ABSTRACT
Romer J: In my opinion that rule does not render invalid a trust to pay the income of a fund to A, his executors, administrators and assigns for twenty-two years. Before I deal with Mr Stamp’s point I had better perhaps mention this. It is admitted by Mr Crossman that a trust to pay the income to A, his executors administrators and assigns indefinitely, that is to say for ever, would be a good trust, because it would be equivalent to giving an absolute interest, and so it would, but he says that a trust to pay the income to A for an indefinite period, that is to say until the happening of an event that may never happen, is bad, because that is not equivalent to an absolute interest. While it is true that it is not equivalent to an absolute interest it is very much like, and analogous to, a determinable fee in real estate. Where land was limited to A and his heirs until a certain event should happen, a determinable fee was created, though the question whether since the statute Quia Emptores a determinable fee can be created is a matter upon which lawyers are not agreed. But if the determinable fee in real estate can no longer be created it is because of the statute of Quia Emptores, and most assuredly the statute of Quia Emptores had nothing to do with personal estates. I therefore do not know any reason why a trust to pay the income indefinitely to a certain person his executors, administrators and assigns until a certain event happens should be bad unless it be for the reason advanced by Mr Stamp.
