What is the reasoning of the judge in this case.
I read " the court reasoned in view of the fact that as the donee had a general power of appointment at the time it was exercised (in the will of Tilley's wife), the donee is practical owner of the property, not an agenr. so the court rejected the general rule that an interest created by a general testamentary power of appointment counts the perpetuity period as starting form the creation of the power.
1. what does the fact that the donee as an practical owner of the property not an agent do with the rejection of general rule?
2. No matter the starting of the perpetuity period is in the creation of the power or the exercise of the power, I reckon that the you can still start from the exercise of power because the donee would be a life in being at the time the interest was created. I don't know what all the fuss is about.