1

February 18, 1893.

My dear Sir,

If I have the misfortune to differ with
you in the Construction of the limitation which
you [propenned?], you must as [?] it largely to the
engrossment of my [?] by [?] pressing
[?] [since?] the receipt of your letter of 10th.

In [substance?] the limitation in [position?]
is by deed to M in [lines?] [M G P, for?] for, her life, and if RO.P, her
husband, shall [?] M G.P, then to RO.P for his
life, remainder after the termination of the said
life-[estates?], to the heirs of RO.P.

I assume that M G.P and RO.P are both
yet [?].

I. The first question is whether RO.P takes a [vested?],
[or?] a [Contingent?] remainder, and I regret to
find myself [obliged?] to [t?], after some [-ations?]
of opinion, that it is [Contingent?].

The distinction [attribute?] of a [vested?] [remainder?]
is that if [possesses?] a present [capacity?] to take effect in
[possession?], if the [possession?] [should?] by only mean
[become?] [vacant?]. ([F?] Rem as 216 [Rev?]). Now if

February 18, 1893.

My dear Sir,

If I have the misfortune to differ with
you in the Construction of the limitation which
you [propenned?], you must as [?] it largely to the
engrossment of my [?] by [?] pressing
[?] [since?] the receipt of your letter of 10th.

In [substance?] the limitation in [position?]
is by deed to M in [lines?] [M G P, for?] for, her life, and if RO.P, her
husband, shall [?] M G.P, then to RO.P for his
life, remainder after the termination of the said
life-[estates?], to the heirs of RO.P.

I assume that M G.P and RO.P are both
yet [?].

I. The first question is whether RO.P takes a [vested?],
[or?] a [Contingent?] remainder, and I regret to
find myself [obliged?] to [t?], after some [-ations?]
of opinion, that it is [Contingent?].

The distinction [attribute?] of a [vested?] [remainder?]
is that if [possesses?] a present [capacity?] to take effect in
[possession?], if the [possession?] [should?] by only mean
[?] [?]. ([F?] Rem as 216 [Rev?]). Now if