tion before on aliena- time not having reference to the period of possession certain would be valid. See Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82; 2 Jarm. 17. Churchill v. Marks, 1 Coll. 445; see Kiallmark v. Kiallmark, 26 L. J. Ch. 1. period. Gift over on aliena It is however clear that absolute interests may be given tion before over upon alienation before the period of possession. period of Kearsley v. Woodcock, 3 Ha. 185; Re Payne, 25 B. 556; distribu tion. Gift over if legatee dies intestate. Pearson v. Dolman, 3 Eq. 315. 2. A gift over, if the devisee or legatee does not dispose of his interest or dies intestate, is void both as regards realty and personalty. Holmes v. Godson, 2 Jur. N. S. 383; 25 L. J. Ch. 317; Barton v. Barton, 3 K. & J. 512 ; Lightbourne v. Gill, 3 B. P. C. 250; Re Mortlock's Trusts, 3 K. & J. 456; Re Yalden, 1 D. M. & G. 53; Watkins v. Williams, 3 Mac. & G. 622; Henderson v. Cross, 29 B. 216; Perry v. Merritt, 18 Eq. 152; In re Wilcocks's Settlement, 1 Ch. D. 229. So a direction following a devise to tenants in common in fee that if no distribution should be made during the lives of the tenants in common the property should devolve to their children is invalid. Shaw v. Ford, 7 Ch. D. 669. Such conditional gifts over are good according to Scotch law. Barstow v. Pattison, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 392. It has been held that a gift over if the legatee does not dispose of his interest does not become valid by his death in the testator's lifetime. Hughes v. Ellis, 20 B. 193; Greated v. Greated, 26 B. 621; but these cases were doubted in In re Stringer's Estate; Shaw v. Jones Ford, 6 Ch. D. 1. 3. A gift over in the event of a previous gift being void at law or in equity is good. De Themmines v. De Bonneval, 5 Russ. 288. 4. A tenant in tail cannot by condition subsequent be prevented from barring his estate tail. Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn, 4 App. C. 51. determin A condition intended to determine an estate tail in part Condition only, for instance, a clause directing that the interests of ing an tenants in tail shall cease as concerns the rights and in- estate tail in part. terests of the person making default, but not farther or otherwise, is void. Seymour v. Vernon, 10 Jur. N. S. 487; 12 W. R. 729. to cease as A condition in certain events determining estates tail, Estate tail as if the tenant in tail were dead, will be made good by if the tensupplying the words dead without issue. Astley v. Earl ant in tail of Essex, 18 Eq. 290. were dead. interest cease as if But, if an absolute interest has been given, such a con- Absolute dition will be ineffectual, since the legatee's interest would directed to not determine with his death, and, therefore, the interest the donee directed to cease is not the exact interest previously given, were dead. Bird v. Johnson, 18 Jur. 976; Catt's Trusts, 2 H. & M. 46; 33 L. J. Ch. 495. 5. So, too, when vested interests have once been given, Conditions postponing restrictions postponing the enjoyment of the property be- enjoyment yond the age of twenty-one are void, unless the property is beyond 21. otherwise disposed of in the meantime. Saunders v. Vautier, Cr. & Ph. 240; Rocke v. Rocke, 9 B. 66; Re Young's Settlement, 18 B. 199; Gosling v. Gosling, Johns. 265. terest must bank 6. In the same way life interests must, as long as they Life inlast, be subject to the ordinary legal incidents attaching be subject to property. A person cannot, for instance, be left in the to the enjoyment of property and at the same time exempted ruptcy from the operation of the Bankruptcy Laws. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429; Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66. laws. trust for A mere trust for maintenance during the life of a person Whether a at the discretion of trustees, without giving him any in- maintenterest in the subject-matter of the bequest, has been held ance passes not to pass to his assignees upon bankruptcy: Twopenny creditors of v. Peyton, 10 Sim. 487; Godden v. Crowhurst, 10 Sim. 642, a very doubtful case. But the better opinion appears now to be, that though the discretion might not be inter to the Life in terest may be determined on bankruptcy. The dis tinction between con fered with, so much as the trustees think fit to apply for the benefit of the bankrupt would pass to his creditors. See Coe's Trust, 4 K. & J. 199. If a life interest is given in the first instance, a clause directing the income to be applied towards the maintenance of the legatee after his bankruptcy will not prevent the interest from passing to the assignee. Younghusband v. Gisborne, 1 Coll. 401. A discretion to trustees to pay or not to pay the income to the legatee for life determines on the bankruptcy of the legatee, unless the trustees are directed to withhold and accumulate the income, and the accumulations are given over. Snowdon v. Dales, 6 Sim. 524; Piercy v. Roberts, 1 M. & K. 4. But although life interests are expressly given, they can be determined by a conditional limitation over upon bankruptcy or alienation by the legatee. Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Ha. 475; Brooke v. Pearson, 5 Jur. N. S. 781; Knight v. Browne, 7 Jur. N. S. 894; 30 L. J. Ch. 649. And a proviso for cesser of the life interest is sufficient without a limitation over. Dommett v. Bedford, 6 T. R. 684; Joel v. Mills, 3 K. & J. 458. It appears to be indifferent whether the original gift is only till bankruptcy, or whether it is a life interest with a dition and conditional determination upon bankruptcy. limitation is immaterial. Effect of A gift over upon alienation takes effect if the legatee alienates, though he may not have been aware of the condition. Carter v. Carter, 3 K. & J. 617. A direction that the receipt of an annuitant shall be the only discharge which the executor shall be bound to accept, and that the annuitant may be required to attend to give receipts, does not prevent the annuitant from assigning. Arden v. Goodacre, 11 C. B. 883. When the life interest is given over upon bankruptcy for main for the maintenance of the bankrupt and his family, half gift over the income goes to his assignees. Rippon v. Norton, tenance of 2 B. 63. But if the trustees have a discretion as to the amount to be applied towards the maintenance of the bankrupt and his family respectively, an inquiry will be directed as to how much ought to be applied for each. Page v. Way, 3 B. 20; Kearsley v. Woodcock, 3 Ha. 185; Wallace v. Anderson, 16 B. 533. If, however, the trustees have a discretion to apply the fund for the maintenance of the bankrupt or his family their discretion remains, though whatever they think fit to apply for the bankrupt belongs to his creditors. Lord v. Bunn, 2 Y. & C. C. 98; Holmes v. Penny, 3 K. & J. 90; Chambers v. Smith, 3 App. C. 795. bankrupt and his family. bank ruptcy de power of to children. It may be noticed that a gift over upon the bankruptcy Whether of the tenant for life does not determine a power vested in him of appointing the property in question to his termines a children, unless there are directions inconsistent with the appointing subsistence of the power, such as a direction to distribute the property at once among the children in the event of bankruptcy. Wickham v. Wing, 2 H. & M. 436; Haswell v. Haswell, 28 B. 26; 2 D. F. & J. 456; see Potts v. Britton, 11 Eq. 433; In re Stone's Estate, I. R. 3 Eq. 621. of the term Where the property is given over upon alienation the Meaning term has been held to include only voluntary alienation, alienation. and not a hostile bankruptcy. Lear v. Leggett, 1 R. & M. 690; Pym v. Lockyer, 12 Sim. 394; Graham v. Lee, 23 B. 388. On the other hand, the presentation of a petition by the legatee under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, or under the arrangement clauses of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, is a voluntary alienation. Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Ha. 475; In re Amherst's Trusts, 13 Eq. 464. If there is a strong intention of personal benefit to the legatee, as if the gift is to him for life and not to his "Do or suffer." Deed of inspector ship. Meaning of insolvency. Marriage. Power of assigns, a gift over upon alienation has been held to include bankruptcy. Cooper v. Wyatt, 5 Mad. 482. If the property is given over if the legatee should “do or suffer," or "do or permit" anything whereby the property would be vested in another, this includes a hostile bankruptcy. Roffey v. Bent, 3 Eq. 739; Ex parte Eyston; In re Throckmorton, 7 Ch. D. 145. Under similar words the issue of a writ of sequestration against the legatee has been held to work a forfeiture. Dixon v. Rowe, 35 L. T. N. S. 549. The execution of a deed of inspectorship is not within a gift over in the event of the legatee taking the benefit of any Act for the relief of insolvent debtors. Montefiore v. Enthoven, 5 Eq. 35. As to the meaning of alienation, see Avison v. Holmes, 1 J. & H. 530, p. 540. Insolvency has no technical meaning, but means inability to pay debts. Freeman v. Bowen, 35 B. 17; Re Muggeridge, Joh. 625; 29 L. J. Ch. 288; see De Tastet v. Le Tavernier, 1 Kee. 161; Billson v. Crofts, 15 Eq. 314. A declaration of insolvency in S. Australia is insolvency within the meaning of a gift over upon insolvency. Aylwin's Trusts, 16 Eq. 585. A gift over of a life interest given to the testator's widow in the event of her doing anything whereby she would be deprived of the right to receive the rents takes effect upon the marriage of the widow without making any settlement. Craven v. Brady, 4 Eq. 209; 4 Ch. 296. The execution of an irrevocable power of attorney to attorney. receive an annuity is within a clause of forfeiture in the event of assignment or disposition by way of anticipation. Oldham v. Oldham, 3 Eq. 404. Gift over upon bank Where the property is given over upon bankruptcy, the ruptcy in- gift over, primâ facie, includes a bankruptcy which takes |