Saulsberry v. Saulsberry

131 S.W. 491, 140 Ky. 608, 1910 Ky. LEXIS 327
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedNovember 15, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 131 S.W. 491 (Saulsberry v. Saulsberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Saulsberry v. Saulsberry, 131 S.W. 491, 140 Ky. 608, 1910 Ky. LEXIS 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge O’Rear

Affirming.

[609]*609The only question presented by this appeal is the validity of a clause in a deed executed in 1896, forbidding the alienation of the land prior to 1950:

The statute of this State (Sec. 2360, Ky. Stats.) reads:

“The absolute power of alienation shall not be. suspended, by any limitation or condition whatever, for a longer period than during the continuance of a life or lives in being at the creation of the estate, and twenty-one years and ten months thereafter.”

The restriction in this deed was not confined to the grantees. Though they may have died the next day, their heirs at law were equally restrained from alienating the. land. And though the heirs at law begot children thereafter and then died, say within five years, such children could not alienate the land before the expiration of the arbitrary date fixed in the conveyance in question. As the restriction if valid, prohibited the sale and conveyance of the land, it likewise prohibited its devise — for that would be an alienation. Hence the purpose was to create an estate-which might prevail against debt, death and deed for a period longer than the lives in being, and , twenty-one years and ten months thereafter. True the grantees might have lived fifty-four years longer, and had the limitation been for their lives it would not have been repugnant to the statute. But the test is not whether circumstances might turn out so as to save the validity of the limitation, but whether they could so turn out so as to render the limitation void. For, the limitation is valid from the beginning and for the full time, under all conditions, or not at all. It is our opinion that' •the attempted limitation is void. The circuit court so adjudged.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Company v. United States
209 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Kentucky, 1962)
Robertson v. Simmons
322 S.W.2d 476 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1959)
Farmers Nat. Bank of Cynthiana v. McKenney
264 S.W.2d 881 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1954)
Ford v. Yost
186 S.W.2d 896 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1944)
Fox v. Burgher
148 S.W.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Hite v. Barber
145 S.W.2d 1057 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1940)
Perry v. Metcalf
288 S.W. 694 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
Tyler v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co.
164 S.W. 939 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
Gen. Accid't & Life Assur. Corp. v. Meredith
132 S.W. 191 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 S.W. 491, 140 Ky. 608, 1910 Ky. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saulsberry-v-saulsberry-kyctapp-1910.