The Rule Against Perpetuities Author:John Chipman Gray Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Virginia,1 Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Arkansas.1 § 25. In the States where there is no reason to question the existence of tenure, t... more »here seems as little reason to question the existence of the Statute Quia Emptores. There is no cause why this Statute should not have prevailed as generally as the Statute De Donis. Denio, J., in Van Rensselaer v. Hays points out the absurdity of supposing that subinfeudation existed in the Colonies generally. In New Jersey the Statute was in force, and has been expressly re-enacted;4 Mr. Dane says6 that the Statute of Quia Emptores was "never adopted here" (qu. in Massachusetts). But no authority is cited for the proposition. The alleged non-existence of the Statute in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi rests upon the same ground as the alleged non- existence in those States of the Statute De Donis, which, as we have seen,6 wholly fails.7 In Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Iowa, either there is no tenure, or, if tenure exists, the Statute Quia Emptores exists also.3 There would seem to be, of the States in which tenure exists at the present day, but two in which the Statute Quia Emptores is not in force, — Pennsylvania and South Carolina. § 26. Pennsylvania. — By the Charter of 1681 the Crown granted to William Perm the power to grant land to be held of himself, his heirs and assigns, and not immediately of the Crown, the Statute Quia Emptores notwithstanding.9 And in Ingersoll v. Sergeant10 (1836), a very elaborately argued and 1 The Statute Quia Emptores New York and Virginia before the was in force in Virginia, 1 Chalm. abolition of tenure, see notes to Col. Op. 121 (Am. ed. 142); but §24. was repealed by St. 1792, c. 147, 4 Dane, Ab. 504. after tenures had been abolished, ...« less