Eternity, domains. Any restriction which tends to remove the article from the market for a period longer than a lifetime or life in the being and twenty-one years beyond; and in the case of a posthumous child, a few months longer, taking into account the duration of the pregnancy; Randall on life sentences, 48; or it is such a limitation of ownership that renders it inalienable beyond the period permitted by law. Gilbert on Uses, von Sugden, 260, note 2. Richter Powell, in Scattergood v. Kante, 12 Mod. 278, eternally distinguished into two types, absolute and qualified; This means, as it is understood, a distinction between a simple, immediate and tangible eternity and the case where an estate is limited to a case of contingency, which could occur within a reasonable time, but if, because of the nature of the restriction, the estate could nevertheless be kept out of transactions longer than was considered comfortable under common law policy. But this distinction would not lead today to a better understanding or explanation of the subject; if an estate is limited to the extent that it can only take effect after too long a period, or if, in the event of a contingency likely to arise within a moderate period, it also falls below the limit of eternity and the limitation is therefore null and void; It is not enough that a discount can be transferred within the prescribed time, but the rule requires that it do so. Randall on Perp. 49. Vide Cruise, Dig. Tit.
32, c. 23; 1 ves. Jr. 406; 2 ves. Jr. 357; 3 Saund. 388 h. Note; Com. Dig. Chancery, 4 G 1; 3 Chan.
Case 1; 2 bouv. Inst. n. 1890. Indefinitely, literally an unlimited duration. In the law, it refers to a provision that violates the rule against eternity. For centuries, Anglo-American law assumed that social interest required the freedom to alienate property. (Sale is legally the transfer of ownership by voluntary deed and not by inheritance.) When English land carriers invented a form of transmission in the late 16th century that would make the earth inalienable forever, the courts considered it an invalid human attempt to rival God`s permanence. Therefore, they used the word eternity—from the Latin in perpetuum, a biblical term used to refer to God`s eternal permanence—to describe such an invalid limitation. “Dominance against eternity.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/rule%20against%20perpetuities. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
At common law, the period was set at 21 years after the death of a living identifiable person at the time the interest arose. This is often expressed as “living in being plus twenty-one years”. The common law rule is that there is no question of whether an interest is actually transferred more than 21 years after its life. If, at the time of award, it is possible that interest becomes vested outside the perpetual period, the interest is zero and will be withdrawn from the grant. This masterpiece of judicial legislation established the permissible period for the preservation of property during the life of living human beings at the time of transfer, plus 21 years plus one or more periods of pregnancy, in order to allow the inclusion of persons who were not conceived on any of the important dates for the application of the authorized period but who have not yet been born. This period corresponded to the English marriage contract, according to which the land was bound until the eldest son of the marriage was of age. The rule declared invalid any interest in things, real or personal, which, if created, might take longer than that period to transfer to the donee; He looked at possible events rather than real ones. This became the “common law rule against eternity,” and this rule applies with minor changes in England and in a large percentage of U.S.
states regarding the disposition of land and personal property. At the same time, it serves to ensure the alienability of property at the end of a not uncomfortably long period of time and to set an outer limit to the dead hand`s power to control the future. In particular, the rule prohibits a person from creating future interests (traditionally conditional remainder and performance interest) of property that would be transferred more than 21 years after the life of those who lived at the time the interest arose, often expressed as “life being plus twenty-one years”. Essentially, the rule prevents a person from including qualifications and criteria in a deed or will that would continue to affect property long after their death, a concept often referred to as “dead hand” or “mortgage” control.