Wesley S. Campbell died on October 4, 1935, leaving a will containing the following clause:

The will was admitted to probate and in due course a final account and petition for distribution, with objections thereto, came on for hearing, it being stipulated that “the four chair officers” of this lodge were elected annually, and that the individuals who occupied those positions at that time were not the same individuals who had occupied them at the date of decedent’s death. The court found that the quoted clause of the will is invalid and void as in contravention of the provisions of sections 715 and 716 of the Civil Code, and that the said Campbell died intestate as to the residue of his estate, and ordered the same distributed to his heirs at law. The four individuals who at that time held the designated positions in this lodge have appealed from the decree of distribution.

The sole question presented is whether this provision of the will is invalid because of a possibility that distribution of the estate might not take place for more than twenty-five years after the death of the testator. If distribution should be thus delayed the provision in question would contravene the rule against perpetuities (see. 9, art. XX, State Const.), and also section 716 of the Civil Code, which reads in part: “Every future interest is void in its creation which, by any possibility, may suspend the absolute power of alienation for a longer period than is prescribed in this chapter.” This includes the provision of section 715 of that code that such a power shall not be suspended for more than twenty-five years from the time of the creation of the suspension, which in this case would be the date of the decedent’s death.

The appellant relies particularly on the case of Belfield v. Booth, 63 Conn. 299 [ 27 Atl. 585 ], That ease involved a provision of a will which left certain property in trust, the trust to continue for fourteen years after the executor “has settled with the judge of probate”. In considering this provision, under the common-law rule against perpetuities, it was held that the time set for the division of the trust estate was not so remote as to contravene that rule. In so holding the court interpreted the will as, in effect, providing that the fourteen-year trust period was to commence “at the expiration of such reasonable time after his decease as will suffice for the proper settlement of his estate”, and stated that it was not to be presumed that such settlement would be delayed longer than that. To follow this reasoning in the instant case would be not only to read into the will something which is not there but to flatly disregard the provision of our statute which makes void any future interest which by any possibility may suspend the absolute power of alienation for a period longer than that prescribed.

In considering a problem similar to the one now before us the Supreme Court of Illinois in Johnson v. Preston, 226 Ill. 447 [ 80 N. E. 1001 , 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 564], said:

That decision quoted from the case of Husband v. Epling, 81 Ill. 172 [ 25 Am. Rep. 273 ], as follows:

Similar principles have been applied, although upon very different facts, in People v. Simonson, 126 N. Y. 299 [ 27 N. E. 380 ], and in Cruikshank v. Chase et al., 113 N. Y. 337 [ 21 N. E. 64 , 4 L. R. A. 140],

In Estate of Troy, 214 Cal. 53 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 930 ], the court said:

The question before us narrows down to whether or not it can be said that this estate must of necessity have been distributed within twenty-five years after the testator’s death and that such distribution could not “by any possibility” have been longer delayed. One possibility, which cannot be overlooked, is that probate proceedings might not have been started for many years. Cases are not unknown where parties, through ignorance or neglect, have continued to occupy and use for a long period property left by a decedent before resorting to probate. Property in the form of bank deposits has remained unclaimed for years before probate proceedings were commenced. The closing of many estates has been delayed for years both through neglect and by intention, because of circumstances and conditions. A long delay by reason of protracted litigation is a very real possibility. All of these possibilities, not to mention others, might become realities in a particular case, causing a delay beyond the time limited. While it can be said that the reasonable probabilities were in favor of a distribution of this estate well within the time required, to hold that such a result, with the consequent vesting of interest, was certain to occur and would inevitably take place would be to disregard the statute by accepting a high degree of probability as a certainty.

While statutes of the kind here in question may at times seem unnecessarily harsh in a particular case, they are adopted with a definite aim and purpose in view. These particular statutes are a part of the expression of a well-defined public policy. In so far as material here the language therein used is not ambiguous and to interpret the phrase “by any possibility” as in effect meaning “by any probability ’ ’ would be to alter a plain provision of the statute. Such a change in statutory law should come, if at all, from the legislature and not from the courts.

The judgment and decree is affirmed.

Marks, J., concurred.