Gehlbach v. Briegel

I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion. A proper conclusion would be reached in this case if it were considered on the basis of the rule in Shelley’s case. The opinion disposes of this rule by saying that it does not apply where the remainder is contingent. Among other cases, Bails v. Davis, 241 Ill. 536, is cited, but it does not support this proposition. The effect of its holding is that where the rule in Shelley’s case applies, the contingent remainder cannot be cut off by merger. That is obviously a correct statement, because the remainder is vested in the…