condition. Condition of resi defined. As to what conditions are valid, it has been said, that nothing can be made the subject of a condition in a will, which could not be made the subject of a contract or wager in life. See per the Lord Chief Baron, Egerton v. Earl of Brownlow, 4 H. L. 1, p. 150. Perhaps no general rule can safely be laid down; but, dence must independently of the question whether a condition involves be clearly anything illegal or impolitic, in order that it may be effectual the meaning of the testator must be reasonably clear and precise; and, therefore, conditions to reside in a certain house, and to educate children in England, have been held too uncertain to work a forfeiture. Fillingham v. Bromley, T. & R. 530; Clavering v. Ellison, 3 Dr. 451; 7 H. L. 707. Condition pute a will. A gift over in the event of a change of religion by the legatee is valid. Hodgson v. Halford, 11 Ch. D. 959. Conditions decreasing an annuity if the annuitant again lives with her husband, or increasing a legacy to a husband in the event of a separation from his wife, are invalid. Bean v. Griffiths, 19 Jur. 1045; Cartwright v. Cartwright, 3 D. M. & G. 982. A condition not to dispute a will is valid in law if the not to dis- will is unsuccessfully disputed, though it will not avail to make an invalid disposition good. Cooke v. Turner, 15 M. & W. 727; Evanturel v. Evanturel, L. R. 6 P. C. 1; Stevenson v. Abingdon, 11 W. R. 935; see Warbrick v. Varley, 30 B. 347; Hope v. International Financial Society, 4 Ch. D. 327; Phillips v. Phillips, W. N. 1877, 260. On the other hand, a condition not to institute legal proceedings touching the estate and effects devised, is to o |