Definition
A phrase historically used in wills, trust instruments, and conditional bequests to establish the point in time at which a gift, devise, or legacy vests or becomes payable. The phrase fixes a temporal condition tied to a beneficiary reaching a specified age — in this formulation, age twenty — and courts have had to determine whether such language creates a condition precedent (no entitlement until the age is reached) or merely postpones enjoyment of an already-vested interest.
The critical interpretive question is not the age itself but whether the age requirement suspends the vesting of the gift or only delays distribution. This distinction has significant consequences: if the beneficiary dies before reaching twenty, a condition precedent defeats the gift entirely and the property passes elsewhere, whereas a mere postponement of enjoyment may allow the gift to pass to the beneficiary's estate.
---
Common Confusion
This phrase is frequently conflated with related testamentary age formulations such as "when he shall come of age" or "when he is of age," but the meanings are not identical. "Come of age" historically referred to reaching the legal age of majority — traditionally twenty-one at common law — and courts applied a body of doctrine specifically tied to that legal threshold. "When he attains the age of twenty" specifies a non-majority age, which may affect whether minority-protective presumptions apply. Courts have also treated the word "when" differently from "if": "when" can imply certainty of eventual occurrence (suggesting vesting with deferred enjoyment), while "if" more clearly signals a contingency. Neither reading is absolute; context within the instrument controls.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase belongs to a cluster of testamentary contingency expressions that generated substantial litigation in English and American equity courts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Researchers must approach these cases with care:
**Vesting versus postponement.** The central doctrinal split in this area is whether age-contingency language creates a condition precedent or a condition subsequent. Historical courts applying the rule in *Boraston's Case* and its descendants wrestled with whether gifts "payable at" or "when" a beneficiary reached a specified age vested at birth or at the age named. The outcome often turned on fine distinctions in surrounding will language — particularly the presence or absence of gift-over clauses in the event of the beneficiary's prior death.
**The age-of-majority baseline.** Because common law set majority at twenty-one, instruments specifying twenty created an anomalous gap year. Research into cases involving this specific phrase must account for whether the drafting was intentional (deliberately avoiding majority) or imprecise, and how courts treated that gap.
**Cross-phrase research.** The Rapalje & Lawrence entry bundles this phrase among related conditional-payment formulations — "when he is able," "when he shall come of age," "when I am able" — suggesting contemporaneous practitioners understood these as a family of construction problems. Researchers should search across all these variants when tracing how a particular court or treatise writer approached contingency language.
**American versus English divergence.** New York courts (see the 11 Wendell reference in the adjacent entry) and English courts (14 East) sometimes reached different results on vesting questions under similar language. American equity courts, particularly in New York, developed somewhat more debtor-friendly or beneficiary-protective readings in certain periods. Do not assume English chancery doctrine translated wholesale.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence treat this phrase as a headword pointing to case authority rather than offering a doctrinal synthesis, which was standard for their digest-style reference work. The entry is sparse — little more than a citation signal — reflecting the approach of that dictionary to testamentary phrase construction: identify the phrase, direct the researcher to leading cases, and leave analysis to the cases themselves.
What the historical dictionaries collectively miss is any systematic treatment of how age-specific language below majority interacted with the broader vesting doctrines developed in equity. Bouvier and Anderson similarly treat age-contingency language only in passing, within entries on conditions or legacies rather than as a standalone construction problem. Researchers relying solely on dictionary entries will find the real doctrine in the equity treatises — particularly on future interests and contingent remainders — and in the annotated case reporters.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Construction of age-contingency language in wills is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the will is probated, which for real property means the situs and for personal property historically meant the testator's domicile. American states diverged from English common law rules on vesting at varying points in the nineteenth century, and several states adopted statutory rules of construction that affect how "when he attains" language is read. Modern researchers should check applicable state statutes before relying on common law cases.
---