yond the period prescribed by the rule against perpetuities, is void.53 Such a private trust may lawfully extend for the period prescribed by the rule as to perpetuities;54 and the power of alienation of either real or personal property may not be suspended, beyond the time limited, by means of a trust any more than by a limitation of a strictly legal estate. 55 This principle, however, does not apply to trusts for charitable uses, they being in their very nature matters of permanent duration.56 § 1168. Effect of Provisions Violating Rule Against Perpetuities. Provisions in a will which violate the rule against perpetuities are, in themselves, always invalid and can not be given effect, wherein they differ from provisions for accumulations which are contrary to the rule or the statute and which, in some jurisdictions, are void only as to the excess.57 But if there is an alternate contingency 53 Coleman v. O'Leary's Exr., 114 Ky. 388, 70 S. W. 1068; Barnum v. Barnum, 26 Md. 119, 90 Am. Dec. 88; Missionary Society of M. E. Church v. Humphreys, 91 Md. 131, 80 Am. St. Rep. 432, 46 Atl. 320; American Colonization Soc. V. Soulsby, 129 Md. 605, L. R. A. 1917C, 937, 99 Atl. 944; Ortman V. Dugan, (Md.) 100 Atl. 82; Shanahan v. Kelly, 88 Minn. 202, 92 N. W. 948; Dodsworth v. Dam, 38 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 684, 78 N. Y. Supp. 264. 54 Camden Safe Deposit etc. Co. v. Guerin, (N. J. Eq.) 99 Atl. 105, A trust does not violate the rule where it must come to an end not later than the twenty-first birthday of a person in being.Keyes v. Northern Trust Co., 130 Ill. App. 508; affirmed in 227 Ill. 354, 81 N. E. 384. V. 55 Gilman Reddington, 24 N. Y. 9; Cottman v. Grace, 112 N. Y. 299, 3 L. R. A. 145, 19 N. E. 839; Bigelow v. Cady, 171 III. 229, 63 Am. St. Rep. 230, 48 N. E. 974; O'Hare v. Johnston, 273 Ill. 458, 113 N. E. 127, reversing 194 Ill. App. 153. 56 See §§ 1113, 1114, 1140, 1141. 57 Leisenring's Estate, 237 Pa. St. 60, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 84, 85 Atl. 80; Barton v. Thaw, 246 Pa. St. 348, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 570, 92 Atl. 312. attached to an invalid one, and they are independent and severable, effect will be given to the valid provisions, rejecting the others, and the gift will not fail for such reason." 58 In addition to being invalid, provisions attached to a gift which violates the rule against perpetuities may have a varying effect; they may invalidate the whole will or they may increase a preceding estate. Where the provisions of the attempted devise or bequest violate the rule against perpetuities, but it is possible to eliminate the invalid portion without doing violence to the testator's general scheme of distribution, the court will uphold the valid portion of the will. Where, however, the valid and invalid provisions are so interdependent that the latter can not be disregarded and the former given effect in accord with the general purpose of the testator in disposing of his property, the whole will must be rejected.59 58 Halsey v. Goddard, 86 Fed. 25; Matter of Murray, 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 246. 59 Goodier v. Johnson, 18 Ch. D. 441; Cooke v. Cooke, 38 Ch. D. 202; Gore v. Gore, 2 P. Wms. 28; Gooding v. Read, 4 De G. M. & G. 510; Taylor v. Frobisher, 5 De G. & Sm. 191; Packer v. Scott, 33 Beav. 511; Halsey v. Goddard, 86 Fed. 25; McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 28 L. Ed. 1015, 5 Sup. Ct. 652; Miller v. Weston, 25 Colo. App. 231, 138 Pac. 424; Andrews v. Rice, 53 Conn. 566, 5 Atl. 823; Leake v. Watson, 60 Conn. 498, 21 Atl. 1075; Chicago Forge etc. Co. v. Sanche, 35 Ill. App. 174; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Carey, 90 Ill. 514; Eldred v. Meek, 183 П. 26, 75 Am. St. Rep. 86, 55 N. E. 536; Carpenter v. Hubbard, 263 Ill. 571, 105 N. E. 688; Goldsborough v. Martin, 41 Md. 488; Heald v. Heald, 56 Md. 300; Albert v. Albert, 68 Md. 352, 12 Atl. 11; Palms v. Palms, 68 Mich, 355, 364, 36 N. W. 419; Stout v. Stout, 44 N. J. Eq. 479, 15 Atl. 843; Appell v. Appell, 177 App. Div. 570, 164 N. Y. Supp. 246; Darling v. Rogers, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 483, 495; Post v. Hover, 33 N. Y. 593; Knox v. Jones, 47 N. Y. 389; Henderson v. Henderson, 113 N. Y. 1, 20 N. E. 814; In re Butterfield (In re Christie), 133 N. Y. 473, 31 N. E. 515; Denison v. Denison, 185 N. Y. § 1169. The Same Subject: Effect on Preceding Estates. If the will is upheld and a limitation over in violation of the rule against perpetuities is eliminated, it may increase the prior interest or estate given. If the preceding interest or estate is fixed and determined and is not to be affected by any contingencies, there will be no change. But if such preceding interest or estate is subject to be defeated by a limitation over in the event of a certain contingency which is declared invalid because of being in violation of the rule against perpetuities, such preceding estate becomes as effective as if the limitation over had not been made. Thus, where a devise of realty60 438, 78 N. E. 162, affirming 103 App. Div. 523, 86 N. Y. Supp. 604, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1128; Philadelphia v. Girard's Heirs, 45 Pa. St. 9, 84 Am. Dec. 470; Seeley v. Alden, 61 Pa. St. 302, 100 Am. Dec. 642; Anderson v. Menefee, (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W. 904; Saxton v. Webber, 83 Wis. 617, 20 L. R. A. 509, 53 N. W. 905. 60 Tilbury v. Barbut, 3 Atk. 617; Ring v. Hardwick, 2 Beav. 352; Nottingham v. Jennings, 1 P. Wms. 23, 25; Attorney General v. Gill, 2 P. Wms. 369; Post v. Rohrbach, 142 Ill. 600, 32 N. E. 687; Howe v. Hodge, 152 Ill. 252, 38 N. E. 1083; Outland v. Bowen, 115 Ind. 150, 7 Am. St. Rep. 420, 17 N. E. 281; Moore's Trustees v. Howe's Heirs, 4 T. B. Mon. (20 Ky.) 199; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Douglas' Trustee, 134 Ky. 374, 20 Ann. Cas. 993, 120 S. W. 328; Beall Wilson, 146 Ky. 646, 143 S. W. 55; Slade v. Patten, 68 Me. 380; Towle v. Doe, 97 Me. 427, 54 Atl. 1072; Wallis v. Woodland, 32 Md. 101; Comegys v. Jones, 65 Md. 317, 4 Atl. 567; Graham v. Whitridge, 99 Md. 248, 66 L. R. A. 408, 57 Atl. 609, 58 Atl. 36; Fosdick v. Fosdick, 6 Allen (88 Mass.) 41; Brattle Square Church V. Grant, 3 Gray (69 Mass.) 142, 63 Am. Dec. 725; Lovering v. Worthington, 106 Mass. 86; Theological Education Soc. v. Attorney General, 135 Mass. 285; Caldwell v. Willis, 57 Miss. 555; State v. Tolson, 73 Mo. 320; Cleveland v. Havens, 13 N. J. Eq. 101, 78 Am. Dec. 90; Drummond's Exr. V. Drummond, 26 N. J. Eq. 234; Bonard's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 208; Parks v. Parks, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 109; Ferris v. Gibson, 4 Edw. (N. Y.) 707; Leonard v. Burr, 18 N. Y. 96; Davidson v. Davidson's Exrs., 8 N. C. 163, 168; Hollowell v. Kornegay, 29 N. C. 261; Porter v. Ross, 55 N. C. 196; or a bequest of personalty61 has been made subject to conditions or limitations which under the rule against perpetuities are void as being too remote, the first beneficiary takes the fee or the absolute interest therein. In some of the states it is declared by statute that when an attempt is made to create a perpetuity, the law gives effect to the limitations not too remote and declares the others void, thereby vesting the fee in the last taker under the legal limitations.62 § 1170. The Same Subject: Effect on Other Estates. Where the vesting of title in fee simple in realty or an absolute interest in personalty is not postponed beyond Smith v. Townsend, 32 Pa. St. 434; Coggin's Appeal, 124 Pa. St. 10, 10 Am. St. Rep. 565, 16 Atl. 579; Hackney v. Tracy, 137 Pa. St. 53, 20 Atl. 560; Norton v. Fripp, 1 Speers L. (S. C.) 250; Curry v. Sims, 11 Rich. L. (S. C.) 489; Nixon v. Rose, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 425; Saxton v. Webber, 83 Wis. 617, 53 N. W. 905. Where a devise constitutes a violation of the rule against perpetuitics causing the antecedent particular estate to fail, the heirs at law of the testatrix are entitled under the intestate laws to immediate possession. - Kountz's Estate, 213 Pa. St. 390, 5 Ann. Cas. 427, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, 62 Atl. 1103. 61 Ring v. Hardwick, 2 Beav. 352; Hardcastle v. Hardcastle, 1 Hem. & M. 405; McGraw v. Davenport, 6 Port. (Ala.) 319; Darden's Admr. v. Burns' Admr., 6 Ala. 362; Landman v. Snodgrass, 26 Ala. 593; Robinson v. McDonald, 2 Ga. 116; Johnson v. Negro Lish, 4 Harr. & J. (Md.) 441; Brattle Square Church v. Grant, 3 Gray (69 Mass.) 142, 63 Am. Dec. 725; Sears v. Russell, 8 Gray (74 Mass.) 86; Albee v. Carpenter, 12 Cush. (66 Mass.) 382; Caldwell v. Willis, 57 Miss. 555; State v. Tolson, 73 Mo. 320; Condict's Exrs. v. King, 13 N. J. Eq. 375; Drummond's Exr. v. Drummond, 26 N. J. Eq. 234; Bonard's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 128, 208; Patterson v. Ellis's Exrs., 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 259; Davidson v. Davidson's Exrs., 8 N. C. 163; Porter v. Ross, 55 N. C. 196; Train v. Fisher, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 145; Cooke v. Bucklin, 18 R. I. 666, 29 Atl. 840; Postell V. Postell, Bailey Eq. (S. C.) 390; Cox v. Buck, 5 Rich. L. (S. C.) 604; Nixon v. Rose, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 425. 62 Georgia Civ. Code, (1910) § 3678; Phinizy v. Wallace, 136 Ga. 520, 71 S. E. 896. the duration of specified lives in being at the death of the testator, no limitations imposed on an intermediate life estate, and effective only in the meantime, can violate the rule as to perpetuities since such limitations can not postpone the vesting of the fee beyond the permitted period.3 And a gift of less than an absolute interest or estate, followed by a limitation over upon some contingency, is not invalidated by the fact that the gift over, for some cause, fails to take effect and can never vest.64 § 1171. Gifts to a Class. The general rule is that a will speaks as of the date of the testator's death, and beneficiaries designated collectively as a class are usually ascertained as of that date. The testator, however, may indicate a contrary intention and, if properly expressed, it will control.65 A gift to a class to take effect at the death of the testator or as a legal remainder upon the termination of a life estate, is not within the rule against perpetuities.66 But the testator may interpose preceding estates so that those of the class who are to take the ultimate remainder can not be ascertained until after such a period as violates the rule. The gift, being to a class as a whole, fails as a whole. For example, a life estate may be given to 488; Lawrence's Estate, 136 Pa. St. 66 Drury v. Drury, 271 Ill. 336, 111 N. E. 140. 67 Leake v. Robinson, 2 Meriv. 363; Pearks v. Moseley, L. R. 5 |