(jJnrnpU llatu ^rlynnl IGibraty Cornell University Library KF 570.T55 1892 An elementary treatise on the American I 3 1924 018 826 606 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018826606 AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE AMERICAN^ LAW EEAL PEOPEETT. CHKISTOPHEEG. TIEDEMAN, Author oi- "Limitations of Police Power," "Sales," " Com- mercial Paper," etc., and Professor of the Law of Ebal Property in the Law Department of the UnivbrsItt of the City of New York. SECOND EDITION. ST. LOUIS: THE F. H. THOMAS LAW BOOK CO. 1892. /J^^ Entered according to Act of CoDgress, in the year 1892, by CHRISTOPHER G. TIEDEMAN, In the OUice of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. St. Lo7ns, Mo,: Press o/ Nixon -Jojics Printiug Co, PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. In presenting to the profession a new work on the Amer- ican Law of Real Property, the author does not deem an apology necessary, although it may be appropriate to state briefly his object and the scope of the work. The experi- ence of the author, both as a student and as an instructor in this branch of the law, has led him to believe that stu- dents of the law generally look upon the law of Real Prop- erty as extremely technical, arbitrary and unreasonable. Believing that all law is founded upon reason, and is devel- oped by forces, which are not produced or even controlled by the arbitrary will of the legislator, and feeling confident that a logical or historical reason could be found for every principle of the law of Real Property, the author has made that subject the object of his special study, and this volume is given to the profession as the result of his investigations, with the hope that it might aid in stripping this branch of the law of its harsh and uninviting dress. In one sense, this book cannot be considered exhaustive, for volumes can be written on the subject without exhaust- ing it. But it is thought that, in another sense, the book may be considered as reasonably exhaustive, in that it con-'' tains the enunciation of all those principles which are nec- essary to a broad and comprehensive knowledge of the (iii) IV PREFACE. subject. Instead of filling these images with numerous cita- tions of the facts of particular cases, and leaving to the student the discovery of the general principles, which un- derlie the cases, these principles are presented in a logical and systematic order, with a statement of the rational or historical source of each, while copious references to decided cases and standard treatises will enable the student to pursue his investigations into all the ramifications of the subject. It is hoped that this plan of treatment will give to the work a peculiar value as a text-book for students, while it will furnish to practitioners a book of ready reference. Free use has been made of the researches of other writers, and references to their works will be found on almost every page ; but the author considers it necessary to make a special acknowledgment of his indebtedness to the treatises of Mr. Williams and Professor Washburn for the valuable assist- ance which he has derived from them. In commending this work to the favorable consideration of an enlightened profession, the author trusts that it will not be adjudged to be without merit. C. G. T. Univbrsity op the State of Missouri, Law Department, November 1st, 1883. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The author desires in the issue of this second edition to manifest his appreciation of the good will of the profession towards his literary efforts in general, and particularly to- ward the first edition of this book during the nine years of its existence, by making important additions to both text and references, and thereby materially increasing the value of the book. The entire text has been carefully revised and additions made whenever they have been deemed necessary and possible, without affecting its value as a concise and compact statement of the fundamental principles of the law of real property. Very many new cases have been cited in support of the propositions of law throughout the ramifications of the subject ; and almost all of the cases which have been decided by the American Courts of last resort in the intervening years have been cited, which involve the discussion of questions of law in relation to the limitations of estates by deed or by will and the rights of parties therein. It would have been impossible to have cited all the new cases relating to every subject dis- cussed and contained in this book without making the new edition too cumbersome : and for this reason the new cita- tions in the other branches of the subject, — which are discussed in detail in other works, — have been limited to those cases which involve material modifications of existing laws. Cases which simply confirm points of law already settled and determined have not in these instances been added to the notes. After all it is questionable whether the unlimited citation of cases in any case adds materially to the value of an elementary text-book, however neces- sary it may be to a digest of adjudicated cases. C. G. T. Univeksity of the City of New York, July 1, 1892. (V) TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. REAL PKOPERTT. Section 1. What is real property. 2. What is land. 3. Fixtures. i. Between what parties the question may arise. 5. [ Constructive annexation. 5a{ Temporary annexation. 6. Question of fixtures between landlord and tenant. 7. ..^ime of removal 8. Emblements. 9. Trees. 10. Double ownership in land. 11. Lands, tenements, and hereditaments. CHAPTEE II. THE PKINCIPLES OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM. Section 19. What is tenure. 20. Feudal tenure. 21. Feud or Fief. 22. Subinfeudation. 23. The manor and its system of dividing up its lands. 24. Feoffment and livery of seisin. 26. Tenure In the United States. 26. Estates, classes of. CHAPTER HI. ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE. Section 36. Definition. 37. Words of limitation. 38. The power of disposition. 39. Liability for debts. vu TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTEE IV. ESTATES TAIL. Section 44. Base or qualified fees. 45. Fee conditional at common law. 46. Estates tail. 47. Necessary words of limitation. 48. Classes of estates tail. 49. How estates tail may be barred. 50. Merger of an estate-tail. 51. Estate-tail after possibility of issue extinct. 52. Estates-tail in the United States. CHAPTER V. ESTATES FOR LIFE. Sbction 60. Definition and classes of life estates. 61. Peculiarities of an estate per auter vie. 62. Words of limitation in estates for life. 63. The merger of life estate in a greater. 64. Alienation by tenant for life. 66. Tenure between tenant for life and reversioner. 66. Apportionment between life tenant and reversioner of in- cumbrances. 67. Same — Of rent. 68. Claim for improvements. 69. Estovers. 70. Emblements, what they are. 71. Same — Who may claim them. 72. Definition and history of waste. 73. What acts constitute waste. 74. Waste in respect to trees. 75. Continued — In respect to minerals and other deposits. 76. Continued — Management and culture of land. 77. Continued — In respect to buildings. 78. Continued — Acts of strangers. 79. Continued — Destruction of buildings by Are. 80. Exemption from liability. 81. Remedies for waste. 82. Property in timber unlawfully cut. viii ■TABLE OP CONTENTS. CHAPTER VI. ESTATES ARISING OUT OF THE MARITAL RELATION. ;Section I. — Estate of husband during coverture. II. — Curtesy. , III. — Dower. IV. — Homestead. SECTION I. ESTATE OF HUSBAND DURING COVERTURE. Section 90. Effect of marriage upon wife's property. 91. How husband's rights may be barred. 92. How prevented from attaching. 93. Eestrictlons upon alienation of wife's separate property. 94. Statutory changes In this country. SECTION II. ESTATE BY CURTESY. Section 101. Definition. 102. Marriage. 103. Estate of inheritance necessary in the wife. 104. Curtesy in fees determinable, 105. Curtesy in equitable estates. 106. Seisin in wife during coverture. 107. Curtesy in reversion. 108. Necessity of issue. 109. Liability for husband's debts. 110. How estate may be defeated. SECTION III. DOWEK. Section 115. Dower defined and explained. 116. In what estates has she dower. 117. Dower in equitable estates. 118. Dower in lands of trustee. 119. Dower in mortgage* 120. Dower in proceeds of sale. 121. Seisin required in the husband during coverture. 122. Continued — Defeasible or determinable seisin. 123. Duration of the seisin. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 124. Instantaneous seisin. 125. Marriage must be legal. 126. now dower may be lost or barred by act of the husband. 127. Continued — By wife's release during coverture. 128. Continued — By elopement and divorce. 129. Continued — By loss of husband's seisin. 130. Continued — By estoppel in pais. 131. Continued — By statute of limitations. 132. Continued — By exercise of eminent domain. 133. Widow's quarantine. 134. Assignment — Two modes. 136. Continued — Of common riglit. 136. Dower against common right. 137. By whom may dower be assigned. 138. Remedies for recovery of dower. 139. Demand necessary. 140. Against whom and where the action is brought. 141. Continued — Abatement by death of widow. 142. Judgment, what it contains. 143. Continued — Damages, when recoverable. 144. Continued — Assignment after judgment. 145. Assignment — Where two or more widows claim dower. 146. Decree of sum of money in lieu of dower. 147. Dower barred by jointure. 148. Continued — By testamentary provision. 149. Continued — By statutory provision for inheritance. SECTION IV. HOMESTEAD ESTATES. Section 158. History and origin. 159. Nature of the estate. 160. Who may claim homestead. 161. What may be claimed. 162. Exemption from debts. 163. How homestead may be lost — By alienation, 164. Continued — By abandonment. CHAPTER VII. ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. Section I. — Estates for years. II. — Estates at will, and tenancies from year to year. III. — Estates at sufferance. X TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION I. Section 171. History of estates for years. 172. Definition. 173. ' Term defined. 174. Interesse termini. 175. Terms commencing infuturo. 176. The rights of lessee for years. 177. How created. 178. Form of instrument. 179. Continued — Distinction between present lease and con- tract for a future one. 180. Acceptance of lease necessary. 181. Relation of landlord and tenant. 182. Assignment and subletting. 183. Involuntary alienation. 184. Disposition of terms after death of tenant. 185. Covenants in a lease, in general. 186. Continued — Express and implied covenants. 187. Implied covenant for quiet enjoyment. 188. Implied covenant for rent. 189. Implied covenant against waste. 190. Covenants running with the land. 191. Conditions in leases. 192. Eent reserved — Necessity of consideration. 193. Kent reserved — Condition of forfeiture. 194. How relation of landlord and tenant may be determined. 195. What constitutes eviction. 196. Constructive eviction. 196a. Partial eviction. 197. Surrender and merger. 198. How surrender may be effected. 199. Eight of lessee to deny lessor's title. 200. Effect of disclaimer of lessor's title. 201. Letting land upon shares. SECTION II. ESTATES AT WILL AND TENANCIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR. Section 212. Estates at will. 218. How estates at will may be determined. 214. Estates at ■will distinguished from tenancy from year to year. 215. Tenancy at will — What now included under that term. 216. Tenancy at will — Arising by Implication of law. xi TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 217. Qualities of tenancies from year to year. 218. What notice is required to determine tenancy from year to year. 219. How notice may be waived. SECTION UL TENANCY AT SDrFBRANCB. Section 225. Tenancy at sufferance, what is. 226. Incidents of tenancy at sufferance. 227. How the tenancy is determined. 228. The effect of forcible entry. CHAPTER VIII. JOINT ESTATES. Section I. — Classes of joint estates. II. — -Incidents common to all joint estates. III. — Partition. Section 235. Joint estates, what are. SECTION I. CLASSES OF JOINT ESTATES. I. — Joint-tenancy. II. — Tenancy in common. III. — Estates in coparcenary. IV. — Estates in entirety. V. — Estates in partnership. Section 236. Joint- tenancy, what is. 237. Incidents of joint-tenancy. 238. Doctrine of survivorship, — how right of survivorship is destroyed. 239. Tenancy in common, what is. 240. Joint estates, when tenancies in common 241. Tenancy in coparcenary. 242. Estates in entirety. 243. Estates in entirety in a joint-tenancy, or tenancy in com- mon. 244. Tenancy in common between husband and wife. 245. Estates in partnership. 246. Several interests of partners xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION II. INCIDENTS COMMON TO ALL JOINT ESTATES. Section 251. Disseisin by one co-tenant. 252. Adverse title acquired by one co-tenant. 252o. Maintenance of actions against trespassers. 263. Alienation of joint estates. 254. Waste by co-tenants. 255. Liability of one co-tenant for rents and profits. SECTION III. PAKTITION. Section 259. Definition of partition. 260. Voluntary partition. 261. Involuntary or compulsory partition. 262. Who can maintain action for partition. 263. Partial partition.' 264. Manner of allotment. 265. Effect of partition. CHAPTEE IX. ESTATES UPON CONDITION AND LIMITATION, AND CONDI- TIONAL LIMITATIONS. Section 271. Definition of an estate upon condition. 272. Words necessary to create an estate upon condition. 273. Conditions precedent and subsequent, further distin- guished. 274. Invalid conditions — Impossibility of performance. 275. Invalid conditions — Because of Illegality. 276. The time of performance. 277. The effect of the breach of the condition. 278. Waiver of performance. 279. Equitable relief against forfeiture. 280. Estates upon condition, distinguished from trusts. 281. Same — From estates upon limitation, and conditional limitations. xiii TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER X- MOETGAGES. Section 1. — Nature and Classification of Mortgages. II. — The rights and liabilities of Mortgagors and Mortgagees. III. — Remedies and remedial rights incident to a mortgage. SECTION I. NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF MORTGAGES. Section 287. Deflnition. 288. Mortgages by deposit of title deeds. 289. ContiQued — Notice to subsequent purchasers. 290. Continued — Their recognition in this country. 291. Continued — Foreclosure. 292. Vendor's lien. 293. Continued — Discharge or waiver of the lien. 294. Continued — In whose favor raised. 295. Vendee's lien. 295a. Enforcement of vendor's and vendee's liens. 296. Mortgage at common law. 297. Vivum vadium. 298. Welsh mortgage. 299. Equity of redemption. 300. The mortgage in equity. 301. Influence of equity upon the law. 302. The form of a mortgage. 303. Execution of the defeasance. 304. Form of defeasance. 305. Agreements to repurchase. 306. The defeasance clause in equity. 307. The admissibility of parol evidence. 308. Contemporaneous agreements. 309. Subsequent agreements. 310. The mortgage debt. 311. Mortgages for the support of the mortgagee. 312. What may be mortgaged. SECTION II. THE BIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. Section 318. The mortgagor's interest. 319. The mortgagee's interest. 320. Devise of the mortgage. xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 321. Merger of interests. 322. Possession of mortgaged premises. 323. Special agreements in respect to the possession. 324. Rents and profits. 325. Mortgagee's liability for rents received, 326. Tenure between mortgagor and mortgagee. 327. Insurance of tlie mortgaged premises. 328. Assignment of the mortgage. 329. Common-law assignment. 330. Assignment under the lien theory. 331. Assignment of the mortgagor's interest. 332. Rights and liabilities of assignees. 333. Effect of payment or tender of payment. 334. Who may redeem. 335. What acts extinguish the mortgage. 336. The effect of a discharge. 337. When payment will worls an assignment. 338. Registry of mortgages, and herein of priority. 339. Rule of priority from registry, its force and effect. 340. Registry of assignments of mortgages and equities of redemption. 341. Tacking of mortgages. 342. Priority in mortgages for future advances. 343. Satisfaction of the mortgage on the records. SECTION III. REMEDIES AUD REMEDIAL EIGHTS INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. Section 351. Actions for waste. 352. Process to redeem. 353. Accounting by the mortgagee. 354. Continued — What are lawful debits? 355. Continued — What are lawful credits? 356. Making rests. 357. Balance due. 358. Foreclosure — Nature and kinds of. 359. Continued — Who should be made parties? 360. Parties to Foreclosures — Continued. 361. Effect of decree in foreclosure upon the land. 362. The effects of foreclosure upon the debt. 363. Mortgages, with power of sale. 364. Character of the mortgage in relation to the power. 365. Purchase by mortgagee at his own sale. 366. Extinguishment of the power. 367. Application of purchase-money. 368. Deeds of tru^t. XV TABLE OP CONTENTS. Section 369. 370. 371. 872. 373. 374. 375. 376. CoDtribution to redeem — General statement. Mortgagor v. his assignees. Contribution between assignees of the mortgagor — Effect of release of one of them. Contribution between the surety and the mortgagor. Between heirs, widows, and devisees of the mortgagor. Between the mortgaged property and the mortgagor's personal estate. Special agreements affecting the rights of contribution and exoneration. Marshalling of assets between successive mortgagees. CHAPTER XI. " REVERSION." Section 385. Definition. 386. Reversion — Assignable and devisable. 387. Reversion — Descendible to whom. 388. Dower and curtesy in reversions. 389. Rights and powers of the reversion. CHAPTER Xn. REMAINDERS. Section I. — Of remainders in general and herein of vested remainders. II. — Contingent remainders. III. — Estates within the rule in Shelley's Case. SECTION I. OF REMAINDERS IN GENERAL AND HEREIN OP VESTED REMAINDERS. Section 896. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. xvi Nature and definition of remainders. Kinds of remainders. Successive remainders. Disposition of a vested remainder. Relation of tenant and remainder-man. Vested and contingent remainders further distinguished- Uncertainty of enjoyment. Same — Remainder to a class. Same — After the happening of the contingency. Cross remainders. TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION II. CONTINGBNT REMAIN DBKS. Section 411. Nature and origin of contingent remainders. 412. Classes of contingent remainders. 413. Vested remainder after a contingent. 414.- Same — Such limitations in wills. 415. Alternate remainders in fee. 416. Restrictions upon the nature of the contingency — Its legality. 417. Same — Remoteness. 418. Same — Abridging the particular estate, 419. How contingent remainders may be defeated. 420. Same — 1. By disseisin of the particular tenant. 421. Same — 2. By merger. 422. Same — 3. By feoffment. 423. Same — 4. By entry of condition broken. 424. Trustees to preserve. SECTION III. ESTATES WITHIN THE RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE, Section 433. Origin and nature of the rule. 434. Requisites of the rule. CHAPTEE XIII. USES AND TRUSTS. Section I. — Uses before the Utatute of Uses. II. — Uses under the Statute of Uses. III. — Shifting, Springing and Contingent Uses. IV. — Trusts. SECTION I. USES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF USES. Section 437. Pre-statement. 438. Origin and history. 439. What is a use. 440. Enforcement of the use. 441. Distinction between Uses and Trusts. 442. How uses may be created. 443 . Same — Resulting use . 444. Same — By simple declarations. b xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 44:5. Who might he feoffees to use and cestuis que use. 44:6. What might be conveyed to uses. 447. Incidents of uses. 448. Alienation of uses. 449. Estates capable of being created in uses. 450. Disposition of uses by will. 451. How lost or defeated. SECTION II. USES -UNDKR THE STATUTE OF USES. Section 459 History of the Statute of Uses. 460. When statute will operate. 461. A person seised to a use and in esse. 462. Freehold necessary. 463. Use upon a use. 464. Feoffee and cestui que use — Same person. 465. A use in esse. 466. Cestui que use in esse. 467. Words of creation and limitation. 468. Active and passive uses and trusts. ( 469. Uses to married women. 470. Cases in which the statute will not operate. SECTION III. CONTINGENT, SPKINGING, AND SHIFTING USES. Section 478. Future uses. 479. Contingent future uses — How supported. 480. Importance of the question. 481. The solution of the question. 482. Contingent uses. 483. Springing uses. 484. Shifting uses. 485. Future uses in chattel interests. 486. Shifting and springing uses — How defeated. 487. Incidents of springing and shifting uses. SECTION IV. TRUSTS. Section 498. What are trusts. 494. Active and passive trusts. 495. Executed and executory trusts, xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 496. Express trusts. 497. Implied, resulting, and constructive trusts. 498. Implied trusts. 499. Kesulting trusts. 500. Same — Payment of consideration. 501. Constructive trusts. 502. Interest of the cestui que trust. 503. Liability for debts. 504. Words of limitations. 605, Doctrine of remainders applied to trusts. 506. How created and assigned. 507. Statute of Frauds. 508. How affected by want of a trustee. 509. Removal of trustees. 510. Eefueal of trustee to serve. 511. Survivorship. 512. Merger of interest. 513. Eights and powers of trustees. 614. Rights and powers of eestuis que trust. 515. Alienation of trust estate. 516. Liability of third persons for performance of the trust. 517. Compensation of trustee. CHAPTER XIV. EXECUTORY DEVISES. Section 530. Nature and origin. 531. Executory devises, vested or contingent. 532. Classes of executory devises. 533. Distinguished from devises in prcesenti. 534. Reversion of estate undisposed of. 535. Distinguished from uses. 636. Distinguished from remainders. 537. Same — Limitation after a fee. 538. Same — Limitation after an estate-tail. 539. Same — Where first limitation lapses. 540. Same — Limitations after an executory devise. 541. Indestrnctibillty of executory devises. 542. Limitation upon failnreof issue. 543. Same — In deeds, j 544. Doctrine of perpetuity. 545. Rule against accumulation of profits. -546. Executory devises of chattel interests. XIX TABLE OV CONTENTS. CHAPTEE XVo POWERS. Section 558. The nature of powers in general. 559. Powers of appointment. 560. Kinds of powers. 561. Suspension and destruction of powers. 562. How powers may be created. 663. Powers distinguished from estates. 564. Power enlarging the interest, with which it is coupled. 565. Who can be donees. 566. By whom the power may be executed. 567. Mode of execution. 568. Who may be appointees. 569. Execution by implication. 570. Excessive execution. 571. Successive execution. 672. Revocation of appointment. 573. Defective executions — How and when cured. 574. Non-executions. 575. Rules of perpetuity. 576. Rights of donee's creditors in the power. 677. The rights of creditors of the beneficiary. CHAPTER XVI. INCOEPOKEAL HEEEDITAMENTS. Section I. — Bights of Common. II. — Easements. III. — Franchises. IV. — Bents. Section 587. Incorporeal hereditaments defined. 588. Kinds of incorporeal hereditaments. SECTION I. RIGHTS OP COMMON - Section 591. Definition. 592. Kinds of rights of common. 593. Commons appendant and appurtenant. XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION II. EASEMENTS. Section 597. What are easements. 698. When merger takes effect. 599. How acquired. 600. Easements by express grant. 601. Implied grant. 602. Equitable easements. 603. Easements implied from covenant. 60i. Eights of action in defense of easement. 605. How easements may be lost or extiegHlshed. 606. Kinds of easements. 607. Kight of way. 608. A private way. 609. Ways of necessity. 610. Who must repair the way. 611. Public or highways. 612. Light and air. 613. How acquired. 614. Right of water. 615. Percolations and swamps. 616. Artificial water courses. 617. Easements in watercourses and surface drainage. 618. Eight of lateral and subjacent support. ^619. Implied grant of lateral support. 620. Party walls. 621. Double ownership in buildings — Subjacent support. 622. Legalized nuisances. SECTION III. FRANCHISES. Section 633. Definition. 634. Kinds of franchises. 635. Mutual obligations. 636. Conflicting franchises — Constitutional prohibition. SECTION rv". Section 641. 642. 643. 644. KENTS. Eents defined. Eent- service. Eent-charge and rent-seek - How created. - Fee farm rents. XXI TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 643. How extinguished or apportioned. 646. Kemedies for the recovery of the rent. 647. Liens arising from charges by will or by deed. 648. Liens by express charges. CHAPTE.R XVII. LICENSES. Section 651, What is a license? 652. Revocation of the license. 653. Revocation of license — Continued. 654. How licenses are created. CHAPTER ^XVIII. TITLES — GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF TITLES. Section 659. What is title? — By descent and purchase. 66.0. Original and derivative titles. CHAPTER XIX. TITLE BY DESCENT. Section 663. Definition. 664. Lex loci rei sitce. 665. Consanguinity and affinity. 666. How lineal heirs take. 667. Lineal consanguinity in the ascending series. 668. Collateral heirs. 669. Computation of collateral relationship. 670. Ancestral property. 671. Kindred of the whole and half blood. 672. Advancement — Hotchpot. 673. Posthumous children. 674. Illegitimate children. 675. Alienage a bar to inheritance. xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XX. TITLE BY OEIGINAL ACQUISITION. Section I. — Title by occupancy. II. — ■ Title by accretion. III. — Title by adverse possession. IV. — Statute of Limitations. V. — Estoppel. VI. — Abandonment. SECTION I. TITLB BY OCCtJPAKCY. Section 681. Definition. 682. Condition of public lands in tlie United States. 683. Estates per auler vie. SECTION II. TITLE BY ACCRETION. Section 685. Definition. 686. Alluvion. 687. Filum Aqum. SECTION III. Section 692. 693. 694. 695. 696. 697. 698. 699. 700. 701. 702. 703. 704. TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. Effect of naked possession. Seisin and disseisin. Disseisin and dispossession distinguished. Actual and constructive possession. Actual or constructive possession — -Continued. What acts constitute actual possession — Visible notorious. Possession must be distinct and exclusive. Possession — Hostile and adverse. Adverse possession, vrhen entry vyas lawful. Disseisor's power to alien. Betterments. Title by adverse possession — How defeated. Title by adverse possession — How made absolute. xxiii TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION IV. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Section 713. What the statute enacts. 714. Adverse possession — Continuous and uninterrupted. 715. Against whom the statute runs. 716. How and when statute operates. 717. Effect of the statute. section' V. ESTOPPEL. Section 724. Definition. 725. Estoppels in pais. 726. Is fraud necessary to estoppel in pais. 727. Estoppel in deed. 728. Estoppel in deed — Continued. 729. Effect of estoppel upon the title. 730. Effect of estoppel — Continued. 731. Estoppel binding upon whom. SECTION VI. abandonment. Section 789. Effect of abandonment generally. 740. Abandonment of title by adverse possession. 741. Surrender of deed. CHAPTEK XXI. TITLE BY GRANT. Section I. — Title hy public grant. II. — Title hy involuntary alienation. III. — Title by private grant. SECTION I. TITLE BY PUBLIC GRANT. Section 744. Public lands. 746. Forms of public grant. 746. The relative value of the patent and certificate of entry. 747. Pre-emption, xxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION ir. TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. Section 751. Title by involuntary alienation, what is? 752. Scope of legislative authority. 753. Eminent domain. 754. Persons under disability. 755. Confirming defective titles. 756. Sales by administrators and executors. 757. Sales under execution. 768. Sales by decree of chancery. 769. Tax-titles. 760. Validity of tax-title. 761. Judicial rules for delinquent taxes. SECTION in. TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. Section 768. Title by private grant, what is? (a.) Common-law conveyances. 769. Principal features and classes of common-law convey- ances. 770. Feoffment. 771. Grant. 772. Lease. 773. Release, confirmation and surrender. (6.) Conveyances under the Statute of Uses. 774. Retrospection. 775. Covenant to stand seised. 776. Bargain and sale. 777. Future estates of freehold in bargain and sale. 778. Lease and release. (c.) Modern conveyances. 779. What conveyances judicially recognized. 780. Statutory forms of conveyance. 781. Quit-claim deeds. 782. Dual character of common conveyances. 783. Is a deed necessary to convey freeholds? CHAPTEE XXTI. DEEDS THEIR REQUISITES AND COMPONENT PARTS. Section I. — The requisites of a deed. II. — The component parts of a deed. III. — Covenants in deeds. TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION I. THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. Section 786. Definition of a deed. 787. Requisites, wliat tliey are. 788. A sufficient writing, what constitutes. 789. A sufficient writing, what constitutes — Continaed. 790. Alterations and interlineations. 791. Proper parties — The grantor. 792. Infants and insane persons. 793. Eatilication and disaffirmance. 794. Deeds of married women. 795. A disseisee cannot convey. 796. Fraud and duress. 797. Proper parties — Grantees. 798. Proper parties named in the deed. 799. A thing to be granted. 800. A thing to be granted — Continued. 801. The consideration. 802. Voluntary and fraudulent conveyances. 803. Operative words of conveyance. 804. Execution, what constitutes. 805. Power of attorney. 806. Power of attorney granted by married woman. 807. Signing. 808. Sealing. 809. Attestation. 810. Acknowledgment or probate. 811. Reading of the deed, when necessary. 812. Delivery and acceptance. 813. What constitutes a sufficient delivery. 814. Delivery to stranger, when assent of grantee presumed, 815. Escrows. 816. Registration. 817. To whom and of what is record constructive notice? 817a. Priority of unrecorded mortgages over judgment credit- ors. 8176. Of what is record constructive notice. 818. From what time does priority take effect? 819. What constitutes sufficient notice of title — Possession. Section 824. 825. 826. xxvi SECTION II. COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. Deeds-poll and of indenture. Component parts of a deed. The premises. (TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section 827. Description — General statement. 828. Contemporanea Expositio est optima et fortissima in lege. 829. Falso demonstratio non nocet. 829a. Description in conveyances of joint estates. 830. Tiie Elements of description. 831. Monuments — Natural and artificial. 832. Artificial monuments in United States Surveys. 833. Non-navigable streams. 834. Navigable streams. 835. What is a navigable stream. 836. Ponds and lakes. 837. Highways. 838. "Walls, fences, trees, etc. 839. Courses and distances. 840. Quantity. ,841. Reference to other deeds, maps, etc., for description. 842. Appurtenants. 843. Exception and reservation. 844. Habendum. 845. Reddendum. 846. Conditions. SECTION III. COVENANTS IN DEEDS. Section 849. General statement. 849a. Covenant enlarging the estate. 850. Covenant of seisin and right to convey. 851. What facts constitute a breach. 852. Covenant against incumbrances. 853. What circumstances constitute a breach of covenant against incumbrances. 854. Covenant for quiet enjoyment. 855. Covenant of warranty. 856. The character of the covenant of warranty. 857. The feudal warranty. 858. Special limited covenants of title — Exceptions to opera- tion of covenants. 859. Implied covenants. 860. Who may maintain actions on covenants of warranty. 861. Damages, what may be recovered. 862. What covenants run with the land. 863. When breach of covenant works a forfeiture of estate. xxvii TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTEK XXIII. TITLE BT DETISE. * Section 872. Definition and liistorical outline. 873. By what law are devises governed. 874. The requisites of a valid will. 875. A sufficient writing. 876. "What signing is necessary. 877. Proper attestation, what is. 878. Who are competent witnesses. 879. Who may prepare the will — Holographs. 880. What property may be devised. 881. A competent testator, who is. 882. Who may be devisees — What assent necessary. 882a. Devisee incapacitated by murder of testator. 883. Devisee and devise must be clearly defined — Parol evi- dence. 884. Devisees of charitable uses. 885. Lapsed devises — What becomes of them. 886. Revocation of wills. 886c!. Joint or mutual wills. 887. Revocation by destruction of will. 887a. Effect of alterations of will after execution. 888. Revocation by marriage and issue. , 889. Revocation by alteration or exchange of property. 890. Revocation by subsequent will or codicil. 890a. Defective will confirmed by codicil. 891. Contingent wiUs. 892. Probate of will. 893. Agreements as to testamentary disposition of property, xxviii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Abadie v. Lobars, 359. Abbe V. Goodwin, 333. Abbott V. Abbott, 159, 695, 699, 827, 828, 829, 831. Abbott V. Allen. 850. Abbott r. Bayley, 794. Abbott V. Kssex Co., 542. Abbott V. Bradstreet, 401. Abbott 1'. Godf roy's Heirs, 302, 303, 359. Abbott 15. Kansas tjity, etc., R. E. Co., 615. Abbott V. Kasson, 337. Abbott??. Lindenbower, 760. Abbott v. Stewartstown, 609. ibby r. Billiaps, 189. Abeul V. Eadcliff, 507. Abele V. McGinagan, 332. Abell V. Harris, 697. Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 251, 254, 700. Abercrombie v. Redpatb, 192. Aberorombiai!. Riddle, p6. Abernathie v. Mining Co., 700. Abralaara v. Twigg, 543. Abraham v. Wilklus, 876, 877. Abraham v. Williams, 876. Abrams v. Sheehan, 818. Academy of Mnsic v. Hackect, 193. Accidental Death Ins. Co. v. McCenzie, 199. Aohey v. Hull, 82. Acker v. Osbom, 402. Ackerraau v. Lyman, 325. Ackland v. Lutley, 494. Ackless V. Leeknght, 878. Acroyd, v. Smith, 499. Acton V. Blundell, 615. Acton V. Dooley, 699. Adair r. Adair, 700. Adair v. Lott, 101, 106. Adams v. Adams, 506, 508, 510, 434, 462. Adams v. Alkire, 65)6. Adams v. Alkire, 696. Adams v. Ames Iron Co., 261, 262. Adams v. Bass, 885. Adams v. Brereton, 73, 74. Adams V. Briggs Iron Co., 10, 264. Adams V. Brown, 353. Adams v, Buchannan, 292, 294. Adams V. Bucklin, 544, 646. Adams V.Butts, 115. Adams J). City of Cohoes, 218. Adams v. Corrlston, 351, 322. Adams v. Cowherd, 700. Adams V. Cuddy, 817. ' Adam< V. Cowherd, 295. Adams r. Essex, 358. Adams v. Frothlngham, 687, 828. Adams v. Field, 877. Adams «. Frye, 61S,81Sf. Adams V. Fallam, 700. Adams v. Goddard, 198. Adams V. Grey, 329. Adams r. Guerard, 500, 434, 782. Adams v. Guice, 700. Adams V. T.ogan, 106, 746. Adams V. Palmer, 127, 761. Adams v. Parker, 329. Adams V. Paynter, 359. Adams V. Rockwell, 699, 726, 739. Adams V. Boss, 37, 402, 411, 434, 412, 849o, 855, 858. Adams v. Savage, 443, 482. Adams V. Smith, 312. Adams V. State, 201. Adams V. Steer, 808. Adams V. Stevens, 303, 755, 827. Adams v. Truman, 654. Adams v. Tiernan, 714. Adams' Appeal, 818. Addison jj. Dawson, 501, 792. ' Addison v. Hack, 605, 651, 663. Adkms V. Lewie, 355. Adler V. Mendelsohn, 225, 227. Adney J). Field,573. Advent V. Arrington, 696. AdslttJ. Adsit, 148. Aeerv. Westcott, 817, 8176, 819 . ^taa Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 294, 295, 327. Aineck V. Affleck, 573. Affolter V. May, 833. Agate V, Lowenbein, 72, 77. Agee V. Agee, 564. Agricultural Bank D. Rice, 794. Agricultural Ass'n v. Brewster, 500. Ahern v. Steele, 189. Ahrend v. Odiorne, 292. Aiken v. Albany R. E., 190. Aiken II. Bruen,371. Aiken v. Ela, 695, 696. Aiken v. Gale, 371. Aiken v. Smith, 179, ^94, 313, 201. Aiken v. Albany R. R., 190. Aiken v. Weckerley, 881. Akin V. Kellogg, 14«. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Oliver. 192. Alabama Conf. v. Price, 883. Albany Fire Ine. Co. v. Bay, 794. Albert v. Albert, 415. Albany Street, In re 751. Albany's Case, 561. Albriton v. Bird, 663. Alderman v. Neate, 179. Aldeu V. Carleton, 254. Alderson v.. Miller, 199. Aldred's Case, 622. TABLE OF CASKS CITED. Reference's are to Sections. Aldrich v. Green, 563. Aldricli V. Martin, 241. Aldrlch V. Parsons, 2. Aldrldge II. Dunn, 292. Alexander v. Alexander, 262, 570, 674. Alexander v. Oarevv, 795. Alexander v. Fisher, 74, 116. Alexander v. Herriot, 793. Alexander v. Hill, 364. Alexander v. Kennedy, 700. Alexander v. Lively, 832. Alexander v. Pendleton, 714. Alexander v. Polk, 696, 697, 698, 699, S Alexander v. Schreiber, 858, 859. Alexander v. Stewart, 701. Alexander v. Taras, 500. Alexander v. ToUeston, 603. Alexander v. Warrance, 105, 500, 644. Alexander v. Wtieeler, 699, 700. Alexander's Will, 881. Alger V. Kennedy, 194, 196. All V. Goodson, 162. Allan V. Gourme, 605. Allard V. Carledon, 264. AUdays v. Whittaker, 260. , AUemau v. Hawley, 254, 264. Allen V. Allen, 61, 130, 697, 700. Allen V. Armstrong, 760. Allen V. Bates, 841. Allen V, Bryan, 193. Allen V. Carpenter, 71. Allen's Case, 161. Allen V. Chatfleld, 365. Allen V. Clark, 370. Allen V. Cralt, 52, 275; 433. Allen V. Culver, 322. Allen V. UeGroodt, 400. Allen V. Kverly, 322. Allen V. Gibson, 239, 240. Allen V, Gomme, 608. Allen V. Grove, 696. Allen V. Henderson, 542. Allen V. Holding, 818. Allen V. Hooper, 794, 806. Allen V. Holton, 237, 238, 703. Allen ». Howe, 276. Allen V. Imlet, 513. Allen V. Jaquish, 177, 198, 214. Allen V. Kennedy, 850, 860. Allen V. Kingsbury, 831. Allen V. Koepoel, 192. Allen V. Lathrop, 310. Allen V, Lee, 855. Allen V. Libbey, 262. Alien «. Little, 881. Allen V. Lormg, 292. Allen V. Mayfleld, 401. Allen V. Parish, 730, 739. Allen V. Peters, 698. Allen V. Pray, 148. Allen V. Sayward, 857, 858, 359. Allen V. Scott, 2, 842, 843. Allen V. Sullivan E. R. Co., 808. Allen V. Taft, 841. Allen V. Trustee, 338, 638. Allen V. Van Houton, 363, 663. Alleuder v, Sussan, 542. Allender's Lessee v. Sussan, 47. AUender's Lessee v. Sussan, 533, 640. Allen's Lessee v. Ppri8h,818. Alley V. Lawrence, 567, 568. AUis V. Billings, 792. Allis Ji. Moore, 713, 716. Allison V. Allison, 875, 877, 878. Allison V. Kurtz, 885. Allison V. Wilson, 561, 576, 677. XXX Allsmiller v. Freutchenioht, 401. AUore V. Jewell, 792. Allyn V. Mather, 417, 418. Almy V. Hunt, 853. Alney v. Daniels, 255. Alperlor v. Earle, 189. Alspaugh's Will, 877. Alston V. Alston, 339 Alston V. Collins, 696. Alston's Appeal, 88:). Altemas v, Campbell, 695. Althamrf'. Anglesea, 443. Altham'sCase, 50. Althorf V Wolf, 79. Altman v. Banholzer, 332. Alton V. Pickering, 213. AlviSM. Morrison, 339. Alvord Co. V. Gleason, 4. Alwood V. Mansfield, 199. Alwood V. Euckman, 201, 261. Ambee v. Weishaas, 877. Ambler v. Norton, 147. Ambree v. Weishaar, 877. Ambrose v. Ambrose, 507. Ambrose v. City, .'507. Ambrose v. Otty, 507. Ambrose v. Raly, 695. Ambs V. Chicago, etc., E. R. Co., 829. Amee v. .Johnson, 506. Ament v. Wolf, 696. American Bible Society v. Wetmore, 884. Amer. Board v. Nelson, 888. Amer. liiver, etc., Co. v. Amsden, 835. Amer. Tract Soc. v. Atwater, 832. Ames V. Ames, 562. Ames V. Ashley, 506. Ames I'. Norman, 242, 246. Ames V. Shaw, 604, 605. Amherst v. Lytton, 413, 414, 415. Amory v. Fairbanks, 362. Amory v. Fellows, 878. Amory v. Meredith, 569. Amory v. Reilly, 292. Amour v. Rivard, 544. Amphlett V. Hlbbard, 359. Anderson v. Anderson, 812, 877, 890a. Andersons). Baumgartuer, 300, 301, 330. Anderson v. Brown, 875. Anderson v. Chicago Ins. Co., 196, 196a. Anderson v. Clears, 498. Anderson v. Coburn, 725. Anderson v. Darby. G96. Anderson v. Donnell, 292,293 Anderson v. Dodd, 695. Anderson v. Dugas, 818. Anderson v. Jackson, 544. Anderson v. Knox, 852. Anderson v. Lanterman& Henry, 325. Anderson v. McCormick, 700. Anderson v. Meredith, 242,264. Anderson v. Nagle, 817a. Anderson v. NeiS, 341. Anderson i: Parsons, 855. Anderson v. Pilgram, 358, 362. Andersons. Prindle, 214. Anderson v. Prvor, 875, 879. Anderson v. Ro'bbins, 192. Anderson v. Spencer, 294. Andlng V. Davis, 326. Andrews v. Andrews, 115, 147. Andrews' Case, 562. Andrews v. Brewster, 893. Andrews v. Brunfleld, 564. Andrews v. Burns, S18. Andrews v. Chandler, 4. Andrews v. Day Button Co., 6. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Andrews v. Davidson, 860. Andrews v. Fishoke, 817, 331, 367. Andrews v, Gillespie, 827. Andrews v. Hart, 330. Andrews v. Hobson, 506. Andrews v. Hooker, 794. Andrews ?'. Jackson, 544. Andrews v. Lathrop, 433. Andrews v. Lyon, 725, 726. Andrews v. Mathews, 817o. Andrews v, McDaniel, 332. Andrews v. Mullord, 714. Andrews v. Eice, 544. Andrews v. Eoye, 398, 540, 544, 567. Andrews v. Senter, 277, 278. Andrews v. Scotton, 362. Andrews v, Sparhawk, 516. Andrews v. Spurr, 763, 827. Andrews v, Steele, 359. Andrews v. Todd, 788. Andras v. Coleman, 292. Angeil V. Eosepbury, 37, 504. Angler ti. SchieitellD, 127,810. Anglesea v. Chnrch Wardens, 21B, 275. Angus V. Dalion, 618. Anketel v. Converse, 292, 293. Annan v. Baker, 760. Annabie v. Patch, 533. Annan v. Folsom, 810. Ann Arbor Sav. Banks;. Webb, 321. Annapolis, etc., E. E. v. Gault, 322. Annis V. Wilson, 606. Anson v. Anson, 352. Answorth v, Johnson, 77. Anthony v. Anthony, 307, 401, 883. Anthony v. Glfford, 686. Anthony 2>. Nye, 359. Anthony V. Lapham, 614. Anthony v. Ecgers, 325. Anthony v. Smith, 294. Antoni v. Belknap, 2, 6. Apperson v. Budgett, Slla. Apple V. Apple, 116, 388. Applegate v. Gracy, 794, 816. Applegate v. Mason, 335. Applegate v. Smith, 873. Appleton V. Ames, 182. Appleton V. Boyd , 237, 238. Appleton V. Rowley, 105. Appletons' Appeal, 544, 575. Archambant). Green, 303. Archbold v. Scully, 326. Archer v, Jones, 65. Archer's Case, 419, 486, 421, 422, 434. Ardesco Oil Co. v. N. A. Mining Co., 852, 853 Ards'?;. Watkins, 192. Arimond v. Green Bay, etc., v. Canal Co., 699. Arkwright v. Gill, 616, 617. Arlin v. Brown, 292. Armington v. Armington, 671. Armitageu. Wlcklitfe, 333. Armor v. Spalding, 307. Armory v. Fairbanks, 362. Arms V. Burt, 808. Arms V. Lyman, 263. Armour v. Alexander, 501. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 542, 544, 876, 881, 890. Armstrong's Estate, 160, 161. Armstrong v. Darby, 849. Armstrong v. Merrill, 714. Armstrong v. Moran, 885. Armstrong v. Morrell, 510, 698, 714. Armstrong v. Kent, 538, 588. Armstrong v. Pearce, 808. Armstrong v. Klsteau, 694, 895, 697, 698, 714, 717. Armstrongs. Ross, 292, 293. Armstrong v. Stovall, 813. Armstrong v. Warrington, 368, 359. Armstrong u. Wheeler, 182. Armstrong v. Wilson, 101. Arnold v. Arnold, 116, 388. Arnold V. Brown, 47. Arnold V. Congreve, 544. Arnold v. Cord, 501. Arnold V. Den, 671. Arnold v Ellmore, 832, 833. Arnold v. Foote, 614. Arnold v. Gilbert, 513. Arnold v. Green, 364. Arnold v, Mattison, 307. Arnold V. Patrick, 817a. Arnold v. Richmond on Works, 792, 793. Arnold V. Stevens, 605. Arnold V. Townsend, 792. Arnold v. Wainrigbt, 245, 246, 252, 253. Arnold v. Waltz, 160. Arnold V. Woodward, 199, 200, 699. Arnot V. Post, 333. Arrington v. Chreey,515. Arthur V. Weston, 798. Artz V. Grave, 807. Arundel V. Phillpot, 574. Asay V. Hoover, 318, 875. 826, Aahbey v. Ashbey, 343. Asoh V. Asch, 148. Ashcroft V. K. K. Co., 600. AsheviUe Division v. Aston, 37. Ashhuisti;. Given, 499, 502,503, 462,466, 303. Ashhnrst's Appeal, 503. Ashley v. Warner, 213, 281. Ashman v. Williams, 652. Ashton V. Ingle, 161. Ashton V. Shepherd, 307. Ashton V. Wood, 499. Ashville Division v. Aston, 798. Ashwell V. Ayers, 808. Askew V. Askew, 135. Askew V. Daniel, 794. Aspdeu V. Austin, 186. Asplnwall v. Duckworth, 885. Assay v. Hoover, 318. Aston V. Nolan, 618. Aston V. Wells, 8176. Astoru. Hoyt, 182. Astor V. Miller, 182, 190, 862. Astor V. Turner, 323, 324. Astrom v. Hammond, 746. Athens V . Nale, 856. Atherton v. Johnson, 694, 697, 698. Athmeys (G. W.) v. Ragland, 330. Atkensu. Nale, 856. Atkins V. Atkins, 126. Atkins V. Chilson, 81, 279. Atkins V. Kinnan, 758. Atkins V. Merrill, 116,117. Atkins V. Sawyer, 318. Atkins V . Yeomans, 141, 142. Atkinson v. Baker, 61. Atkinson v. Dixon, 7. Atkinson v. Hewett, 338. Atkinson v. Orr, 644. Atkinson v. Simott, 843 Atkinson v. Taylor, 127. Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 332, 808. Atmore v. Walker, 401. Attagain v. Fish, 81. xx,\i TABLE OF CASES CITED. Eeferences are to Sections. AttersoU v. Stevens, 78, 400. Attorney-General v. Chambers, 687 Attorney -General v. Gill, 512. Attorney ■ General v. Hall, 398, 546. Attorney-General v. Jolly, 884. Attorney-General v. Merrimack Co., 2S1, 725. Attorney-General v. Moore, 884. Attorney-General v. Parmort. 312. Attorney-General v. Proprietors, etc., 37, 504, 4d2, 457, 504 Attorney-General v. Purmort, 312. Attorney-General w. Scott, 464. Attorney- General v. Sibthorpe, 573. Attorney-General u. Sothon, 501. Attorney-General v. Trinity Church, 884. Attorney-Gbneral v. Vigor,' 320. Attorney-General v. Williams, 603. Attorney-General v. Winsdore, 499. Attorney-General v. Wiustanley, 362. Atwater v. Atwater, 275. Atwater v. Bodflsh, 698, 622. Atwood V. Vincent, 292. Atwood V Atwood, 121, 139, 145. Aubin V. Daley, 116. Aufricht V. Worthrop, 332. Augustua V. Seabolt, 396, 663. Anil V. Lee, 310. Aultman & Taylor Go. v. Jenkins, 163. Auriol V. Mills, 186. Austin V. Taylor, 495. Austin's Appeal, 192. Austin V. Austin, 311, 312. Austin V. Burbank, 330, 336, 360. Austin V. Cambridgeport Parish, 272, 273, 277, 880, 885. Austin V. Downer, 304, 305. , Austin V. Hall, 239, 240. Austin 27. Halsoy, 294. Austin V. Hudson itiver E. R. Co., 78, 255, 400, 618. Austin V, Cakes, 567. Austin V. Butland E. E. Co., 251, 262, 714, 836. Austin V. Sawyer, 2, 799, 842. Austin V. Shaw, 798. Austin V. Stanley. 161. Austin V. Stevens, 65, 77. Austin V. Swank, 163, 164. Austin V. Taylor, 495. Avclyn V. "Ward, 277, 539. Averett v. Ward, 359, 539. Averlll V. Guthrie, 341. Averill V. Taylor, 179, 334, 337, 495. Avery v. Chappell, 883. Avery v. Everett, 8S3. Avery v. Jndd, 332, 328. Avery v. Dougherty, 187. Avery v. N. Y. Cent., etc., E. E. Co., 603, 862. Avery v. Pixley, 876, 887. Avon Co. V. Pixley, 876. Avon Co. V. Andrews, 842. Aycock V, Kimbrough, 260. Ayer v. Ayer, 493, 535. -Ayer v. Emery, 272, 863. Ayers v. M. E. Church, 461. Ayers v. Hays, 343. Aymarw. Bill, 329. Aj'ray's Case, 793. Ayres v, Duprey, 817a. Ayres v. Falkland, 385. Ayres v. Husted, 376. Ayres v. Waite, 326. Autenreith v. St. Louis, etc., E. E. Co., 640. XXX i B. Babb V. Perley, 90, 163. Babbitt V. Day, 116. Babbitt v. Scrogglns, 242, 245. Babcock v Bowman, 792. Babcock v. Hoey, 163. Babcock V, Kennedy, 324. Babcock v. Lisk, 310. Babcock v. Scoville, 182. Babcock V. Utter, 700, 833. Babcock v. Wyman, 307. Backenstoss v. Stahlers. 2. Backhouse v. Bonomi, bl8. Backhouse v. Charlton, 29. Backus V. McCoy, 850. Bacon v. Bowdoin, 179, 334, 337. 843. Bacon v. Brown, 306. 310. Bacon v. Cottrell, 3.55. Bacon v. Huntington, 279. Bacon V, Lincoln, 851 Bacon v. Kennedy, 364. Bacon V. Mclntire, 326. Bacon v. N. W., etc., Ins. Co., 358. Bacon i\ Smith, 81. Bacon v. Taylor, 782. •Badger v. Hardin, 542. Badger v. Lloyd, 512, 542. Badger v. Phinnev, 792. Badgett V. Keating, 494, 512. Badgleyi;. liruce,138. Badlam v. Tucker, 274. Baggett V. Meux, 469. Bagley v. Freeman, 183. Bagley v. Morrill, 746, 838, 839. Bagnall v. Davies, 603. Bagnell v. Broderick, 744. Bagotr. Bagot, 74. Baler v Berberich, 501. Bailey v. Carleton, 695, 696, 697. Bailey r. Bailey. 307, 308, 509. Bailey u. Delaplame, 198. Bailey v. Doolittle, 761. Bailey v. Gould, 329. Bailey v, Hastings, 702. Bailey V. Lindsay, ISO. Bailey v. Merritt, 367. Bailey v Moore, 199. Bailey v. Myrick, 325, 353, 371, 8176. Bailey V- Richardson, 182, 321, 862. Bailey v. Sisson, 261. Bailey t' Smith, 332. Bailey v. Stiles, 501. KaUey v. Wells, 186, 197, 198. Bailey v. Winn, 501. Bailey I'. White, 839. Bain v. Clift-k, 194. Bainbridge v. Owen, 325. Bain v. Williams, 376. Baird i\ Rowan, 563. Baird's Appeal, 237. Baker v. Baker, 115, 139, 500. Baker r. Bishop Hill Colony, 312. Baker v. Bridge, 37. Baker v. Bishop, 312 . Baker v. Bliss, 802. Baker i\ Brown, 506. Baker v. Compton, 292. Baker v. Crosby, 609. Baker v. Dening, 807, 876. Baker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 305. Baker v. Flood, 337. Baker v. Gostling, 192. Baker II. Griffln, 817. Baker v. Hale, 714. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Baker «. Haskell, 812,814. Baker v. Hill, 678. Baker v. Jordan, 2, 842. Baker i>. Kane, 741. Baker v. Lelbert, llfS. Baker v. Matcher, 817, 8176, 819. Baker v. Morton, 817a. Baker v. N. VV. Guaranty Loan Co., 3S Baker v. Oakwood, 1U8. Baker v. Morton, 796. Baker v. Pratt, 198. Baker v. Red, 498. linker v. Soott, 359, 433. Baker v. 8wan, 694, 696. Baker v. Talbott, 831. Baker v. Terrell, 330, 336, 370. Baker i\ Thraaher, 305, 306. ' Baker v. Van Volkeaburg, 697. Baker 4). Vining, 500. Baker v. Whiting, 601. Hakeri). Wind, 303. Bakewell v. McKee, 696. Baldwin v. Allison, 501. Baldwin v. Baldwin. 882, 883. Baldwin v. Brown, 695, 726. Baldwin v. Humphrey, 506, S07. Baldwin v. Jenkins, 303, 318. Baldwin v. Maultaby, 813. Baldwin v. Porter, 310, 610. Baldwin v. Thompson, 601. Baldwin v. Tuttle, 802. Baldwin V. Walker, 190, 324, 386. Balem v. Mercler, 312. Baiter v. WiUlgrod, 606. Balfour » Davis, 358. Ball V. OuUimore, 212. Ball V. Deas, 237. Ball V. DnnatervlUe, 805, 807. Ball V. Hill, 392, 293. Ball V. McOrawley, 816, 816a. Ball V. Gaff, 499. Balli). Palmer, 700. Ball V. Wyeth, 310. •Ballatine v. Poyner, 74, 116. Ballard v. Ballard, 402. Ballard v. Ballardvale, 318. Ballard v. Bowers, 117. Ballard v. Briggs, 801. Ballai d v. Brown, 117. Ballard v. Buttler, 605. Ballardi). Child, 850. Ballard v. Dyson, 608. Ballentine v. Wood, 883. Ballentine v. Wood, 402. Balliet's Appeal, 889. Ballinger v. Choultan, 355. Ballow V. Carton, 198. Baltimore Mayor v. Porter, 558. Baltimore & O. E. R. v. Patterson, 52. Baltimore!;. White, 819. Bancroft v. Consen, 601, 817J. Bancroft v. Ives, 663, 888. Bancroft v. Ward well, 216. Bancroft v. White, 122. Bane v. Bean. 604. Bangan v, Mann, 725. Bank v. Anderson, 329, 817, 340. Bank v. Campbell, 8l7a. Bankv. Eastman, 741. Bank v. Hedges, 714. Bank v. Housman, 777. Bank v. Owens, 117, 120. Bank V. Rose, 335. Bank v. Symers, 696. Bank v. Wllks, 513. Bank of Albion v. Burns, 392. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 633. Bank of Bulralo v. Thompson, 310. Bank of Campbell, 817a. Bauk of Commerce v. Owens, 117, 120. Bank of Cumberland v, Bugbec, 80S. Bank of England v. Tarleton, 330. Bank of Indiana v. Anderson, 330, 3^3. Bank of Manchestei v. Slason, 808. Bank of Montgomery County Apptial, 342. Bank of Mt. Pleasant v. Sprigg, 310. Bank of Napa v. Godfrey, 358. Bank of Ogdensburg v. Arnold, 324, 358. Bank of Penn. i\ Wise, 192. Bank of Rochester v. Gray, 808. Bank of South Carolina v. Campbell, 372. Bank of South Carolina v. Mitchell, 376. Bank of Springfleid v. W. E. R. Co., 501. Bank of State of Indiana v. Anderson, 330. Bank of United States v. Cavert, ,330. Bank of United States v. Dansetli, 148. Bank of United States v. Housman, 443, 777. Bank of Washington v. Hnpp, 324. Bank of Westminister v. Whyte, 312, 307. Bank of Willard, 310. Bankes v. LaDespencer, 513. Bankhead v. Owen, 293. Banks V. Am. Tract Soc, 613, 651. Banks v. Anderson, 329. Banks v. Lee, 798. Banks v. Ogden, 685, 837. Banks v. Sutton, 502, 682. Banks v. Wilkes, 513. Banning zj. Armstrong, 364. Banning!'. Bradford, 361. Banning v. Edes, 812. Bannon v. Anglers, 605. Bannon v. Comegys, 262. Banorgee v. Hovey, 805. Banta v. Maxwell, 364. Barclay v. Goodloe's Excr., 510. Barclay v. Kerr, 262. Barber v. Harris, 242, 243, 246, 251. Barber v, Shaffer, 696. Barbour V. Nichols, 8176. Barger v. Hobbs, 696. Barger v. Miller, 805. Barker v. Barker, 163, 310, 501, 507. Barker v. Bell, 339, 318, 336, 725, 890. Barker v. Blake, 139, 140. Barkei^ v. Brown, 860. Barker v. Dayton, 163, 164. Barker v. Deignau, 697. Barker v. Flood, 321. Barker v. Greenwood, 462, 504. Barker v. Jones, 252. Barker v, Salmon, 739. Barker v. Southerland, 415. Barker v. Wood, 362. Barker's Appeal, 875. Barkley v. Dosser, 514. Barkley v. Lane's Exrs., 506. Barks v. Mitchell, 714. Barksdale v. Elam, 273. Barlow v. McKinley, 853. Barlow v. Rhodes, 697, 698. Barlow v. St. Nicholas Bank, 853. Barlow V. Wainwright, 174, 177, 218. Barmso v. Madam, 273. Barnaby v. Barnaby, 793. Barnard v. Edwards, 131. Barnard v. Jennison, 325, 353, 355. xxx'ii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Barnard v. Poor, 79. Barnard v. Pope, 251, 254. Barnard's Heir.s v. Ashley's Heirs, 747. Barnes v. Addy, 501. Barnes r. Barnes, 652. Barnes v. Boardman, 37, 332. Barnes v. Dow, 505. Barnes v. Gay, 117, 120, 124. Barnes v, Haynes, 699. Barnes v. Irwin, 565, 668. Barnes v, Lee, 319. Barnes v. Lloyd, 601, fi05. Barnes v. L\ ncli, 253, 263. Barnes v. McKay, 726. Barnes v. Lyester, 877. Barnes v. Taylor, 601, 507. Barnetc. Bamljer, 501. Barnet v. Barnet, 273. Barnett v. Deuniston, 321. Barnettii. Uoagherty,500, 501. Barnett v. Nelson, 351. Barnett v. Riser's Kxrs, 292. Barnett's Appeal, 468, 602, 614, 515. Barney 27. Arnold, 537. Barney V. Frowne'r, 135, 140. Barney v. Keokuk, 835. Barney v. Leeds, 160, 161. Barney v. McCarthy, 816. 8176. Barney v. Miller, 839. Barney v. Myers,"371. Barneycastle v. Walker, 187. Barnumv. Phenix, 332. Barr v. Schroede^r, 797. Barri;. Buttin,879. Barr v. Flyun, 609. Barr v. Galloway, 106. Barr v. Gratz, 69:!, 695, 698. Barr?;. Van Alstine, 334, 359, 361. Barrague v. Manuel, 332. Barr v. Hatch, 573. Barrel! v. Joy, 506, B07, 517. Barrett v. Shaubhut, 338, 339. Barrett II. Bamber, 601. Barrett ZJ. Daugherty, 500. Barrett v. French, 775, 779, 782, 796, 791 797. Barrett v. New Orleans, 686. Barrett u. Neilson, 325, 328. Barrett v. Shaubut, 338. Barrett i'. Wright, 883. Barroilhet v. Battelle, 182. Barron v, Barron, 600, 506, 507. Barron v. Martin, 326. Barron v. Kiohards, 863. Barron v. PauUing, 325. Barrus v. Madam, 273. Barry v. Adams, 795. Barry v. Guild, 358, 855. Barteauj). West, 611. Bartholomew v. Oandee, 850, 860. Bartholomew v. Edwards, 698, 842. Bartholomew v. Finnemore, 792. Bartholomew's Atipi'al, 890. Bartlettii. Bartlett, 443, 507. Bartlett v. Drake, 807. Bartlett II. Drew, 4'.i8, 60L Bartlett SI. Gouge, 118. Bartlett v. King, 882, 883, 884. Bartlett J). Perkins, 889. Bartlett v. Prescott, 609, Ba tiett?;. Sanborn, 358. Bartlett v. Secor, 700. Barton v. May, 352. Barton v. Jlorris, 794. Barton v. Smith, 216. Barton V. Tattle, 883. xxxiv Barwick v. Miller, 674. Bascon v. Albertson, 873, 884. Bascom V. Smith, 321. Baslord v. Pearson, 789, 801, 851. -■ Baskiu V. Baskin, 877. Basore v. Henkle, 81. Bass V. Mitchell, 829. Bass V. Scott, 468. Basse v. Gaiieger, 309. Bassett v. Bassett, 307, 790, 801. Bassett V. Brown, 796. Bassett v. Gallagher, 308. Bassett v. Hawk, 434. Bassett v. Mason, 362. Bassett V. Shoemaker, 501. Bassett ti. Wood, 819. Bastard's Case, 145. Batchelder v. Dean, 173. Batchelder v. Sturgla, 853, 861. Batchelder v. Wakefield, 653. Bateman v. Bateman, 502, 564. Bates)). Bates, 116, 159 881. Bates V. B. & N. Y. Central E. K., 808. Bates V. Foster, 858, 859. Bates V. Gillett, 401. Bates «. Hard, 507. Bates V. Miller, 369. Bates V. Norcross, 697, 817, 857. Bates V. Ruddick, 371. Bates V. Tymanson, 831. Bath V. Valdez, 699, 700. Batione's Estate, 401. Batstone v. Salter, 500. Battey -v, Hopkins, 484. Battin V. Woods, 252. Batting v. Martin, 217. Battle V. Petway, 514. 515. Batlorf V. Conner, 295a. Batty V. Snook, 304, 305, 308. Baugher v. Merryman, 305, 309. Baum V. Grigsby, 292, 293, 294, 295. Baum V. Tompkins, 310, 362. Baumgartner v. Allen, 332. Baumgartner v. Guessfield, 500. Bauskett v. Kelt, 887. Baxendale v. McMurray, 622. Baxter v. Arnold, 603. Baxter v. Bodkin, 794. Baxter r. Bradbury, 663, 850, 857, 861. Baxter v. Child, 308. Baxter v. Dear, 303. Baxter v. Dyer, 318. Baxter i'. Lansing, 279. Baxter v. Mclntire, 310, 335. Bay V. Williams, 332. Bayan v. Duncan, 501. Bayard v. Rowan, 663. Bayer v. Cockerill, 469. Bayer v. Schultze, 865. Baykin v. Rain, 110. Bayler v. Commonwealth, 312, 800. Bayles v. Baxter 500. Bayles v. Hunted, 337. Baylcss v. Rupert, 832. Baylcy v. Bayley, 818. Bayley v. Gonld, 329. Bayley v. Greenleet, 292, 817a. Baylis v. Young, 817. Baylor v. Commonwealth, 800. Bayly i\ Lawrence, 195. Baynard v. WooUey, 288, 289. Beach v. Beach, 613. Beach V. Dyer, 601. Beach v. Farrish, 194. Beach v. Frankenbnrger, 611 I Beach v. Gaylord, 615. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Beach v. Haynes, 37. Beach v. Miller. 853. Beach V. Packard, 801. Beahau v. Stapleton, 831. Bcal V. Boston, etc.. Car Co., 182, 198. Beal V Congdon, 343. Beal v. Warren, 794, 802. Boaley«. Shaw, 614. Beal V. Davenport, 199. lieall V. Fox, 884. Bcall«. Mann, 879. licalor V, Bahn, 110. Beala v. Cobb, 352, 310, 360. Beals J). See, 792. Beal3 V Storm, 881. Bealton v. Clawson, 4. Beanian v. Kuesell, 790. lieaman v. Whitney, 810. Hean v. A. & St. L, R. E., 337. Bean v. Boothby, 321, 794. Bean V. Coleman, 843. Bean». Dickerson, 190. Bean V. French, 843. Bean v, Kenmuir, 798. Bean v. Mayo, 852, 853. Bean v. Welsh, 730. Bean v. Whitcomb, 362. Beane v Ycrby, 877. Bear v. Snyder, 139, 145. Beam. Stable, 116. Bear Valley Coal Co. v. Dewart, 695. Bearce v. Jackson, 850. Beard v, Blum, 163. Beam. Whistler, 292. Beard v. Fitzgerald, 370, 371. Beard v. .Johnson, 161. Beard v. Knox, 115. Beard v. Murphy, 618. Board v. Ityan, 700, 714. Beard, etc., v. Trustees, 273, 863 Beard v. Westcott, 543, 544. Beardman v. Wilson, 182. Beardslce v. Beardslee, 129. Beardslee v. Knight, 265, 808. Beardsley v. Tuttell, 336. Beasley v Shaw, 599. Beaston v. Weate, 616, 617. Beatie v. Butler, 364. Beatty v. Clark, 573. Beatty v, Gregory, 653. Beatty v. Mason, 695, 699. Beatty v. Harkey, 279. Beaty v. Harkey, 276. Beaumont v. Kime, 890. Beaupland v. McKeen, 726. Beaver v Beaver, 507. Beavcn v. Earlof Oxford, 817a. Beaver v. Filson, 884. Beavers v. Smith, 120, 143. Beck's Admrs. v. De Baptists, 818 Beck's Ex'rs. v. GraybiO, 500. Beck V. Metz, 663. Beck V. Eebou, 6. Becker v. B^dy, 161. Becker v. Howard, 305. Beckford v Beckford, SOO. Becker v. Van Valkenbnrg, 715, 716. Beckley v. LefJngwfcU, 415. Beckman v, Saratoga, etc., E. E. 634. Beckwith v. Beckwlth, 122. Beckwith v. Frisbie, 796. Beddoe ». Wadsworth, 850,860. Bedell's Case, 775. Bedford t>. Graves, 500. Bedford v. Jenkins. 434. Bedford v. Kelly, 19a. Bedford v. McEKierron, 200. Bedford v. Terhune, 182, 198, 215. Bedlnger v. Wharton, 792. Beebe v. Louisville, etc., E. E. Co., 262. Beebe v. Lyle, 117. Beebe v, McKenzie, 875. Beebe v. Swartwout, 855. Beecher v. Hicks, 498. Beecheru. Laldy, 6. Beecher v. Parmelee, 228. Beek's Ex'rs. v. Graybill, 500. Beekman v, Bonsor, 844. Beekman v. Frost, 352. Beem v. Lockhart, 818. Beers v. Beers, 78. Beers v. Hawley, 818. Beers v. St. John, 7, 77. Beirne's Ex'rs. v. Von AhleJeldt, 110. Beiseri). Beiser, 813. Begbie v. Crook, 561. Begein v. Brehm. 343. Behmu. Molly, 500. Behyraer v. Odell, 843. Belate v. Morrison, 307. Belcher v. Weaver, 127. Beldeu v. Carter, 814. Belden v. Meeker, 340, 817. Belden v. Manley, 330, 332. Belden v. Younger, 160, 163. Belding ». Manley, 330, 332. Belk V. Massey, 816, 818. Belknap v, Belknap, 255. Belknap v. Dennison, 321. Belknap v. Trimble, 264. Bell V. iiruhn,*218. Bell V. Denison, 695,697, 714. Bell V. Ellis, 216. Bell V. Kvans, 818a. Bell V. Fleming, 340, 342, 310, 817. Bell V. Farmer's Bank, 814. Bell V. Fowler, 883. Bell V. Gillespie, 642. Bell V. Hurtley, 694. Bell V. Keefe, 808. Bell V. Longworth, 696. Bell V. Mayor of New York, 66, 143, 325, 332, 334, 367, 359. 373. Bell V. Morse, 329. Belli). Nealy, 128. Bell V. Ohio * Penn. E. E. 593. Bell V. Pelt, 302. Boll V. Schrock, 360. Bell V. Thomas, 339. Bell V. Todd, 609. Bell V. Twilight, 817. Bell V. Wise, 16-2. Bell V. Woodward, 321, 828. Bell .Co. V. Alexander, 884. Bellamys. Bellamy, 501. Bellamy v. Brickenden 326, 327. Bellas V. McCarty, 818. Bellas V. McCarthyj 39. Bellis V. Bellis 700. Bellock V. Eogers, 355. Bellows V. Jewell, 696. Bellows V. Sackett, 618. Bells V. Gillespie, 542. Bellee v. Eogers, 358. Belmont v. Ooman, 332, 336, 885. Belmont v. O'Brien, 326. Beloc V, Eogers, 359, Belton V. Avery, 304, 305. Belton V. Briggs, 793. Bemis v. Call, 336, Bemis V. Wilder, 191. Benbow v. Townsend, 500. XXXV TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Bender v, Fromoerger, 850. Benedict v. Marsh, 4. > Benedict v. Morse, 225. Bencv. Soc. v. Clendine, 569. Benhara v. Rowe, 325, 35S, 365. Benjamin v. Elmlra K. R. Co., 312. Benje v. Creagh, 697. Benlowj'. Bobbins. 699. Bcnner v. Evans, 114. Bennesoo v. Sav:ige, 363. Bennet v. Bullocli, 251. Bennett «). Buitocis, 255, 700. Bennett V. Austin, 501. Bennett J). Bittle, 196. Bennett w.Bulloclt, 7C9. Bennetts. Callioun,359. Bennett v. Ctiiid, 245, 246. Hennett J). Clemenoe, 251, 255, 697. Bennett v. Ciemence, 697. Bennett v. Child, 242, 259. Bennett v. Coe, 312. Bennett V. Davis, 105. Bennett v. Dollar Saving Baals, 501. Bennett v. Foolis, 818. Bennett v. Holt, 306, 306. Bennett v. Hudson, 499. Bennett u. Hobrnson, 227. Bennett v. Van Syckle, 501. Bennett v. Washington Cemetery, 275. Bennett v. Waller, 814 Bennetts. Williams, 509, 795. Benney v. Foss, 77. Bennington jj Millard, 611. Bennocli v. Whipple, 213, 304. Beunoikp;. Whipple, 803. •• Benseli v. Chancellor, 793. Bensley v. Atwill, 814. Benson v. EoUes, 182. Benson V. Stewart, 700, 714. Bents' Admr. v. St. Vrain, 674. Benti). St. Vrain, 674. Benthamji. Smith, 667. Bentley v. Long, 401. Bentley v. O'Byrne, 307. Bentley?;. Sill, 196. Bentley v. Whittlemore, 336. Benton Coal Co. v. Czarlinskl, 310, 326. Bepper's Will, 669. Bercaw v. Cockerill, 818. Berg 21. Anderson,, 538, 542. Berg)). Shipley, 819. Bergen v. Bennett, 363, 365, 559, 563, 566, 805. Berger v. Bennett, 363, 365. Berger v. Duff, 611, 666. Berkley v. Lamb, S18. Berkshire M. F. Ins. Co. v. Stlngis, 813, 814. Berlach v. Halle, 359. Berly ti. Taylor, 606. Bernal v. Glenn, 696. Bernard v. Jennison, 225. Bernhcimer V. Kilputrick, 618. Bernstein v. Humes, 795. Berniand v Belcher, 695. Berridge u. Glassey, 175. Berridge v. Ward, 837. Berrien V. Berrien, 507, 517. Berrien v. McLane, 609. Berrlman i'. Peacock, 82. Berry v. Anderson, 812, 814, 815. Berry v. Billings, 844. Berry v. Mutual Ins. Co., 289,290. Berry v. Snyder, 835. Berry v. Skinner, 363. Berry v. Taunto-n, Cro. Eliz. 184. .xxxvi Berry v. Whidden, 255. Berry r. Williamson, 495, 505, 435. Berryman v. Schumaker, 272, 277. Berskell u. Bnshnell, 201. Berthold v. Fox. 322. I'.ertie v. Abingdon, 46. Bertie v. Falkland. 275. Bertrand v. Burd, 808. Besiiore v. Lytle, 275. Besland'D. Huvett, 292. BesselO V. Landsberg, 211, 218. Btst V. Best, 275, .562, 561. Best L'. Sanders, 262. Bethlehem I!. Annis, 279, 311, 312. Bethlehem Bofougu v. Perseverance Fire Co., 461. Betsey v. Torrance, 795. Bettison v. Budd, 199. Belts II. Sims, 163. Betz V. Heebner, 330. Betzu. Vernes, 4. Bevansv. Briscoe, 71. Beverly v. Burke, 694, 696, 702. Beverley v. Ellis, 8ia Beviero. Schoon maker, 367. Beyant v. Russell, 506. Bibbi). Baker, 339. Bibb V. Kcid, 815. Bibby V. Carter, 618. Bicker v. Hibbard, 699. Bickettii. Morris, 617. Bickford v. Daniels, 303, 314. Bickford v. Page, S60. Bicknell v. Bicknell, 290, 292. Blddlei;. Aslr, 699. Biddle V. Hussman, ISS. Bidleman v. Brooks, 760. Bigelow V. Bush, 3.->9. Bigelow V. Foss, 726. Bigelow V. Hubbard, 853. Bigelow V. Jones, 251 , 254, 861. Bigelow I'. Kinn«y, 793. Bigelow V. Liittlefleld, 263. . Bigelow r. Topliff,302, 818. Bigelow V. Wilson, 318, SSL Bigelow V. Stringlellow, 359. Biggarsv. Bird;, 307. Biggus V. Bradley, 855 Bigler V, Waller, 3K1. Bijam v. Bickford, 254. Big Mt. Improvement Co.'b Appeal, 597. Billings i\ Billings, SS'i. Billings I'. Clinton, 500. Billings 1'. Taylor, 75, 135. Billings V, Sprague, 372. Billings !). Siark, 812. Billingtoo.^. Welsh, 819. Bmdenell v. Elwos, 417, 418. Bingham v, Binglram, 501. Bingham v, Weiderwax:, 730, 861. Bingloe v. Goodaon, 561. Hinkley v. Forkher, 4, on. Einnerman v. Weaver, '275. Birch V. Wright, 32& Birch V. Sherratt, 648. Hircliert'. ParfeeSr, Z26. Bird V. Bird, Si's, 2S5. Bird V. Decker, 518. l?ird V. Denniaon, 818. Bird V. Wilkinson, 307, 818 Birdsall V. Phillips, 218. Birmie v. Main, 817. Birmingham v. ,\nderson, 84ll Birmingham v. Rogers, 201. Birney v. Hann, 85U. Birnie v. Main, 310. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Biscoe V. Biscoe, 542, 544. Bishop V* Bishop, 5. Bishop V. Boyle. 129. Bishop V, Hampton, 673. Bishop V. McClelland's Exrs., 240, 241. Bishop V. Schneider, 338, 810, SlGa, 817. Bishop's Will, 881. Bisland v. Hewett, 133, 138, 8176. Bissollu. Grant, 396. Bissell V. Marine Co., 359. Bissell V. N. Y. Central R. R. «31, 837. BiBsett V. Bissett, 796, 810. Bitner t: Bitner, 881. Bitter v. Seathoff, 699. Bittinger v. Baker, 71. Bivlns V. Vinzant, 730. Bixbey v. Eley, 573. Bixler V. Sayler, 859. Bizzellw. Kix,292, 293. Black V. Black, 164, 245, 252. Black V. Curran, 159. Black v. Gregg, 302. Black V. Hills, 793. Black V. MoAuley, 544. Black V. Shreve, 813, 814, 815. Black I'. Williama, 538, 54li . Blackburn v. Gregson, 292. Blackharn v. Warwick, 308, 309. Blackraore v. Boardman, 190. BlackstoneBanki). Davis, 38,39, 274, 275. Blackwell v. Broughton, 160. BlackwelLiJ, Ogden, 573. Blackwell v. Ryan, 700. Blackwood v. Jones, 726. Blackwood v. Van Vleet, 322. Blagge V. Miles, 569, 888. Blade v. Sanborn, 360. Blain v. Harrison, 115. Blain v. Stewart, blO. Blain V. Taylor, 853. Blaine's Lessee v. Chambers, 842. Blair v. Boss, 329. Blair v. Olaxton, 196, 196ra. Blair v. Harris, 310. Blair -u.Eankin, 186. Blair v. Rivard, 361. Blair D. Smith, 717, 726. Blair v. Ward, 310, 376, 817. Blair v. White, 330. Blaisdell v. R. Road, 651, G54. Blaisdell v. Stephens, 605. Blake v, Anscombe, 494. Blake v. Clark, 842. Blake v. Coates. 201. Blake v. Fash, 741, 812, 815. Blake I'. Graham, 817. Blake v. Irwin, 576. Blake v. Moore, 332. Blake v. Ranous, 189. Blake v. Sanderson, 183. Blake v. Tncker, 728. Blake v. Williams, 330. Blakely v. Colder, 262. Blakeney v. Ferguson, 126. Blaker v. Anscombe, 494. Blanchnrdw. Baker, 611. Blanchard v. Blanohard, 397, 399, 401, 877, 887. Blanchard v. Blood, 92. Blanchard v. Bridges, 605, 612. Blanchard v. Brooks, 399, 728, 849a, 855. Blanchard v. Ellis, 728, 739, 861. Blanchard v. Brans, 725. Blanchard v. Kenton, 307. Blanchard v. Morey, 273. Blanchard v. Porter, 835. Blanchard v. Sheldon, 406. Blanchard v. Tyler, 872. Blanch v. Rogers, 5a. Blanden v, Siisby, 501. Blaney 'j. Bearce, 318, 332. Blaney v. Hanks, 741. Blaney v. Rice, 839. Blankead v. Owen, 292. Blankenpickler «'. Anderson, 746. Blankenship v. Stent, 793. Blantin v. Whitaker, 199. Blatch V. Wilder, 498. Blanvelt v. Akerman. 501. Blanvelt v. Van Winkle, 647. Bledsoe v. Beiler, 861. Bledsoe's Exr. v, Bledsoe, 881. Bledsoe v. Gaines, 292. Bleecker v. Smith, 191. Blocker v, Graham, 367. Blethen j;.Dwinall, 368. Blevins v. Rogers, 292, 294. Blight V. Schenok, 813, 815. Blight, Lessee of v. Rochester, 199. Blintou V. Hope Ins. Co., 327. Bliss V. Am. Bible Soc, 461, 884. Bliss V. Clark, 163. Bliss V. Johnson, 714. Bliss V. Kennedy, 842. Bliss I). Mattison, 501. Bliss V. Misner, 5a. Bliss V. West, 813. Block !7. McAnley, 544. Blockj). PJaff, 831, 839. Blockley v. Fowler. 365. Blodgettsj. Hildreth, 858. BlodgettjJ. Moore, 888. Blood V. Blood, 116, 816a. Blood V. Goodrich, 805. Blood V. Wood, 695, 697. Bloodgood V. Mohawk & H. E. R., 634, 753. Bloom V. Noggle, 290, 818. Bloom V. Van Rensselaer, 363, 365. Bloomer i». Henderson, 332. Bloomer v. Waldron, 511, 563, 567. Bloomer's Appeal, 509. Bloomingdale v. Bowman, 329. Blount V. Robeson, 501. Blount II. Gee, 138. Blow V. Vaughan, 827. Blythe v. Dargin, 794. Board etc. v. Trustees, 273, 863. Boards. Nelson, 888. Boardman v. Dean, 801, 813, 814. Boardman v. Isborn,196a. Boarman v. Catlett, 334. Boardman v. Osborn, 195, 196. Boardman v. Reed, 746, 788, 832. Boardman v. Wilson, 182. Bobb». Bobb, 725. Bobbles V. Munnerlyn, 359. Bodine's Admr. v. Arthur, 798. Bodflsh V. Bodflsh, 699. Bodwell V. Nutter, 500. Bodwell V. Webster, 308, 304. Boestor v. Byrne, 361. Bogan V. Frisby, 816, 816a. Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 261, 254, 797. Boggs V. Merced. Mining Co., 726, 744. Boggs V. Meredith, 700. Boggs V. Varner, 818. Bogio V. Eutledge. 124. Bogey V. Shute, 359. Bogle V. Hammons,796. Bogy V. Shoab, 728, 730, 781. Bohaunon v. Combs, 127. xxxvii TABLE or CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Bohunnon v. Hough, 808. Bohannons v. Lewis, 808. Bohanon v. Waleot, 887, 890. Bohierv. Lange, 841. Boies V. Gardner, 339. Bohlem v. Arthurs, 255, Bohn V. Davis, 366. Bohow. Richmond, 699. Bold V. O'Brien, 187. Boley V. Barutis, 255. Boldry V, Parris, 877. Bole V. Thurlow, 818. ' Bollas V. Chauncey, 817&. Bolles V. Carli, 38-2, 360. Bolles V. Duif , 325, 368. Bolles V. Smith, 885. Bolles V. State Trust Co., 494. 512. Bolles I! . Wade, 336. Bollinger v. Chouteau, 328, 351). Bollinger Co. v. McDowell, S27. Boiling V. Petersburg, 694. Bolster V. Cushman, 122. Bolton V. Carlisle, 790. Bolton V. Landers, 213. Bolton V. Lann, 831. Boudii. Bond, 792, 793. Bond V. Bunting, 506. Bondu. Coke, 842. Bond V. Fay, 827, 829. Bond V. Swearintien, 730. Bond V. Smith, 199. Bonnecaze v. Beer, 194. Bonneck V. Kcnnebeck Purchase, 262. Bonnelli-. Smith, 163 Bonner v. Peterson, 120, 137. Bonney v. Morrell, 831. Bonse's Will, SSI. Boody V. Davis, 307, 310, 813, 814. Boody V. McKenney, 793. Boogher v. Neece, 694. Booker v. Carlisle, 459. Booker v. Booker, 538. Bool V. Mix, 792. Boon V. Murphy, 294. Boone V. Bank,'494. Boone V. Boone, 148. Boone v. Chiles, 601, 509, 817. Boone v. Clark, 332, 335, 360, 817. Boone V. Davis, 504. Boone «-•- Moore, 798. Boos V. Ewing, 293. Booth V. Barnum, 310. Booth V. Booth, 362. Uooth V. Patte, 828. Booth V. Small, 397, 69B, 697, 698. Booth V. Starr, 852, 860. Booth V. Terrell, 396. Boothby v. Hathaway, 850. Boothe V. Best, 699. Boothroydw. Engles, 798. liopp V. Fox, 116, 253. Boruh V,. Archers, 264. Boreham v. Byrne, 163. BorastOQ's Case, 401. Borcl V. Kappeler, 325. Borel V. EoUins, 697. Borland v. Marshall, 106. Borland v. Nichols, 148. Borland v. Walrath, 810. Boskowitz V, Davis, 500. Bosse?'. Gallagher, 358. Bosse V. Johnson, 318. Bosquett V. Hall, 160. Bosley v. Bosley, 889. xxxviii Bosley u. McGough.SSl. Bosley t'. Scbanner, 796. Bossard v. White, bl6, 8I6n. Boston V. Binney, 19:i, 213, 216. Boston V. Eubank, 359 Boston r. Kichardson, s;?4, 838. Boston Bank v. Reed, 323, 324. Boston Bank v. Chamberlin, 792, 793. Boston V. Worthington, 860. Boston Iron Co. v. King, 325. Boston etc.,Trii.-.t Co. v. Jlixter, 50J. Boston v. Lowell R. K. w. Salem, etc., R . E.,6S0. Boston VTater Power Co. r. Boston & Worcester R. Co., 597. Boston etc., R. Co. v. Sparhawk, 699. BostonU. P. Co.r. Boston,etc.,R. K.,C.3o. Boswell V. Goodwin, 342. Bostwick V. Atkins, 793. Bostwick V. Leach, 799. Bostwick V. Powers, 818. Bostwick V. Williams, s.^5,856. Boswell i\ Buchanan, 817^. Boswell V. Dillon, 495. Boswell V. Goodwin, 342. Bosworth V, City of Mi. Sterling, 699. Bosworth V. Danzien, 83'^. Bosworth V. Stutevant, 829. Botstord v. Burr, 600. Bott V. Burnell, 757. Bott f. Perley, 755. . Bottomly v. Spencer, 127. 147. Boudinot V. Bradford, 89^. Bouland r. Kipp, 329. Bougligny V. FortK-r, 332. Bounds c. Little, 2"i2a. Bourn r. Gibbs, 39S. Bourne I'. Bourne, 318. Bours V. Zachariah, 794. Bours V. Andrews. 515. Bousey v. Amee, 363. Bowden v. Parrish, 810. Bowditch r. Andrew, 515. Bowditch V. Banuelos, 509, 510. Bowditch Ins. Co. c. Winslow, 327. Bowen r. Allen, 883. Bowen v. Bowen, 277. Bowen V. Brockenbrough, 117. Bowen v. Chase, 495. Boweu V. Guild, 697. Bowen v. Hill, 622. Bowen v. Johnson, 329. Bowen v. Oyster, 292. Bowen V. Porter, 433. Bowen v. Swander, 240, 2.55. Bowen's Admr. v. Bowen's Admr., 564. Bower V. Chambers, SOS. Bower V. Hill, 622. Bowers r. Johnson, 329. Bowers v. Kessccker, 117. Bowers v. Oyster, 290. Bowers v. Porter, 433. Bowie i-. Berry, 117, 135, 498. Bowles V. Rogers, 292. Bowley v. Rogers, 292. Bowlesby v. Speer, 615. Bowly V. Lament, 875. Bowman v. Lee, 695, 698, 714. Bowman v. Lobe, 39S. Bowman v. Mauter, 336. Bowman v. Middleton. 751. Bowman v. Norton, l.W, 163. Bowman v. Robb, SOS. Bowman v. Watson, 164. TABLE OP CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Bowno V. Potter, 122. Boxheimerw. Gunu, 335. Boxhelmer v. Bowers, 359. Boyce v. Bowers, 35H. Boyce v. Coster, 246, 253. Boyce v. Owens, 794. Boyce V. Shiver, 329, 818. Boyce v. Stunton, 601. Boyd V. Allen, 352. Boyd V. Baker, 310. Boyd V. Beck, 326. Boyd V. Beck, 326, 818. Boyd V. Blantman, 601. Boyd V, Brincken, 501. Boyd V. Carlton, 135. Boyd V. Conklln, 615. Boyd V. Cook, S87. Boyd V. Cudderbaok, 327. Boyd V. England, 494. Boyd V. McLean, 443, 500, 501. Boyd i\ Whitfield, 860. Boyer v. Amet, 856, 861. Boyers v. Ellioti, 246, 2,53. Boyers v. Newbanks, 137. Boykln v. Ancrum, 433, 434. Boykin v, Boykin, 401. Boykin v. Pace's Exr., 506. Bovlan v. Deinzer, 275. Boyle V. Teller, 198. Boyleston Ins. Co. v. Davis, 238, 239, 242, 829a. Boynton v, Champlin, 292. Boynton v. Hodgcn, 695. Boynton v. Langeley, 615,617. Boynton v. Petersborough, 663. Boynton v. Rees, 801. Boynton v. Keynolds, 808. Boynton v. Sawyer, 124. Bozarth v. Largent, 109. Bozarth v. Sanders, 361. Bozeman v. Browning, 792. Bozon V. Williams, 288, 289. Brabham v. Crosland. 883. Brace v. Marlborough, 341. Brace v. Yale, 614. Bracken v. Jones, 694, 695, 698, 714. Bracken v. Martin, 694. Bracken v. Miller, 818. Bracket v. Baum, 369. Bracket v. Goddard. 2, 799, 842. Bracket v. Norcross, 251, 254. Bracket v. Petitioners, 696. Bracket v. Eidlon, 817. Brackett v. Barney, 812. Brackctt v. Goddard, 2. Brackett Petitioner, 696. Brackett v. Waite, 601. Brackley v. Sharp, 598, 602. Bradlield v. McCormick, 808. Bradford v. Crcssy, 833, 838. Bradford v. Foley, 413, 414. Bradford v. Guthrie, 695. Bradford v. Harper, 292. Bradford v. Marvin, 292. Bradford v. Kandall, 808. Bradford v. Street, 664. Bradhurat v. Field, 148. Bradish v. Gibbs, 559, 565, 668, 573. Bradish v. Schenck, 201. Bradish v. Yocum, 827. Bradley v. Bosley, 295a, 296. Bradley v. Bradley, 663, 883, 888. Bradley v. Chester Valley B. E., 361, 363, 364, 368. Bradley V. Christ's Hospital, 620. Bradley v. DcGoicouria, 196. Bradley v. Fuller, 323. Bradley v. George, 371. Bradley v. Peixoto, 38; 39,274. Bradley v. Rice, 8.36. Bradley?'. Tittubarva6see,843. Bradley c. West, 695, 714. Bradley v. Wcstcott, 562, 564. Bradley <). Wilson, 831. Bradley's Fish Co. v. Dudley, 599. Bradner v, Faulkner, 71. Bradshaw v. Callaghau, 262. Bradshaw v. Crosby, 861. Bradshaw v. Outram, 359. Bradstreet v. Clark, 193, 273. Bradatreet v. Huntington, 693, 694, 699., Bradstreet v. Rowley, 837. Brady v. Pleper, 198. Brady i>. Waldron, 3.51. Bragg V. Geddes, 443. Bragg V. Lyon, 262. Bragg V. i'aulk, 507. Brainard v. Boston & N. Y. Central R. R.,837. Brainard v. Brainard, 307. Brainard v. Cooper, 334, 359, 361 , 370. Braintree v. Battles, 252, 259. Brakely v. Sharp, 598, 601, 602. Braman v, Bingham, 815. Bramhall v. Ferris, 602, 603. Bramlet v. Bates, 544. Branch Bank v. Fry, .324, 663. Brandon v. Brandon, 325. Brandon v. Leddy, 827, 829. Brandon v. Robinson, 93, 274, 375. Brandt v. Foster, 849, 850, 851, 861. Brandt v. Ogdi;n, 695, 699, 714, 839. Branger v. Manciet, 187. Braunan v. Bingham, 815. Branuan v. Dowse, 330. Brant v. Gallup, 327. Brant v. Robertson, 310. Brant v. Robertson, 310. Brant v. Va. Coal Iron Co., 562. Brant v. Wilson, S90. Brantley i". Wolf, 792. Brashear v. Macey, 542. Brass Foundry, etc., Works v. Gallen- tine,4. Bratt V. Bratt, 177. Brattleboro v. Mead, 542. Brattle Street Church v. Grant, 418, 423. Bratton v. Massey, 469. Bratton's Appeal, 818. Brawner v. Staup, 600. Bray v. Conrad, 115. Bray v. Hussey, 843. Braybroke v. 1 nskip, 320. Brayfleld v. Brayfleld, 878. Brayton v. Jones, 325, 353. Brazee v. Lancaster Bank, 341. Brazee v. Schofield, 260. Brearly v. Brearly, 563. Breathitt u. Whitaker, 886, 886a. Breck v. Young, 860. Breckenbridge v. Ornsby, 695, 793. Breckenridge v. Auld, 304, ,305. Breckenridge v. Brooks, 325, 333, 355. Bredenburg v. Landrum, 301, 321. Breed v. Conley, 818. Breeding v. Taylor, 192. Breen v. Seward, 332. Breher v. Reese, 198. xxxix TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Breman v, Eggeman» 727, Ereneiser v. Davis, 838. Breiiuan v. Lackat, 189. Brennan v. Whitaker, 4. Bresee v. Stiles, 169, 8S8. Bressler v. Kent, 794. Brett V. Fan, 697. Brew V. Van Denman, 862. Brewer v. Connell, 126. Brewer v, Conover, 216. Brewer v. Cox, 401. Brewer v. Cox, 664. Brewer v. Byer, 198. Brewer v. Hardy. 775, 777, 779, 782. Brewer v. Hyndman, 352. Brewer v. Warshall, 603, 862. Brewer v. Vanarsdale, 146. Brewster v. McCaU's Devisees, 885. Brice v. Smitli, 877. Brice V. Stokes, 613. Brick V. Getsinger, 351. Brickettt;. Spofford, 703. Bridge v. Eggleston, 802. Bridgeport v. Blum, 334. Bridger V. Pierson, 843. Bridges v. Pleasants, 884. ■ Bridges v. Purcell, 651, 652, 653. Bridgewater v. Bolton, 37. Bridgford v. Riddle, 802. Bridwell v. Bridwell, 161. Brldwell v. Swank, 881. Brigden v. Carhartt, 341. Brigden v. Carlhart, 341. Brlggs V. Frencli, 817a. Briggs V. Hall, 196. Briggs V. Hill, 196. Briggs V. Hill, 294, 295. Briggs V. Partridge, 805. Briggs V. Seymore, 383. Brigham v. Potter, 310. Brigham v, Shattuck, 380. Brlgliam v. Smith, 609, 842. Brigham v. Winchester, 299. Bright V. Boyd, 702. Bright V. Buckmau, 312, 731, 817, 819. Bright V. Larcher, 647. Brightman v. Bnghtman, 398, 533, 542. Brightman v. Chaping, 608. Brimmer v. Long Wharf, 693, 695. BrinckerhoflE v, Lansing, 335. Brindernagle II. German Kef. Church, 361. Briagholii v. Munzenmaier, 818. Bringloe v. Goodson. 559, 561. Brinkerhoff v. Marvin, 342. Brinkerhoffj). Kemsen.877. Brinkerhoff i\ Tansciven, 292, 293. Brinley v. Whiting, 795. Brinton v. Seevres, S16. Johnson, S,i2, Brown v. Kansas Citv, etc,,R,R, Co,, 611 TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Brown v. Keller, 199, 213. Brown v. King, 700. Brown v. Lamphear, 755, 827. Brown «. Laphara, 321, 3B0. Brown v. Lawrence, 396, 397, 401. Brown v. Leach, 311, 323. Brown v. Leete, 695, 699. Brown v. Lincoln, 201. Brown v. Lunch, 501. Brown v. Lunt, S16(i. Brown V. Lynch, 501, Brown v. BIcAlister, 877. Brown t!. McCornuck, 730. Brown v. McCune, 731. Brown v. McKmney, 695. Brown v. McMullen, 261. Brown v. Meredith, 115. Brown v. Metz, 860. Brown v. Miller, 358. Brown v. Mitchell, S81. Brown v. Nevitt, 359. Brown v. People's Ins. Co., 327. OBrown v. Perck, 796. Brown v. Pierce, 817(i. Brown v. Porter, 292, 293. Brown v. Powell, 182. Brown v. Rickard, 843. Brown v. Robins, 618. Brown v. Saltonstall, 829. Brown v. Scott, 337. Brown v, Simmons, 371. Brown v. Simpson, 292, 818. Brown v. Snell, 318. ' Brown v. South Boston Sav. Bank, 325, 332, 355. Brown v. Starr, 161. Brown v. Stewart, 322, 323. Brown v. Sterritts, 561, 563. Brown V. Stillman, 332. Brown v. Swift, 810. Brown v. Thorndike, 889. Brown v. Thurston, 212. Brown v. Throckmorton, 747. Brown v. Tomlinson, 859. Brown v. Tyler, 312. Brown v. Vanlier, 292. Brown v. Veazie, 760. Brown v. Wellington, 238, 239, 242, 255, 260. Brown «. Williams, 115, 129. Brown V. Windsor, 618, 619. Brown v. Wood, 251, 254. Brown v. Wright, 760. Browne v. Kennedy, 833. Brownell v. Brownell, 262. Brownfleld v. Wilson, 890. Browning's Petition, 433. Brownson v. Scanlan, 714. Brownsen v. Hull, 242, 245. Brownsword v. Edwards, 540. Broylesn. Nowlin, 501. Brubaker's Appeal, ,545. Bruce v. Bonney, 336. Bruce v. Bruce, 573. Bruce, Ex parte, 289. Bruce v. Luke, 727, 781. Bruce v. Perry, 810. Bruce v. Slemp, 672. Bruce i). Taylor, 8.32. Bruce v. Tilson, 295o. Bruce v. Wood, 90. Bruoer v. Fulton National Bank, 175. Bruckner v. Lawrence, 832. Brudenell v. Elwes, 417. Bruhn v. Fireman's Bldg. Assn., 264. Brumagin v. Bradshaw, 697. Brummett v. Barber, 542, 544. Bruinson v. King, 875. Brundage v. Missionary Soc, 361. Brundrod v. Walker, 728. Bruner v. Bateman, 163. BruDson v. King, 875. Brunton v. Hall, 608. Brush V. Brush, 889. Brush V. Kinsley, 292, 294, 295. Brush V. Ware, 746, 819. Brush V. Wilkins, 8S8. Bryan v. Atwater, 695, 699, 700. Bryan v. Batchelder, 128. Bryan v. Bradley, 459, 779, 782. Bryan v. East St. Louis, 714. Bryan v. Hyre, 882. Bryan v. Ramirez, 810. Bryan v. Khodes, 159. Bryan v. Russell, 606. Bryan v. Wash, 813, 814. Bryan v. Whistler, 600. Bryant v. Cowart, 204, 303. Bryant v. Damon, 330, 375. Bryant v. Erskine, 311, 312. Bryant v. Hendricks, 500. Bryant's Appeal, 115. Bryant v. Stephens, 292. Brydges v. Brydges, 507, 512. Bryson v, June, 323. Bubier v. Roberts, 147, 148. Ruchan v. Sumner, 246, 253, 817ffi. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 538. luichanan v. Curtis, 611. Buchanan v. Hazzard, 794. Buchanan v. International Bank, 817&. Buchanan v. Monroe, 331, 359. Buchanan v. Reid, 334, 352, 361. Buchanan's Estate, 673. Buck V. Fischer, 360. Buck V, Martin, 264. Bucks). Piokwell, 799. Buck V. Swazey, 500, 501. Biickhout V. Fisher, 877. Buckingham v. Hann, 730, 8176. Buckinghamshire v. Brury, 147. Buckenridgo v. Ormsby, 792. Buckley v. Buckley, 246, 253. Buckley V. Chapman, ,329. Buckley v. Gerard, 888. liucklin V. Bucklin, 310. Buckraan v. Astor, 332. Bucknall v. Story, 760. Buckworth v. Thirkell, 45, 104, 129, 484. Budd V. Brooke. 832. Buel V. Buel, 172. Buellw. Cook, 179. Buffalo R. R. V. Brainard, 753. Buffalo Steam Engine Works v. Ins. Co., 327. Bufflngton v. Maxani, 499. Buffura V. Buffum, 245, 253. Buffum V. Green, 814. Buford V. Smith, 353. Building Association v. Wilson, 818. Buist V. Dawes, 398. Bulger V. Roche, 715, 717. Bulkley v. Devine, 178. Bulkley v. Dolbeare.*82. Bulkley f. Willord, 501. Bull V. Bull, 884. Bull V. Church, 148. Bull V. Kingston, 546. xli TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Ball — Matter of, 56S. Bull V. Sykes, 312. Bull V. Vardy, 574. Bullard v. Bowers, 117, Vli. Bullard v. Harrison, 010. Bullard v. Leach, 3'2I, 369. BuUen V. Runnels, 605. Bullene v. Garrison, 810. Bullitt V. Taylor, 802, 814. Bullock V. Bennett, 639. Bullock V. Dommitt, 77, 194. Bullock V. Seymore, 542. Bullock V. Stone, 630. Bullock V. Waterman, 433. Bullocks. Whipp, 302. Bullock V. Wilson, 746, 835. Bullock V. Thome, 561. Bulwer v. Bulwer, 71. Bumpus V. Platner, 817. Bundy v. McKnight, 881. Bunker V. Gordon, 819. Bunker v. Locke, 161, 351. Bunn V. Wells, 827. Bantin v. French, 292. Buntin v. Johnson, 877. Bunting V. Salz, 163. Bunting v. Gilmore, 725. Bunting V. Speek, 401. Buntou V, Richardson, 214. Buras V. O'Brien, 686, 828. Burbank v. Day, 139. Burbank v. Pilisbury, 646, 853. Burbank v. Whitney, 398, 884. Burch V. Brown, 888. Burch V. Burch , 647. Burch V. Carter, 819. Burch V. Mouton, 164. Burchcllv. Osborne, 361. Burd V. Dausdale, 108, 109. Burden v. Thayer, 192, 277, 324, 386, 389. Burdett v. Caldwell, 216. Burdett v. Clay, 216, 329, 330. Burdett v. Spilsbury, 367, 567. Burdett v. Hopegood, 882. Burderte v. May, 600. Burdeite v. May, 716. Burdick v, Heinley, 726. Jiurdge V. Walling, 534. BurdoQ V. Burkus, 501. Burgett V. Taliaferro, 795. Burfoot v. Burfoot, 538. Burford v. Rosenfeld, 292, 361. Burge V. Hamilton, 890o. Burger v. Potter, 294, 295a, 298. Burgess V. Gray, 716, 716. Burgess v. Green, 292. Burgess v. Wheate, 294, 295, 440, 451, 502. Burgess V. William, 292, 293. Burk V. Baxter, 5a. Burk V. Hill, 853. Burk V. HoUis, 7, 652. Burke V. Allen, 339. Burke V. Barron, 1 15, 140. Burke v. Lynch, 326. Burke v. Stiles, 564. Burke V. Valeniine, 110. Burkholder v. Cazad, 813. Burkhaltor v. Ector, 816, 818. Burks V. Burks, 601. Burks V. Mitchell, «95, 696. Burgoyne v. Spurling, 333. Burhaus v. Hutchinson. 381. Burleigh v. Clough, 39S, 564. Burleyson v. Whitley, 273. xlii Burlington University v. Barrett, 875. Burnap v. Cook, 359. BurnellD. Bull, 501. Burnell v. Martin, 362. Burn V. Burn, S17a. Burn V. Burn, 3.39. Burnes v. Collins, 327. Burnes v. Fuchs, 189, 194. Burnes v. McCubbin, 191. Burnet v. Burnet, 117. Burnet v. Denniaton, 341, 334, 336. Burnett v. Lynch, 182. Burnett v. McCluey, 808. Burnett v. Pratt, 238, 360. Burnham v. Chandler, 816, 816a. Burns V. Burns, 887. Burns v. Bryant, 218. Burns v. Byrne, 700. Burns V. Collins, 327. Burns V. Cooper, 192, 201. Burns v. Gallagher, 601, 603. Burns u. Keas, 159. Burns V. Lynde, 698, 789, 805, 807, 812. Burns)). Taylor, 292. Burns v. Thayer, 365. Burnside v. Merrick, 116, 245, 253. Burnside v. Terry, 163, 302, 303. Burnside v. Twitcbell, 4, 6. 5a, 351. Burnside v. Watkins, 162, 264. Burnside v. Wyman, 302, 303. Burr V. Beers, 332. Burr t). Burton, 796. Burr V. Mills, 600 602. Burr?). Smith, 862. Burr V, Veeden, 355. Burrall V. Clark, 117, 122, 148. Burrall v. Hurd, 122, 148. Bm-rell v. Hobson, 602. Burrell v. Bull, 501. Barrel! v. Burrell, 699. Burrell v. Lumber Co., 4. Burrill v. Boardman, 6-14. Burrill V. Shield, 508, 511, 512. Burris v. Page, 116. Burroughs v. Foster, 542. Burroughs v. Nutting, 881. Burroughs v. Saterlee, 615. Burrows v. Baughman, 818. Burrows v. Burrough, 881. Burrows v. Gallup, 703.' Burrows v. Mai lay, 358. Burrows v. Pierce, 702. Burr's Exrs. v. .smith, 884. Biirrus v. Koulhac's Admx., 292. Burson v. Andes, 335. Burt V. Cassety, 817a, 819. Burt V. Kicker, 319. Burtt'. Hurlburt,91. Burt V. Merchant's Ins. Co., 753. Bni-tr. Ricker, 319. Burt ti. Wilson, 292. Barton v. Barclay, 197. Burton v. Baxter", :i29, 330. Burton v. Camp, 506. Burton v. Hlntrager, 319. Burton r. Lies, .S.W, 361. Burton v. Reed, 730, 861. Burton v. Scherpl, 652. Burton v. Wheeler, 372. Burwell v. Snow, 843. Buse V. Russell, 687. Bush 1). Adams, 700. Busby V. Holtliaus, 618. Bascu V. Huston, 700. TABLE OF CASKS CITED. Retei'ences are to Sections. Bnsey v. Eoese, 818. Bush V. Bradley, 106. Bush V. Bush, 116, ."ilS, 8S1. Bush V. Gamble, 239,240, 255. Bush V. Golden, 8176. Bush V. Marshall, 292, 730. Bush V. Peru Bridge Co., 634. Bush V. Sherman, 363, 364. Bush V. Wilkins, 888. Bushy V. Holthaus, 618. Buswell V. Peterson, 358. Buss V. Dyer, 601. Busse V. Schenck, 513. Buskirk v. Stlckland, 618. Bustard v. Coulter, 844. Bussman v. Gauster, 194. Butcher v. Butcher, 227. Butler V. Baker, 197, 797, 814. Butler V. Brown, 810. Butler V. Oushing, 189. Butleri). Gale, 853. Butler i>. Godley, 512. Butler V. Heustis, 433, 570, 571. Butler V. Ladue, 368. Butler V. Lawson, 700. Butler V. Maury, 1S5, 817a. Butler V. Peck, 615. Butler V. Porter, 252, 259. Butler V. Roys, 238, 253, 260, 262. Butler V. Seward, 336, 337. Butler V. Stevens, 813. Butler & Baker's Case, 814. Butrick V. Tilton, 813. Butterfleldti. Baker, 201. Butterfield v. Beall, 110, 805. Butterfield v. Farnhan, 364. Butlerfleld v. Wicks, 159. Butterfield v. Wilton Academy, 275,503. Butterworth v. Crawford, 602. Buttrick I'. Wentworth, 367. Button V. Amer. Tract Soc, 883. Buttons. Cole, 882. Buzick V. Buzick, 115. Buzzell V. CummiDgs, 4. Byers v. Engles, 818. Byers v. McClanahan, 813. Byers v. Wackman, 500, Byles!). Tome, 818. Bynum v. Bynum, 877. Bynum v. Thompson, 696. Syrane v. RoRers, 193. Byrne v. Taylor, 359. Byrnes v. Labagh, 401. c. Cabe V. Evers, 227. Cabot V. Windsor, 883. Cadell V. Palmer, 175. Caddoclu;. Cook, 352. Cadmanii. Peters, 307. Cadmus v. Fagan, 853. Cadmus v. Jackson, 761. Cadworth v. Thompson, 542. Cady V. Shepherd, 805. Cady V. Springville Water Works, 600. Cager's Will, 564. .Cahill V. Palmer, 697, 698, 714. Cahoun v. Robinson, 292. Gaines v. Grant, 237, 287, 501. Cairns v. Chabert, 66, 68. Cairns v. Colbnrn, 443. Cake V. Cake, 829. Calder v. Chapman, 731, 817, 8176. Caldwell v. Center, 841. Caldwell v. Fulton, 10, (>S5, 733, 779,827. CaldwelH'. Hall, 32.5. Caldwell v. Harr is, 199. Caldwell v. Taggarl, 359. Caledonia R. Co. v. Sprot, 618. Calender v. Marsh, 618. Calhoun v. Calhoun, 469. Calhoun v. Cook, 694, 695, 697. Calhoun v. Curtis, 243, 255. Callioun V. Ferguson, 883. Calhoun i>. Tullas, 360. Calhoun v. Williams, 160. Calkins v. Steinbach, 252. Call V. Barker, 262. Call V. Hastings, 818. Call V. Perkins. 794. Callaghan v. Linthicum, 327 Callahan v, Robinson, 148. Callahan v. Shaw, 324. Calk V. Strlbllng, 833. Calkins v. Calkins, 326. Calkins v, Munsell, 334. Calkins v Steinbach, 252. Calko v. Stribling, 833. Callierti. Moss, 3-iO, 463. Calloway v. Hearn, 801. Calloway v. Doe, 744. Calloway v. People's Bk., 363, 364. Calmount v, Whitaker, 614. Calvert v. Aldrich, 242, 234, 621. Calvert v. Bradley, 182. Calvert V. Fitzgerald, 833. Calvin v. Bowman, 818. Calvin v. McCune, 696, 700. Cambridge Valley Bank v. Delane, 817, 8176, 819. Camden v. Vail, 293. Cameron v. Green, 292. Cameron v. Irwin, 366. Cameron v. Little, 214. Cameron v. Mason, 292. Cameron v. Ward, 501. Camleyv. Stanfield, 199. Cammann v, Cammann, 67,517. Camp V. Cox, 318. Camp V, Conkright, 401. Camp V. Smith, 333, 747. Cam pan v, Beardsley, 292. Campan v, Bernard, 265. Campan v. Campan, 700. Campan v. Dubois, 697. Campan v. Godfrey, 242, S29a. Campbell v. Baldwin, 292, 294. Campbell v. Bemis, 194, 794. Campbell v. Burch, 329. . Campbell v. Campbell, 251, 254, 501. Campbells. Clark, 863. Campbell v. Dearborn, 305, 306, 807. Campbell v. Foster, 602, 503. Campbell v. Henry, 293. Campbell v. Jones, 163. Campbell v. Knights. 336, 758. Campbell v. Kuhn, 792. Campbell v. Laclede Gas Light Co,, 260, 686, 700. Camiibell v. Leach, 570, 573. Campbell v. Lewis, 190. Campbell v. Loader, 171. Campbell v. Meiser, 6il. Campbell v. Mulleit, 498. Campbell v. Murphy, 135, 138. xliii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Campbell v. Proctor, 212. Campbells. Rankin, 292. Campbell t. Roach, 294, 295o, 296. Campbell v. Seeley, 343. Campbell v. Smith, 332. Campbell v. West, 699. Campbell v. Wileon, 699. Campion's Petition, fill. Caiiaday v. Boliver, 372. t/anal Appraisers v. People, 835. Canal Comm. v. People, 833, 834, 835, 836. Canal Co, v. Railroad Co., 277. Canal Trustees v. Havens, 837. Canby v. Porter, 108, 109. Candee v. Burke, 364. Cauedy v. Marcy, 827. Canfleld v. Ford, 2, 10. Canning t>. Pinkham, 812, 813, 814. Cannon v. Cannon, 813. Cannon v. Seizler, 878. Cannon v. White, 744. Cantragrel v. Van Lupin, 695, 696. Cantrell v. Fowler. 1S9, 194. Capchartv. Dettrich, 310. Capeu u. I'eckham, 6. Capen v Richardson, 443. Caperton v. Gregory, 700. Capner v. Farminglon Min. Co., 351. Capper i'. Sibley, 1/7. Caraway v. Chancy, 831. Carberiy v. Preston, 326. Carbrey v. Wilson, 609. Card V. Grimman, 887. Carey v. Baughm, 888. Carey i'. Daniels, fiOo, 614. Carey v. Dennis, 875. Carey v. Rawson, 288, 304. Carl V. Lowell, 227. Carlton Mills Co. v. Silver, 617. Carley v. Parton, 697. Carlin v. Chappell, 618. Carlisle v. Carlisle, 810. Carlisle v. Cooper, 599. Oarll V. Batman, 337, 373. Carlton v. Buckner, 294. Carlton V. Jackson, 336. Carlyon v. Layering, 617. Carman v. Johnson, 746. Carmichael v. Carmichael, 131. Carmichael v. Trustees, 832. Carmody v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Oo.,'699. Carolina Nat. Bk. v. Senn, 159. Carnes v. Apperson, 498. Carpenter v. Allen, 4, So. Carpenter tJ. Black Hawk, etc., Co. 364. Carpenters. Buller, 731. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 309, 310, 792. Carpenter v. Casper, 322. Carpenter v. Dexter, 810, 816a. (Carpenter z'. Gleason, 321,337. Carpenter v. Graber, 605. Carpenter v. Ins. Co., 327. Carjaenter v. Koons, 332. Carpenter v. Langan, 332. Carpenters. Mitciiell, 294. Carpenter v. Monks, 699. Carpenter v. Muren, 802, Carpenter v. O'Daugherty, 360. Carpenter v. Prov. Ins. Co., 327. Carpenter v. Week.s, 122. Carpentier t'. Thurston, 725. Carpeutier v. Webster, 255. Carpentler s. Williamson, 359, 781. Carrs, Carr, 74, 307. xliv Carr i: Erroll, 532, 537. Carm. Givens, 101, 106. Carr v. Hobbs, 292. Carrs. Halbrook, 304,305. Carr v. HoUiday, 792. Carr v. Horie, 815. Carr v. Jeannerette, .'J42. Carr v. Hoxie, 812, 815. Carr ii. Porter, 433. Carr v. Rising, 305, 306. Carrick v. Krrington, 499. Carrico v. Fanners, etc., Bk., 292, 293. Carrier v. Karl, 21 ti. Carrier v. Gale, 715, 716. Carrig v. Dee, 613. Carrigan v. Evans, 262. Carrington v. Roots, 10. Carroll v. Balance, 323. Carroll v. Burns, 434. Carroll v. Caulev, 534. Carroll v. GiUion, 698, 699. Carroll v. Hancock, 402,482. Carroll u. Norton, 877. Carroll v. Norwood, 782, 827, 631. Carroll V. Renick, 495. Carroll v. Rigney, 189. Carroll v. Van Kensselaer, 292. Carrothers v. Jolliffe, 264. Carry v. Sims, 544. Carson Admrs. v. Phelps, SIS. Carson v. Baker, 216. Carson v. Blazer, 835. Carson v. Coleman, 753. Carson v. Fuhs, 433. Carson i>. MeCaslin, 844. Carson v. Murray, 127. Carter v. Bennett, 329. Carter v. Burley, S08. Carter v. Carter, 3ii7, 573. Carter v. Champion, 359, 816(i, SIS. Carters. Chandron, SOS. Carters. Chesapeake, etc., R.B. Co., 833 Carter (C. B.) Lumber Co. v. Clay, 164. Carters. Dale, 105. Carter v. Denman, 852. Carter s. Feland, 700. Carter v. Flanders, SOS. Carter s. Gibson, 506. Carter s. Goodin, 117. Cai ter s. Hammetl, 183. Carter i'. Hunt, 401,407. C^irtec s. McMichaul, 433. Carter v, Montgomery, 500. Carter v. Parker, 135. Carter v. Penn, 808. Carter v. Rackett, 327. Carter r. Taylor, 321 Carter v. Thomas. sSil. Carter r. Wake. 2iil. Carter i: \\-alker, 761. Carter r. Warne, 183. Carter II. Williams, 106. Carlwriirhts. Cartwright, ,SS1. CartWD.sjht r. Gardner, 191. Cartwiiflil V. Maplesden, 605. Cart>- f. Pruett, 2ii2. Caru'thers r. Caruthers, 147. Caruthers s. Humphrey, 333. Carver s. Bowles, .544. Carver s. Bradv, 3B4. Carver v. Eads, 292. Carver s. Jackson, 411, 412, 72S. Oarwardlne v. Carwardine,4S4. Cary s. Daniels, 852. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Caryl v. Eussell, 329. Casbomoa v. Scarfe, 299, 31S, 320. Case V. Codding, 500. Case r. Phelps, 802. Case r. Gerrlsli,501. Case Threshing Maoh. Co. v. Mitchell, 371. Casey II. Dnnn, 6*6. Casey v, Gregory, 199. Casey i>. Inloes, 714. Cashman's Estate, 398, .564. easier v. Byers, 35S, 839. Cason V. Hubbard, 127. Casporus v. Jones, 140. Cass V. Bellows, 760. Cass V. Martin, 117. Casselbery v. Ames, 619. Casserly s>. Witherbee, 334, 352. Casson v. Dode, 877. Castle V. Castle, 340, 358, 817. Castleman v. Kelt, 324. Caswell V. District, 201. Cate V. French, 731. Cates V. Walllngton, 835. Gates V. Woodson, 792. Cathoart v. Bowman, 853. Catherwood v. Watson, 500. Catlin V, Brown, 644. Oatlin V. Hurlburt, S50, 861. Catlin V. Kidder, 251, 254. Catlino v. Decker, 700. Catoe V. Catoe, 50O, 672. Catlin V. Ware, 135. Catter v. Sawyer, 573. Cattle V. Young, 837. Caufman v. Sayre, 353. Cavanaugh v. Peterson, 317a. Cave V. Crafts, 603. Cavender v. Smith, 743, 746. Cavis V. Beokford, 5. Cecil V. Beaver, 796, 797, 814. Cecil V. Dynes, 358. Center v. P. & M. Bank, 329, 818. Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 636. Central Pao. It. E. Co. v. Shackelford, 714. Central .Wharf, etc.,Corp. v.. Proprietors of India Wharf, 605. Chad bourne v. Mason, 838, 839. Ohadsey v. Chadsey, 672. Chadwick v. Carson, 829. Chadwick v. Haverill Bridge, 633. Chadwick v. Perkins, 507. Chadwick v. Tatem, 148, 889. Chadwick v. Webber, 813. Chaffee v. Baptist M. Co., 876, 877. Chairs v. Brady, 307. Chalker v. Chalker, 277, 278. Challefoux v. Ducharme, 240, 241, 260, 700, 745, 829o. Chamberlain v. Bell, 818. Chamberlain I'. Bradley, 841. Chamberlain v. Brown, 160. Chamberlain v. Crane, 780. Chamberlain v. Donahue, 213,, 216. Chamberlain v. Dunlap, 197, 198. Chamberlain v. Preble, 860. Chamberlain v. Smith, 859. Chamberlain v. Staunton, 812. Chamberlain v. Thompson, 318, 322. Chamberlain v. Young's Exr., 401. Chambers v. Goldwin, 308,309, 360. Chambers v. Nicholson, 359. Chambers v. Perry, 513., Chambers v. Smith, 869, Chambers v. St. Louis, 8S4. Chambers v. Wilson, 532. Chambliss v. Smith, 501. Champion v. Brown, 2.12. Champion v. Spenoe. 261. Chaplin v. Foster, 351). . Chaplin V. Layton, 336, 337. Champney v. Coope, 321, 333, 336. Cliancc V. Branch, 700. Chance v. McWhorter, 292. Chancellor v. Traphagen, 332. Chancellor v. Walworth, 817. Chandler v. Chandler, 305. Chandler v. Dver, 334, 341. Chandler v. Kent, 177, 80!). Chandler)), l.ansford, 7U. Chandler v. Simmons, 792. Chandleri; Spear, 696, 810. Chandler v. Temple, 812, 813. Chandler v. Thompson, 613. Chandler v. Thurston, 71, 201. Chandler v. White, 343. Chandos v. Talbot, 71. Chaney v. Ciianey, 120. Channon v. Patch, 82. Chapel V. Bull, 850, 861. Chapel V. Clapp; 802. Chapel V. Smith, 615. Chapin V. Harris, 281, 863. Chapin v. Hill, 148. Chapia V. Eunte, 163. Chapin V. School Dist., 461. Chaplin V. Chaplin, 46. Chaplin v. Doty, 538. Chaplin r. Foster, 359. Chaplin v. Sawyer, 159. Chapman v, Beardsley, 292. Chapman v. Black, 179. Chapman v. Chapman, 288, 289; Chapman v. Coats, 817a. Chapman v, Harney, 193. Chapman v. Holmes, 860. Chapman v. Kirby, 193. Chapman v. Lee, 292, 293. Chapman v. Long, 2, 799, 842. Chapman ^^ Polaclt, 841. Chapman v. Schraeder, 131, 144. Chapman v. Smith, 325. Chapman v. Tanner, 292. Chapman v. Teoapleton, 696i Chapman -y. Towner, 179. Chapman v. Wright, 193. Chappellu. Allen, 3B8. Charles v. Byrd, 184. Charles v, Dubose, 501. Charles v. Morrow, 713. Charles J). Patch, 827. Charles v. Eankm, 618, 619, 818. Charles v. Saffold, 696. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 633, 744. Charles v. Waugh, 760, Charleston S. Ey. Co. v. .Johnson, 835. Charleston C. & E. E. v. Leech, 829a. Charleston City Council v. Eyan, 836. Charter v. Stevens, 366. Chase v. Abbott, 322, 323. Chase v. Alley, 131, 148. Chase v. Cartwright, 504, 715. Chase's Case, 124. Chase v. Hazelton, 74, 81, 400. Chase v. Lockerman, 319, ,329. Chase! v. McDonald, 341. Chase v. Palmer, 320, xlv TABLE OF CASES CITED. Beferences are to Sections. Chase v. Peck, 290, 292, lii, 296 Chase v. Silverstone, 615. Chase v. Stockett, 507. Chase v. Weston, 860. Chase v. Woodbury, 369, 370, 371. Chasemorew. Kiohards, 615. Chastami). HigdOE, 262. Ohastam v. Phillips, 696. Chalterton v. Fox, 190, 196a. Chattleu. Pound, 199. Ch^umont v. Forsythe, 860. Chauncey v. Arnold, 789. Chautauqua Assembly r. Ailing, 182, 190, 191,275,603. Chavez v. Chavez, 875. Chaw V, Keller, 401, Cheaveri'. Perley, 326. Cheeseborough v. Green, 10, 242, 254,631. Cheeseborough J). Millard, 369, 372, 375, 876, 817. Cheever ii. Rutland, 322. Chellis V. Stearns. 822. Chen V. Barnet, 818. ChenauU's Guardian v. Cheuault's Estate, 883. Cheney!). Klngold, 696. Cheney v. Walkins, 782, 801. Cheney^;, Woodruff, 327. Chenny v. Newberry, 179. Cherrington v. Abney Mill, 605, 612. Cherry v, Bowen, 308. Cherry v. Greene, 562. Cherry v. Monro, 336, 372. Cherry «. Slade, 839. Cherry D. Stem, 613. Chesebrough v. Pingree, 194. Chesley v. Chesley, 364. Chesley v. Thompson, 242, 254. Chesley v. Welch, 71. Chesnutii. Marsh, 761. Chesnut V. Shane, 755. Chesnutt v. Gaun, oOS. Chess V. Chess, 813. Chessman v. Whittemore, 790. Chester v. Urwick, 501. Chester v. Wheelwright, 310, 311. Chester w. Willan, 238. Chew V. Barrett, 312. Chew V. Commissioners, 103, 106. Chew u. Farmer's Bank, 131. Chew V. Morton, 726. Chew's Adm. v. Beall, 469. Chew's Appeal, 401. Chew's Exrs. v. Chew, .577. Chicago, etc., Ey. Co. v. Gait, 699, 815. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Glenney, 615. Chicago V. Larned, 753. Chicago B, etc. K. K. Co. v. Watson, 305. Chicago V. Witt, 817. Chick V. BoUins, 326, 700. Chick II. Wllletta, 310, 323. ChickBi V. Willetts, 323. Child iJ.Chappell. 600. Child V. Starr, 833, S37, 838. Child V. Wells, 831. Childers v. Calloway, 696. Childers v. Henderson, 159. Childress v. Cutler, 573, 670. Childress v. Wright, 5a. Childs V. Hayman, 262. Chlldsr. Hurd,4, 7, 323. Childs V. Conley, 696, 807. Childs V. Gallacher, 500. xlvi Childs V. Wallace, 358. Chilton V. Braider's Admx., 292. Chilton V. Brooks, 864. Chilton V. Henderson, 433. Chilton V. Niblett, 213. Chilton V. Wilson, 714. Chipmau v. Emeric, 81, 191. Chipman v. Tucker, 81^ Chippendale Ex parte, 283, 289. Chlsholm r. Chisholm, 159. Chisholm i, Georgia, 25. Chisolm's Heirs v, Ben, 877. Ohlson V. Williams, 143,642. Chittenden v. Barney, 384. Choate v. Tighe, 292. Cholmdey's Case, 417. Cholmeley v. Paxton, 80. Cholmondley v. Clintoa, 326, 451, 502, 514. Choofstall V. Powell, 562. Chouquette v. Berada, 714. Chouteau v. Ecthart, 745. Chouteau v. Suydam, 812. Choutman v. Bailey, 433. Ghowning v. Cox, 302, 303. Christopher i: Austin, 196, 196n. Christy v. Alford, 701, 714. Christy r. Badger, 883. Christy r. Dyer, 161, 362. Christy v. Scott, 321. Chubb V. Johnson, 663. Chudlelgh's Case, 443, 449, 451, 465, 466. Church V. Burghardi , 699, 740. Church V. Chapin, 501. Church V. Church, 117, 120, 240, 501. Church V. Gilman, 812, 814. Church V, Kemble, 544. Church V. Meeker, 837. Church V. Ruland, 501. Churrh V. Savage, 374. Church V. Smith, 295a. Church V. Sterling, 501. Churchill V. Hulbert, 288, 652. Churchill v. Hunt, 652, 853. Churchill v Lorlng, 361. Churchill V. Morse, 817a. Churchman's Appeals, 401. Ohute,j). Washburn, 273. Cilly V. Cilly, 877. Cincinnati v. Newhall, 794. Cin., Wil., etc., E. K. v. Iliff, 814, 815. ' Citizen's Bank v. Dayton, 335, 360. Citizen's Bank v. Hyams, 331. City Bank v. Smith, 279. City Bank v. Smisson, 163. City Council v. Walton, 509. City of Hartford v. County of Hartford. .log. City of London v. Greyme, 77 City of Quincy v. Jones, 618, 619. City of Wilkes-Barre v. Wyoming, etc., Soc, 137. Ol&baugh V. Byerly, 8176. Olafllin V. Brockmeyer, 199. Claflin V. Carpenter, 799. Claggett V. Crall, 818. Clague V. Washburn, 816a. Clancey v. Houdlette, 697. Claney v. Rice, 831. Clap V. Draper, 2, ID, 799, 843. Clapp V. Bromaghan, 262. Clapp V. Fogleman, 642 Clapp V. Galloway, 117. Clapp V. Herdman, 855. Clapp V. Stoughton, 277. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Clapp V. Tirrell, 803. Oliiremont v. Carlton, 831, 83S. Clarey v. Frayer, 5(i3. Clark V. Akers, 813. Clark t'.Baii-d, 831. Clark V. Baker, 3i(i, 542, 727, 730. Clark V. Bancroft, 376. Clark I.. Boacli,323. Clark V. Bell, 21)5a, 29G. Clark V. Bench, 822. Clark 1'. Brown, 339. i Clark ti. Bullard, 333. Ci.irk«. Bush, 325. Clark r. Clark, 105, 110, 242, 245, 331, 825, 500, 618. Clark V. Condit, 308, 363. Clark V. Conroe, 851. Clark V. Grego, 509. Clark V. Daniels, 728. Clark V. Douglass, 501. Clark V. Foot, 79. Clark V. Fox, 672. Clarki'. Gifford,815. ' Clark V. Gilbert, 697, 698. Clark V. Graham, 807. Clark V. Griffith, 148. Clark V. Henry, 302, 303, 804, 308 Clark V. Hershey, 499. Clarki'. Holden,76. Clark V. Hunt. 294, 29.'5a, 296. Clark V. Jacobs, 294. Clark I'. Jones, 191. Clarkn. Kelliher, 228. Clark i\ Kugler, 501. Clark V. Laiwrence, 615. Clark V. Lineberger, 853, 854. Clark V. Lyon, 303. Clark V. Martin, 608. Clark V. McAuulty, 855. Clark V. McClure, 694, 699, 700. Clark V. McNeal, 840, 817. Clark V. Midland Blast Furnace Co., 196. Clark V. Muuroe, 124. Clark V, Owens, 60. Clark V. Parker, 263. Clark i\ Pickering, 671. Clark V. Prentice, 359. Clark V. Eny, 818. Clark V. Redman, 127. Clark V. Repburn, 818, 351. Clark V. Rochester, 751, 759. Clark V. Shannon, 163. Clark V. Simmons, 321. Clark V. Smith, 217, 325, 355, 532, 837. Clark V. Stilson, 292, 293. Clark V. Swift, 850, 852. Clark V. Talnter, 509. Clark V. Terry, 542. Clark V. Trail, 115. Clark V. Troy, 816, 816a. Clark V. Way, 10. Clark V. Wheelock, 213. Clark w. White, 618. Clark V. Wilson, 326, 327. Clarke v. Gaffeney, 606. Clarke v. Wagner, 695. Clarke's Appeals, 262. ark's Bxrs. v. Trail, 716. Clarkson v. Daddridge, 330. Clary?;. Frayer, 568. Clary v. Owen, 3J1. Clason V. Carley, 323, 324, 351. Clason V. Shepherd, 339. Chauriokard i: Sidney, 803. Claussen «. La Franz, 445. Clavering i>. Claveving, 75. Clay V. Cousins, 671. Clay V. Edwards, 877. Clay V. Wren, 323. Claycomb v. Munger, 855, 860. Clayton v. Blakely, 177. Clayton v. Liverman, 886, 886a. Glea V. Seaman, 199. Clearwater v. Rose, 87, 380. Cleary v. McDowell, 90. Cleaver v. Cleaver, 66o. Clee V. Seaman, 199. Clem V. Newcastle B. Co., 811. CIcman v. Wooley, 93. Clemence v. Steere. 74. 76, 77. Clemens v. Bvoomfield, 213. Clement v. Burtis, 603, 862. Clement v. Terry, 697. Clement v. Youiigmann, 10, 827. Clements v. Griswald,821. Clerc's (Sir Edw.) Case, 443. Clepperv. Livergood, 105. Cleveland v, Boerum, 859. Cleveland v. Hooth, 858. Cleveland v. Flagg, 796, 831. Cleveland v. Hallett, 462, 467,604,506,662. Cleveland v. Jones, 708. Cleveland v. Marlin, 885. Clifford V. Burlington, 573. Clifford V. Parker, 790. Clifford t!. Watts, 195. CliftiJ. White, 197. Climeri;. Wallace, 832. Cline V. Black, 198, 808. Clinej;. Catron, 696. Cline V. Jones, 812. Clinefelter v, Ayers, 663. Cllngani'. Mitcheltree, 887. Clinton v. Meyers, 614. Clinton National Bank n. Manwaring, 818. Clock V. Gilbert, 714. Cloos V. Cloos, 244. Cloud V. Calhoun, 508, 510, 814. Clough I'. Bowman, 827. Clough V. Clough, 532. Clough V. Hosford, 216. Clough V. Rowe, 368. Clouse V. Elliott, 700. Clowes V. Dickinson, 870. Clowes V. Hawlev, 251, 254. Cloyd c. Cloyd, 149. Cluett V. Sheppard, 178, 842. Cluggage V. Duncan, 696, 696. Clute V. Carr, 163, 653. Clute V. New York, etc., B. R. Co., 840. Clyburn v. Reynolds, 400. Clymero. Dawklns, 254, 696, 700. Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Heck, 696, 848. Coard v. HoIdernesB, 499. Ooates V. Cheever, 75, 117, 385. Ooates V. Woodworth, 500. Cobb V. Blddle, 663. Cobb V. Davenport, 835. Cobb V. Lucas, 798. Oobbc. Stokes, 214. Cobertv. Cobert, 147. Coburn Ex parte, 653, 654. Coburn v, Coxeter, 830. Coburn v. Harney, 646. Coburn v. Harvey, 645. Coburn v. HoUis, 697, 699. Coburn v. Palmer, 199. xlvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Cochran v. Cochran, 642. Cochran v. O'Hern, 92, ]04, 105. Cochran v. Van Surlay, 754. Cochran v. Guild, 853. Cocke V. lirogau, 730. Cocker %\ Cooper, 653. Cockey v. MUne, 816a, 818. Cockm's Appeal, 433. Cockrell v. Armstrong, 506. CockriU V. Downey, 2. - Coder v. Hiiling, 245, 252. Codnianu. Winslow. 693. Cod wise v. Taylor, 295a, 296. Cody V. Bamis Exr., 6S3. Cody V. Quarterman, 213, 217. Coe V. Bates, 674. Coe V. Kitter, 827. Coe V. Columbia, etc., R. E. Co., 302, 303. Coe u. Hobby, 198. Coe V. MoBrown, 312, 368. Coffer I). ArgOjiiHa. Coffey V. Hendricks, 810, 829. Coffin r. Coffin, 877. Coffin V. Elliott, 883. Coffin V. Heath, 242, 254. Coffin V. Loring, 312. Coffin V. Ray, 818. Coffman v. Huok, 216. Coffan V. Shephard, 227. Cogan V. Cogan, 3'.I8, 418, 423, 485, 41J, 424. Cogan V. Cook, 8176. Cogswell V. Cogswell, 66. Coggins Appeal, 554. Coggswell V. Tibbetts, 128. Coghlan v. Coghlan, 881. Cogwell V. Warrington, 162, Cohn V. Hoffman, 162, 321. Colt V. McReynolda, 850. Cohn V. Norton, 174. Coit V. Starkweather, 809. Coker v. tearsall, 324, 386. Colhurn v. Mason, 251, 254. Colburn v. Morrill, 1960!. Colburn v. Richards, 614. Colby V, Kenniston, 819. Colbyii. Osgood, 849. Colchester v. Roberts, 608. Coldehaugh v. Johnson, 700. Cold Springs, etc., v. Tolland, 833. Ooldwell V. Woods, 304. Cole V. Barlow, 622. Coleii. 6111,216,812. Cole V. Globe, 542. Cole V. Hughes, 603, 620, 862. Cole V. Lake Company, 213, 827. Cole V. Livingston. 404. Cole V. Parker, 699. Cole V. Patterson, 192, 193. Cole V. Pennoyer, 793. Coie V. Raymond, 728, 856, 857. Cole V. Scott, 292. Cole V. Sewall, 411, 482, 417. Cole V. Sprowle, 611. Cole V. Wade, 510, 611, 513, 566. Cole V. Wolcottville Mlg. Co., 90. Colee V. Colee, 804, 813. Coleman u. Coleman, 259. Coleman v Billings, 695, 696, 697. Coleman v. Bresnahan, 727. Coleman et al. v. Chadwlck, 613. Coleman v. Barklew, 819. Coleman v. Foster, 651, 652. Coleman v. Haight, 194. Coleman v. Lane, 240, 241, xlviii Coleman v. Lewis, 2. Coleman v. Lyman, 850. Coleman v. Wooly, 469. Coleman v. A'an Rensselaer, 329, 392. Coles r. Aliens, 501. Coles V. Soulsby, 801. Coles V. Trecsthick, 601. Coles V. Wooding, 200. Collam V. Hocker, 600. Collamcr v. Langdorl, 319, 329. Collamore v. Gillie, 6. CoUenderf. Marsh, 618. Collier ». Blake, 609. Collier v. Cowgill, 855, 861, Colliers. Gamble, 8.10. Collier V. Pierce, 613. Collins V. Baytt, 164. Collins 11. Canty, 219. Collins V. Carlisle, 342, 606, 564. Collins V. Carman, 148. Collins V. Chartiers Val. Gas Co., 615. CoUiDS 17. Collins, 813. Collins V. Hasbrouck, 172, 1S2, 183. Collins V. Hopkins, 363. Collins V. Johnson, 700. Collins V. Lavelle, 8U3. Collins V. Laven, etc., Co., 469, 93. Collins t>. Smith, 501. Collins D. Stocking, 321. Collins V. Prentice, 603. Collins V. Townley, 875. Collins V. Torry, 117, 318. CoUinsi'. Tillou, 307. CoUum V. Erwin, 330. Oollyer v. CoUyer, 177, 178. Colman v, Clements, 700. Cohnan v. Packard, 323. Coleman v. Morgan, 8176. Colquhoun v. Atkinson, 341, 812. Colt u. DuBois, 818. Colter V. Jones, 359. Coltman v, Sauhonse, 543. Colton V. Coltou, 606. CoUon V. Leavy, 839. Colton V. Seavey, 830, 831, 839. Colton V. Smith, 262, 263. Columbia Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 327. Colvin V. Burnet, 599. Colvin V. Warlord, 200, 890. ColweU V. Woods, 303, 304, 305. Colyer v. Finch, 290. Com. V. Law, 599. Com. V. O'Rear, 101. Com. Title Ins. Co.'s Appeal, 401. Coman v. Lakey, 498. Combs V. Jolly, 875, S77. Combs V. Little, 501. Corahy v. McMichael, 504. Comegys v. Carley, 699. Comer v. Chamberlain, 108. Comerford v. Cobb, 808. Comfort V. Mather, 885. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Spanknible, 327. Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Ucllmann, 808. Comm. v. Ch:,sapeakp, etc., Co., 336. Common v. Griffith, 808. Commissioners i>. Kabcook, 8176. Commissioners v. Kempshall, S;i2. S3.j. Commissioners v. Thompson. 830. 840. Commissioners v. Withgrs, 7.>3, S3.i Commonwealthu. Alger, 25, 751,832. 833' SJl, 835. Commonwealth v. Chapin, S35. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Comnionwealtbi v. Dudley, 741. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 798. Commonwealtti v. Roxbury, 682, IH, d23, 830, 834. Commonwealth v. Tewebury, 25. Commonwealth v. Williams, 560. Compare Gordon v, Taunton, 599. Compton V. McJIahan , 666. Compton V. Mitton,877. Compton's Petition, 611. Comstoclj; v. Comstock, 851. Comstock V. Hitt, 332. Comstock V. Hadlyme, 878. Comstock V. Smith, 730, 790, 858. Comstock V. Van Deusen, 608. Conant v. Little, 315, 136. Conant v. Smith, 2«4. Concord Bank v. Bellis, 731, 794, 814. Concord, etc., Ins. Co. v. Woodbury, 327, 361. Concord Mut. Ins. Co. v. Woodbury, 327. Condertti. Cohn, 177. Condert v. Earle,240. Condert v. Sayre, 603. Condict, Exrs. of, v. King, 542. Condon v. Barr, 225. Condon v. Maynard, 364. Condon v. Morgan, 696, 715. Conduit V. Boss, 862. Conlan v. Borell, 888. Conger v. Lowe, 402. Conedy v. Maroy, 755. Congleton v. Patteson, 190. Congregational Soc. v. Rix, 183. Congregational Soc. v. Stack, 37. Conklin v. Conklin, 638. Conklinu. Boyd, 599. Conklin v. Foster, 77. Conklin v. Parsons, 2. Connecticut v. Bradish, 8176. Connecticut v. Jackson, 356. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Scam- mon, 327, Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. ti. Skin- ner, 433. Conn. Mut. etc. Ins. Co. v. United States, 94. Connaughton v. Sands, 160. Connelly v. Doe, 812. Council V. Council, 819. Conner v. Bradley, 193. Conner v. Coflin, 7. Conner v. Hoffman, 562. Conner v. Lewis, 498. Conner v, Shephard, 74, 116. Conner v. Wliitmore, 319, 326, 329. Connery v. Brooke, 828. Connolly v. Goodwin, 808. Conover v. Hoffman, 562. ConoYor v. Porter, 789. Conover v. Van Water, 339. Conover v, Warren, 294. Conrad v. Druids Grand Grove, 861. Conrad v. Harrison, 376. Consolidated etc. Mining Co. v. Lebanon Mining Co., 7.S1. Constant « Am. Baptist etc. Society, 819. Constant v. Matterson, 517. Constant v. University of Rochester, 819. Converse v. Blumrick, 295a, 296. Conyeree v. Converse, 881. Converse v. Cook, 332. Conway v. Alexander, 302, 305, 306. Conway ». Cable, 765. Conway v. Deerfield, 741. Conwell V. Evill, 307, 308. Coogan V. Parker, 194. Cooghan v. Ockershausen, 662. Coogler V. Rogers, 251, 700, 714. 725, 731. Cook V. Allen, 261. Cook V. Babcock, 694, 695, 697, 698, 699. Cook V. Banker, 292. Cook 11. Bisbee, 386. Cook V. Brightly, 190, 321, 645. Cook V. Brown, 812, S13, 814, 815. Cook V. Champlain Transp. Co., 78. Cook V. Collyer, 307. Cookv. Cook, 69. Cook V. Couch, 37, 148. Cook V. Cooper, 6, 322, 361. Cook V. Ellington, 506. Cooki). Fish, 135. Cook V, Gerrard, 404. Cook V. Hammond, 145, 385, 387, 396. Cookt'. Husbands, 93. Cook V. Kraft, 292. Cook V. Loxby, 199. Cook V . McOhristian, 161. Cooks). McKinney, 695. Cook V. Moore, 796. Cook V. Neilson,214. Cook V. Prigden, 653. Cook V. Rounds, 326. Cook V. Sinnamon, 798. Cook V. Stearns, 661, 652, 653. Cook V. Travis, 817. Cook V. Trimble, 292. Cook V. Toumbs, 792. Cook V. Weaver, 875. Cook V. Whiting, 2, 842. Cook V. Winchester, 877. Cooke w. Hull, 617. Cooke V. Husbands, 469. Cooke V. Laxby, 199. Cookes V. Culberson, 307. Cookes Lessee v. Kill, 818. Cookes Appeal, 881. Cookson V. Richardson, 501. Cooley V. Dewey, 674. Coolidge V. Learned, 699. Coolidge V. Melvin, 757, 802. Coombs V. Anderson, 253. Coombs V. Jackson, 25. Coombs V. Jordan, 341. Coombs V. Parsons, 698. Coombs V. Unknown Persons, 262, Coombs V. Young, 115. CoontJ. Bean, 275. Coon V. Brecht, 278. Coon V. Brickett, 278. Coon V. Smith, 726. Cooper J). Adams, 213. Cooper V. Bigby, 817. Cooper V. Blakev, 817a. Cooper V. Cooper, 242, 245, 433, 512, 546. Cooper r. Crosby, 364. Cooper V. Davis, 71, 351. Cooper V. Foss, 332. Cooper t>. Fox, 25. Cooper r. Jackson, 813, 814. Cooper V. Laughlin, 359. Cooper V. McBride, 700. Cooner v. Merritt, 296 Cooper V. Newlaud, 329. Cooper tJ. Rankin, 805. Cooper u. Uelman, 330. Cooper V. Watson, 860. Cooper V. Whitney, 118, 468. xlix TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Cooperv. Wolf, 312. Oooperw. Wyatt, 183. Cooter V. Dearborn, 696, 697. Cope V. Cope, 374. Cope V. Meeks, 794. Cope V. Wheeler, 366, 367. CopelaDd v. Copelaud, 339, 726. Copeland v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 805. Copeland v. Stephens, 18:j. Copelaad v. Yoakum, 303, 352. Copley V. Kiddle, 746. Coppage V. Ale.xander'8 Heirs, 275. Coppinger v. Rice, 663. Corbet v. Laurens, 68. Corbet «. Slone, 397. Corbett«. Waterman, 332. Oorbin v. Cannon, 251, 254. Corbin v. Dale, 600. Corbin v. Healy, 60, 52, 829, 844. Carbin v, Jackson, 260. Corbit V. Smith, 792. Corby v. Corby, 38, 506. Corcoran v. Nailor, 613. Cord V, Hirsch, 359. Cordesii. Miller, 189. CJordeville v. Dawson, 8176. Cordon f. Sizer, 699. Core V Faupel, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700,714. Corey v. Dennis, 875. Corey v. Moore, 810. Corey v. Feople, 115. Corley v. Paxton, 252a. Corlies v. Hawland, 292, 293. Corliss V. Corliss, 816. Oornelison v. Browning, 873. Cornelius' Will, 876. Cornelius v. Ivans, 277. Cornelius w. Smith, 507. Cornell D.Hall, 303. Cornell v. Hilchings, 332. Cornell v. Jackson, 693, 850, 858, 861. Cornell v. Lamb, 25, 643. CornettD. Plurdy, 699. Corning Ex parte, 288. Corning v. Gould, 196, 196o, 605. Corning V. Smith, 361. Corning!). Troy Iron Co., 795, 831, 843. Cornish v. Frees, 161, 162, 730. ConiogD. Fuller, 343. Corpman v. Bacastow, 817a. Corriell v. Ham, 14ti, 168. Corrigan v. Trenton Co , 808. Corruthers v. JallifEe, 264. Cortelyen v. Hathaway, 324. Cortelyon v. Van Brunt, 834. Corwithe v. Grifflng, 261 . Costabadie w. Costabadie, 573. Oosteilo V. Edson, 699, 714. Costello V. Meade, 343. Coster II. Clark, 116, 118. Coster V. Bk. of Ga., 818. Costigan v. Gould, 812. Cothelli). Lang, 305. Cotter V. Layer, 673, 888. Cottee V. Richardson, 182. Cotterell v. Adams, 329, 330. Cotterell v. Dutton, 716, 716. Cotterell v. Long, 302, 303, 306, 307. Cotting V. Schermeshorn, 545. Cottinger v. Fletcher, 499. Cottle V. Young, 837. Cotton V. Blocker, 318. Cotton V. Ward, 867. 1 Cotts V. Simpson, 189. Couch V. Kastham, 37. Couch V. Gorhan, 638. Couch V. Stratton, 147. CouldingD. Bunster, 332. Coulters. Holland, 135. Coulter II. Kobertson, 442, 462. Coumlen v. Clerke, 417, 418. Council Bluffs Lodge v. Bollard's, 335. Coursey v. Davis, 402, 411, 412. Courand v. VoUmer, 808. Ciiusinsi'. Wall, 801. Coutcher v. Muir's Exr., 307. Cover V. Black, 817a, 8 IS. Covendale v. Aldrich, 576. Covey V. Porter, 700. fowden v. St. John, 6. Cowden's Estate, 371, 376. Cowdry v. Coit, 853, 854, 855. Cowdry v. Day, 308, 309. Cowell V. Lumley, 189, 194. Cowelli). Weston, 663. Cowen V. Alsop, 501. Cowfelt V. Bower, 292. Cowl V. Varnuin, 294. Cowles V. Cowlcs, 3'i7, 402. Cowles V. Kidder, 651. Cowley II. Wellcsley, 74. Cowlingr. Hlggmson, 608. Cowley V. Strader, 135. Cowman v. Hill, 118. Cox II. Buck, 543. Cox II. Clough, 617. Cox II. Edwards, 782. Oox II. Friedley. 833, 837. Cox II. Henry, 861. Oox«. Hoxie, 342. Cox V. Jagger, 115. Cox ti. James, 837, 842. Cox II. Ledward, 321. Cox V. Levison, 651. Cox V. Matthews, 618, 673. Cox II. McBurney, 245, 2.52. Cox II. McMullin, 260, 829a. Cox II. Milner, 817a. Cox II. Sims, 664. Cox II. Voght, 817. Cox II. Wayt, 810. Cox V. Wells, 794. Cox V. Wheeler, 336, 370, 379. Cox's Admr. v. Wood, 292. Coy V. Coy, 818. Covle II. Davis, 501. Coyler v. Finch, 289. Coyote, etc., Co. v. Ruble, 501. Cozens ii. Graham, 517. Cozzen's Will, 876. Cracken n. Jones, 699. Craddock v. Am. Freehold, etc., Co , 365. Cratfc II. Webster. 330. Crafts V. Crafts, 264, 310, 336, 335, 372. Crafts I-. Hibbard, 827. Craig V. Ambrose, 37. 401. Craig II. Goodman, 696. Craig I'. Hawkins, 831. Craig V. Leslie, 40S. Craig I'. Piorson, 809. Craig II. Secrist, SS2. Craig II. Tappin, 342, 747. Craig ti. Walthall, 147. Craig I'. Wellf, 843, Craighead ti. Givi'U, 885. Grain n. Brigham, 6a. Grain ii. McGoon, 333. TABLK OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Crain v. Wright, 37. Grainbaugli v. Kugler, 501. Cramer v. Burton, 827. Cramer v. CrumbanRh, 879. Cramer v. Hoose, 500. Cramer v. Oollenbaugh, 855. Crane v. Bonnell, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307. Crane v. Brigham, 5. Crane v. Caldwell, 284, 294. Crane v. Demlng, 310, 342. Crane v. March, 318, 330. Crane v. Palmer, 120, 124, 292. Crane v. Reeder, 795. 809. Crane v. Turner, 8176. Crane's Appeal, 401. Crane v. Waggoner, 160. Cranston i>. (Jrara, 366. Crary v. Goodman, 695. Crassen v, Swoveland, 303, 304, 305. Cravens v. Falconer, 877. Crawford v. Benholt, 818. Crawford v. Chapman, 190. Crawford v. Edwards, 332. Crawford v. Kirksey, 501. Crawford v. Mamford, 329, 359. Crawford v. Taylor, 326. Crawley v. Blackman, 400. Crawley v. Biggs, 294. Craycrof t v. Craycrof t, 885. Creath v. Dale, 163. Creech v Crocisett, 225. Oreekmur v. Creekmiir, 694, 695, 696, 698, 714. Creel v. Kirkham, 201. Cresap v. Cresap, 398, 564. Cresap v. Huston. 695. Cresinger v. Welch, 792, 793. Cressfleld v. Storr, 421, 422. . Cresson v. Miller, 795. Cresson v . Stout. 5, 5a. Crestw. Jack, 242, 254. Creveling v. Wesi End Iron Co., 191. Crews V. Threadgill, 305, 306. Crim V. Nelms, 163. Crippen v. Chappel, 336, 337. Crippeu v, Morrison, 5, 5a. Crippen v. Morse, 8, 29a, 260. Criscoe v. Hambrick, 262. Crisfield v. Storr, 397, 421, 860, 861. Crispen v. Hannavan, 697, 714. Crisweil v. Grumbling, 64, 275, 798. Crittendon v, Johnson, 119. Crittenden v. Woodruff, 122. Croade v. Ingraham, 115, 127. Crociieren v. Jaques, 508. Crockett v. Althouse, 199. Crockett v. Crockett, 69, 73, 74, 76. Crockett v. Maguire, 817. Croft V. Bunster, 832. Croft V. Croft, 878. Cromble v. Kosenbacb, 321. Oromic's Heirs v. Louisville Home Soc, 884. Crommelin v. Thiess, 182, 214. Crompe v Barrow, 570. Cromwell v. Bank of Pittsburg, 366. Cromwell «;. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 327. Cromwell v. Tate, 808. Cromwell v. Wooley, 878. Cronin v. Richardson, 839. Crocker v. Crooker, 359. Crocker v. Frazier, 318. Crooker v. Holmes, 310. Crooker v. Jewell, 329. Crop V. Norton, 506. Crosby v. Bradbury, 829. Crosby v. Crosby, 401. f Crosby v. HiUyer, 812. Crosby v. Houston, 368, 8176. Crosby v. Loop, 192, 193. Crosby v. Wadsworth, 799. Crosland v. Rogers, 602. Cross V. Carson, 277. Cross V. Morristowu, 837. Cross V. Noble, 853. Cross V. Robinson, 333. Cross V. State Bank, 789. Crossley v. Lightowler, 617. Crossman's Exr. 401. Crouch V. Puryear, 75. Crouch V. Wabash B. B. Co., 278. Crow V. Mark, 243. Crow V. Tinsiey, 318. Crow V. Vance, 294, 295, 330. Crowell V. Woodburry, 264. Crowley's Case, 161. Crowley v. Biggs, 294. Crowning v. Cox, 363. Croxhall v. Sherard, 49, 52, 397, 401, 434, 463, 605. Crozler v. Brag, 398, 539, 564. Crugeru. Halliday, 510. Cruger v. MoLaury, 277, 645. Crump V. Norwood, 116, 421, 422. Cruteheru. Crutcher, 879. Cubitt V. Porter, 620. Cudlip V. Rundall, 215. Cudworth v. Thompson, 542. Culbertson's Appeal, 494, 515. CuUen V. Motzer, 251, 254, 696. CuUen V. Sprigg, 272, 841. Cullwick V. Swindell, 5, 5a. Culteri;. Tuft, 843. Culver V. Rhodes, 697, 700. Culverhouse v. Worts, 201. Cumberland?;. Colrington, 374. Cumberland V. Graves, 504. Gumming v, Cumming, 371, 883. Cummings v. Bramhali, 885. Cummings v. Casslly, 789. Cummings v. Powell, 792. Cummings v. Wyman, 694. Cummings V. Woodruff, 808. Cunningham v. Ashley's Heirs, 747. Cunningham v. Bell, 500. Cunningharn v. Bill, 500. Cunningham v. Corey, 503. Cunningham v. Hawkins. 326. Cunningham v. Hoiton, 212, 217, 218. Cunningham v. Houlton , 212, 216, 217, 218. Cunningham v. Knight, 127. Cunningham v. Thornton, 827. Cunningham's Cases Lessee v. Bucking- ham, 818. ' Cunningham v. Thurlow, 561. Curt V.Lowell, 213. Curte V. Barren, 746. Currant V. Jags, 500. Currier v. Barker, 177. 218 Currier v, Earles, 216. Currier v. Gale, 333, 326, 701. Currier v. Perley, 214, 218. Currier v. Sutherland, 163. Currier v. Woodward, 161. Curry u. Sims, 544. Courtesy's Claims, 262. Curtin v. Patten, 793. Curtis V. Ayrault, 602. li TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Curtis V. Board of Education, 280. Curtis 17. Fllnn, 310. Curtis V. Fowler, 37, 401. Curtis D. Galvin,213. Curtis V. Gardner, SJS, Curtis V. Hobart, 137. Curtis V. Hoyt, 611. Curtis V. Kcesler, 599. Curtis V. LaGrando Water Co., 617, 700. Curtis V. Lcasia, 2. Curtis V. Leavitt, 808. Curtis V. Lyman, 338, 8176 Curtis j;. Miller, 197. Curtis V. Mundy, 818. Curtis V. Norton, 842. Curtis V. Poland, 254. Curtis V. liice, 434. Curtis V. Root, 318. Cusacls V. Tweedy, 813. Cushmgv. Aver, 371. Cashing V. Illake, 495. Cushing V. Hurd, 318, 818. Cushing V. Tliompson, 327. Cushman v, Blachard, 850. Cushman v. leather, 310, 311. Cushman v. Smith, 753. Cutler V. Davenport, 744. Cutler w. Cambridge, 697. Cutler V. Davenport, 873 Cutlers. Dickenson, 306, 307. Cutler V. Doughty, 542. Cutler V. James, S16a. Cutler II. Tufts, 843. Cutler V. Calllsou, 699.1 Cutler V. Cambridge, 697. Cutting V. Caster, 81. Cutts V. York Co., 312, 812, 813. Cuyler v. Bradt, 237. D. Dacoway v. Gait, 818. Dadmun v. Lamson, 318, 326, 715. Dagger i>. Taylor, 29-2. Daggett V. Eankiu, 302, 303, 339. Dagler's Will, 878. Daiiey v. Beck, 862. Dakinu. Allen, 216. , Dakin J). Allen, 216. Dalby^-. Pullen,66L Dale V. Shlveley, 8.i0, 861. Dale V. Thurlow, 809. Dale's •Will, 877. Dallam v. Dallam, 544. Daltou V. Angus, 618. Dalton V. Bowker, 861. Dalton V. D.alton, 69. Dalton V. Bust, 830. Daly V. Wise, 194. Damainville v. IMann, 182. Dame v. Dame, 2, 214. Dame v. Wingate, 79.1. Dameron v, Kskridgo, 363. Damon v. Damon, 891. Dana v. Binney, 335. Dana v. Coombs, 793. Dana v. Farrington, 364. Dana v. Jackson St. Wharf, 834. Dana t . Middlesex, 829. Dana '. Murray, 404, 575. Dana V. Nowhall, 7;iO. Dana v, Valentine, 622. lii Dand V. Kingscote,843. Danforth v. Beattie 802. Danlorth v. Smith, 138. Daniel v. Ball, 835. Daniel v. Sorrells, 818. Daniel V. Thompson, 543. Daniels v. Brown, 201. Daniels v. Cheshire, 833. Daniels v. Eiseniord, 311, 312. Daniels v. Pond, 2, 76, 212, 842. Daniels v. Thompson, 642. Danley I'. Hays, 830. Danne v. Trustees, 216. Danner v. Shissler, 671. Danzier v. Boyd, 839. Darby v. Anderson, 199. Darby v. Darby, 253. Darby v. Hays, 330. Darby v. Mayor, 744. Darcus v. Crump, 533. Darcy v. Askwith, 75, 76, 77. D'Arcy D.Blake, 117. D'Arcy V. Martyn, 173. Dargin v. Beeker, 818. Darlngton, Earl of, v. Pulteney, 673. Dark v. Johnston, 597, 651. Darley v. Darley, 8S9. Darling v. Chapman, 333. Darlington v. Painter. 605. Darrah v. Baird, 7. Darst V. Bates, 812. Darst V. Enlow, 699. Dart V. Dart, 727, 781, 800. Dartmouth College v. Clouffh, 1S2. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 636. Dashill V. Attorney-General, 499, 884. Dalesman's Appeal, 68. Daubenspeck v Piatt, 303, 305, 306. Daughaday v. Paine, 292, 29j, 819. Daughdrill v. Sweeney, 362. Daugherty v. McColgan, 355. Dave V Johnson, 561. Davenport v. Alston, 160. Davenport v. Coltman, 499. Davenport v. Farrar, 117. Davenport i>. Ins. Co., 327. Davenport v. Lamb, 868. Davenport v. Lamson, 608. Davenport v. Ledrmg, 700. Davenport «. Murrav, 292, 293. Davenport v. Tarpiri, 726. Davenport v. Tyrrel, 717. Davey v. Allen, 292. Davey v. Littlejohn, 817a. Davey v. Turner, 794. David V. David, 264. Davidge v. Chaney, 642. Davidson r. Bates, 401, 883. Davidson i: Beatty, 695. Davidson r. Cooper, "*). Davidson r. Cowan, 339. Davidson r. Davidson, 433. Davidson v. Davis, 159. D.ividson V. Foley, 499. Davidson v. Hulchins,401, 883. Davidson v. .Tohonnot. 754. Davidson v. Young, 726. Davies r. Bush, 561. Davles v. Davies, 8S3. Davies c. Myers, 66. Davies V. Otty, 607. Davies v. tipeed, 482, 643, 776. Davis r. Andrews, 161, 794. Davis r. Anderson, 322: TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Davis V. Bartholomew, 116, 127, 727. Davis r. Bean, 355. Diivis V. Bechstein, 332. Davis V. Bowman, 691, 700. Davis V. Brandon, 8U8. Davis V. Brocklebanii, 71. Davis V. Buffum, 176. Davis V. Buford'3 Exrs., 544. Davis V. Buvrell, 2, 23. Davis V. Burroughs, 896. Davis V. Ciiristian, 516. Davis V. Clarlie, 742, 42. Davis V. Cooper, 790. Davis V. Cornelius, 130. Davis V. Cross, 813. Davis V. Davis, 312, 883. Davis V. Eyton, 71, IbS. Davis V. Fox, 796. Davis V. Gilliam, 73, 74. Davis V. Handy, 2, 842. Davis V. Hayden, 800. Davis V. Hemingway, 360. Davis V. Hendricks, 893. Davis V. Hess, 840. Davis V. Higgins, 696, 810. Davis V. Judd, 808, 860. Davis V. Judge, 699. Davis «. Lamb, 292. Davis V. Lassiter, 325, 353. Davis V. Mason, 105, 106. Davis V. Maynard, 335. Davis V. Mayor, 634. Davis V. McGrew, 803. Davis V, Morris, 182. Davis V. Moss, 7. Davis V. Ney, S06. Davis V. Norton, 414. Davis V. Ownsby, 818. Davis f. Perley, 696. Davis V. Pierce, 321. Davis V. llainstord, 839, 841. Davis V, Kogers, 87S. Davis V. Reciistein, 332. Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Barnard, 792. Davis Sewing Machine Co. i/. Whitney, 164. Davis'v. Rock Creek Co., 501. Davis V. Smith, 194, 861. Davis V, Speed, 543. Davis V. Sawyer, 254. Davis V. Stonestreot, 302, 305, 306, 308. Davis V. Strowd, 696. Davis V. Paul, 885. Davis V. Thompson, 71, 212, 213. Davis V. Townsend, 63, 115, 130. Davis V. Walker, 135, 139. Davis V. Wetherell,337, 361, 50. Davis V. Williams, 415, 883. Davis V. Winn, 370. Davison's Appeal. Davison v. Johonnot, 754. Davison v, Ramsay, 759. I>avone v. Fanning, 365, 501. Dawson v. Clark, 499. Dawson V. Dawson, 818. Dawson v. Girard L. Ins. Co., 292. Dawson v. Morton, 117. Dawson v. Shirley, 806. Day V. Adams, 809, 827, 855. Day V. Allender, 611. Day V. Caton, 620. Day V. Cochrane, 106, 108, 109 Day V. Day, 879. Day V. Dunham, 303. Day V. Grifflih, 812. Day Kx parte, 886a. Day ti. Wilder, 714. Day V. Walden, 603, 605. Day v. Perkins, 4. Day V. Watson, 196. Dayton v, ?fewman, 813. Deadrick v. Armour, 564. Deakius v. Hollis, 878. Deal V. Palmer, 4. Dean v. Brown, 700. Dean v. Carr, 362. Dean v. Comstock, 216. Dean v. Dean, 292, 500, 507. Dean v. Brskine, 831. Dean v. Fuller, 809. ' Dean v. Gregory, 199, 200. Dean v. Mitotiell, 118. Dean v. O'Meara, 264. Dean v. Shelly, 8S9. Dean v. Tucker, 700. Deans v. Wilroxon, 714. Dearborn v. Dearborn, 311, 323. Dearborn v. Taylor, 329, 372. Deason v. Boyd, 793. Dearing v. Thomas, 163, 164. Dcaring v. Watklns, 339, 818. Dearman v. Dearman, 813. Dearer v. Parker, 318. Dearer v. Rice, 201. Deavitt v, Judevine, 371. Debou V. Lowen, 542. DebouD. Colfax, 71. DeBaun's Estate, 881. DeBruler v. Ferguson, 864. DeBruhl v. Mass, 292, 293, 294. DeOamp v. Hall, 885. DeChaumont v. Forsythe, 860. Decker v. Livingston, 192. Deolonet v. Borel, 600. Decouche v, Saretier, 700. Deedly v. Cadwell, 300. Deefendor v. Speaker, 610. Deems v. Phillips, 790. Deerfleld v. Arras, 687. Deering v, Adams, 504. Deery v. Cray, 7h8, 841. DeArguello v. Bours, 789. DeffeilE V. Pico, 163. DeForest v. Byrne, 190. DePorest v. Fulton Ins. Co., 327. DeForest v. Holum, 293, 293. DeFrance v. DeFrance. 305. 306. Deb'rance v. Johnson, 125. Deg V. Deg, .101. DeGraw v. Taylor, 696. DeGrey v. Richardson, 106. DeGroot v. McCotter, 358. DeGroots v. Wills, 887. DeHaro v. United States, 651. DeHaveni). Landell, 358, 30L Dellaven v. Musselman, 371. Delhi V. King, 542. Deibler v. Barwick, 292. Deinniger v. McConnell, 812. Dekeman v, Arnold, 810. DeLacy v. Tillman, 4. Delafleld v. Parrish, 879, 887. Delahay t>. Clements, 322, 363. Delahay v. McDonnell, 302. Delain v. Kernan, 307. Delaire v. Keenan. 306. DeLanoey v. Ganong, 197, 199, 200. liii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Delaney v. Root, 201, 799. Delaney v. Salina, 8S7. Delaney v. Walker, 607. Delanati. Wilde, 757. Belany v. Middleton, 401. Delaplaiue v. Cooke, 760. Delaplain v. Lewis, 359. Delashiiian v. Barry, 173. Delassus v. Poston, 292. Delanney V. Uurett, 747. De Laurengel v. Oe lioom, 607, 883. De La Verga v. Butler, 714. De La Verga v. League, 262. Delavergue v. Nome, 861. Delligers v. Appeal, 606. Delmonico v. Guillaume, 245, 246, 252. Deloney v. Walker; 667. Delouey v. Hutchinson, 237, 238, 246, 253. Deloney v. Mnlcher, 698, 699. Demarest v. Willard, 190, 192, 324. Demarest v. Wynkoop, 319, 326, 329, 363, 700. Demict v. Cuddilv, 325. Demill v. Rt-id, 415, 883. Demingj). Bullitt, 808. Demlngi). Colt, 245, 252. De Mott V. Benson, 310. Den V. Adams, 214. Den V. AUalne, 638, 542. Den V. Aweling. 563. Den V. Branson, 242, 245. Den V. Cook, 642. Den V. Crevelin, 663. Dent). Demarst, 106, 401, 433, 463. Den V. Dimon, 318, 337. Dent). Drake, 214,218. Den V. Edmonstou, 216. Den V. FarJee, 813. Den V. Flora, 673. Denti. Hanks, 782, 801. Den V. Hay, 793. Den V. Howell, 213. Den V. Hunt, 695, 697, 698. Den V. Johnson, 177. Den V. Jones, 671. Den V. Kinney, 74. Den V. Kip, 700. Den V. Manners, 530,'560. Den V. Mcintosh, 218. Den V. Mulford, 714. Den V. Partec, 815. Den V. Post, 182, 101. Den V. Puckey, 418. Deuj). Kuehn, 38. Den V. Rickman, S17a, 818. Den V. Schenck, 52. Den v. Sheareo, 795. Den V. Simickson, 694. Dent;. Small, 643. Den V. Smith, 666. Den V. Stockton, 322. Deu V. Spinning, 333. Den V. Troutman , 451, 613. Den v. TTrison, 671. Den u. Van Cleve, 890. Den V. Wheeler, 757. Den V. Wright, 322. Denham v. Holeman, 695, 697, 598, 714. Denmore v. S. F. K. R. Co. ti. School Dist.,812. DeNichoUs V. Saunders, ,324. Denn v. Cornell, 727. Dennett v. Atherton, 859. liv Dennett tr. Dennett, 52, 110, 396,122,433, 453, 424, 770, 792. Dennett v. Pass, 646. Dennett v. Penobscot Co., 216. Penningj) Kane, 501. Dennis v. Burritt, 8176, 888. Dennis v. McCagg, 451. Dennis t;. Omaha Bank, 161. Dennis V. Williams, 292. Dennis v. Wilson, 843. Dennlson v. Goehring, 495, 496, .'73. Denuisonv. Reed, 191. Denson v. Autrcy, 663. Denson v. Beasley, 881. Denson v. Mitchell, 564. Denny v. Allen, 617. Denny ». Steakly, 293. Denton v. Donnor, 601. Denton V. L^ddell, 598, 60L Denton v. Perry, 813. Dentler v. State, 761. DePere Co. v. Reynew, 226. DePeyster v. Michael. 275, 277. Depuiren v. Young, 696. Deputy V. Staplelord, 7a6. DePny v. Strong, 239. Derby v. Derby, 890. Derby, Earl of, v. Tavlor, 182. Derry Bank v. Webster, 812, 814. Derry v. Derry, 600, .'■01. Descarlett v. Dennett, 279. De.-.ilver, Matter of, 792. Desloge v. Pearce, 652. Desparcl v. Smith, 199. Despard v. Walbridge, 198, 199. Detwciler v. breckenkamp, 334. Detweiler v. Scbnltheis, 713. Denpree v. Deupree, 8S8. De Uprey v. De Uprey, 262. Deuster v. McCamus, 817. Deutzel v. Waldie, 752. Devacht v. Newsara, 199. De Vaughn v. McLeroy,401, 663. Devecman v. Shaw, 53S. De Venbell». Hamilton, 817o. De Vendal v. Malone, 818. Devenpeck v. Lambert, 611. Devacht t'. Newsam, 199. Devecmon v. Shaw, 148. Devin v. Eagleson, 339. Devin v. Hendorshott, 368, 860. Devin r. Hiines, 789. Devina v, Holmes, 813. Devinneyu. Reynolds, SO.'i. Devore v. Sunderland, 850, 860. Devoy v. Devoy, 500. Devyn v. Schaefer, 699, 715. Dewett V. Pierson, 196. Dewett V. Bellows, 605. Dewey v, Mayer, 501. Dewey v. Payne, 182. Dewey v. Van Dcusen, 319, 329, 360. De Witt V. KIdred, 49, 62. Dewitt V. Moulton. 338, S16a. Dewittu. San Francisco, 238. De Wolf V. Hayden, 850, Dexter v. Arnold, 32.i, 326, 329. Dexter v. Gardner, 883, 884. Dexter I'. Ilazen,653. Dexter v. Inches, 883. Dexter v. King, 189, 194. Dexter v. Manley, 187. Dexter v. Shcphard, 365, 8176. Dey V. Dunham, 303, 305. TABLE or CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Dey V. Dey, 501, 883. De Yam pert v. Brown, 336. Bias V. Merle, 352. Dibble «. Rogers, 7'iB. Dlbrellu Smith, 292, 293. Dick V. Jfawry, 329, 8:)y, 699. I lick r. Pitclrfora, 602, 503. Dickas'-n i'. ^Vlllianlfl, 321. Dickenson r. Canal Co., 615. Dickenr-oil v. Chase, 294, 295. Dickerman v. l.ash, 359. Dickcrson v. Small, 3fi4. J^ickcreon v. Tillinghast, 817o. Dickey v. Lvon, 601. Dickey r. W'cCullough, 191. Dickie t'. Thompson, 371. Dickie V. Carler, blT. Dickinf-on 2'. Hrown, 746. Dickinson v, IJrudeen, 696. Dickinson v. Canal Co., 615. Dickin-son v. Codwise, 501. Dickinsons. Davies,500. Dickinson v. Dickinson, 881. Dickinson V. G'enny, 818. Dickinson v. Goodepeed, 217. Dickinson v. Hoomes, 850,860. Dickinson v. Purvis, 865. Dickinson v. Williams, 242, 255, 321. Dickinson v. Worcester. 615. Dickson V. Desire, 8.59, 861. Dickson V. Todii, 359. Diefendorf v. Diefendorf, 801, 813, 814, 875. Diefendorf v. Speaker, 510. Diehl V. King, 542. Dientzcr v. liell, 163. Dietrich v. Noel, 694. Digge V. Jarman, 563. Digge's Case, 571. Digge's Lessee v. Jarman, 563. Digmanii. .\lcCollnm,8176. Dikeman v. Arnold, 812, 814. Dikes V. Millen, 686, 739, 814. Dills. I!ovven,792. Dill V. Wlsner, 647. Dillingham v. Brown, 696. Dillmanv. Crawford, 602. Dillon V. Byrne, 335. Dilworth v. Gusky, 37. Dilworth v. Mayfleld, 246, 253. Dlmick Co. V. Webber, 178. Dimon v. Dunn,817&. Dimond v. Billingsley, 124. Dimond v. Bostoek, 885. Dingley s. Buffum, 7, 176. Dingley v. Dingley, 402, 482. Dingman v. Kelly, 178. Dinsmore v, Matthews, 339. Diver V. Diver, 242. Divine V. Vinzant, 817. DiNfleld J). Newton, 329. Dixon V. Ahem. 172, 699. Dixon V. Baty, 199. Dixon V. Cook, 697, 693. Dixon V. Cuyler, .359. Dixon V. Dixon, 294, 295. Dixon V. Doe, 816, 816a. Dixon V. Lacost, 816. Dixon V. Nlccolls, 192, 201. ..^ixon V. Savitle, 117. Doane v. Badger, 244, 254, 605, 609, 610. Doane v. Doane, 66. Doane v. Lake, 888. Doane V. Willctttt, 728, 829. Dobbin V. Rex, 264. Dobbins v. Brown, 856. Dobson V. Land, 327. Dobson V, Racey, 365. Dockham v. Parker, 201. Docking u. Frazeli, 6. . Dodd V. Acklom, 198. Dodd V. liurchall, 597. Dodds. Holme, 618. Dodd V. Wakeman, 501. Dodd V. Winship, 401, 883. Dodges. Cole, 601. Dodge V. Dodge, 741. Dodge V. Evans, 292, 293. Dodge V. Hollinshead, 810. Dodge V, McOlintock, 662. Dodge V. Nichols, 794,831. Dodge V. Potter, 338. Dodge V. Stacy, 699 611. Dodge V. Walley, 827, 829. Dodson V. Ball, 434. Dortson V. Clark, 343. Doe V. Abernathy, 793. Doe s. Amey, 77. Doe V. Ashburner, 178, 179. Doe V. F'.aker, 214. Doe V. Bank of Cleveland, 818, 339 Doe V. Banthrop, 4i)4, 604. Doe s. Barnard, 714. Doe V, Barton, 326. Doe V, Bateman, 183. Doe s. Bates, 674. Doe V. Beardsley, 745, 817. Doe V. Beck, 278. Doe V. Bedford, 757. Doe V. Bell, 177. Doe V. Benjamin, 178, 179. Doe V. Boaiiolerk, 532, 637. Doe V. Bevan, 183. Doe V. Biggs, 468, 493. Doe V. Bird, 261, 254, 699. Doe V. Blacker, 805. Doe «. Bliss, 19L Doe V. Bond, 191. Doe V. Botts, 239, 240. Doe V. Brabant, 413. Doe V. Briggs, 468. Doe V. Britain, 659, 661. Doe V. Brown, 714. Doe V. Burlington, 72, 77. Doe V. Campbell, 697, 714. Doe V. Carieton, 533. Doe V. Carter, 183. Doe V. Chains, 415, 417, .537. Doe V. Chamberhtine, 216. Doe s. (Jharlton, 434. Doe V. Clark, 183. Doe V. Collier, 493, 494. Doe V. Collis, 434. Doe V. Considine, 396, 397, 402, 403, 411. 412,536. Doe V. Cooper, 417, 418. Doe V. Cox, 214. Doe V. David, 183. Doe V. Davies, 434. Doe V. Dixie & Davies, 215, 434, 604. Doe V. Deavors, 759. Doe V. Dixon, 173. Doe V. Douglass, 754. Doe V. Dowdall, 727, 736, 7.11, 855. Does. Dunbar, 218. Does. Eslava, 714. Doe V. Ewart, 462, 494, 504, 644. Doe s. Eyre, 665, 568. Iv TABLK OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Doe V. Field, 494, 535. Doe!). Finch, 662. Doe V. Foiinereau,434, 632, 536. Doe V. Ford, 897, 413. lJ"e r. Fridge, 798. Doe V. Gatacre, 419, 421, 422. Doe V. Gilbert, 669. Doe V. Gladwin, 27S. Doe V. GloTcr, 398. Doei;. Goldwin, 278. Doe V. Gwinuell, 135. Doe V,. Hales, 324. Doe V. Harvey, 434. Doe V. Hawks, 183. Doe V. Hazell, 218. Doe V. Henage, 532, 537. Doe V. HolQies, 401. Doe V. Homfray, 493, 468, 535. Doe J). Howells, 539, 540. Doe V. Howland, 242, 245. Doe V. Hull, 225, 226, 698. Doe V. Humphreys, 219. Doer. Hard, SOI, 802. Doe V. Insurance Co., 760. Doe V. Ironmonger, 434. Doe r. Jefferson, 700. Doe r. Jepson, 190, 191. Doe V. Jones, 199, 278. Doe V. Knight, 813, 814. ' Doe V. I.add, 504, 566. Doe V. Lavins, 663. Doe V. Lea, 401. Doe V. Lewis, 277, 564. Doe V. Locke, 843. Doev. Luxton, 61. Doe V. Lyde,546. Doe V. Maces, 71. Doe V. Martin, 464, 827. Doe V. Masters, 193,277. Doe V. Mcllvaine, 745. Doe V. MoKaeg, 213. Doe V. McLoskey, 310, 318, 329. Doe V. Moore, 401. Doe V. Morgan, 897, 530, 536. Doe V. Morphett, 218. Doew. Mnrrell, 199. Doe V. Naylor, 810. Doe V. Nichols, 462, 504. Doe V. Nowell, 401. Doe V. Oliver, 411. Doe V. Palmer, 219. Doe V, Passingham, 464, 494, Doe V. Patten, 37. Doe V. Paul, 193. Doe v. Peach, 567. Doe V. Peck, 278. Doe V. Pendleton, 322. Doe V. Perryn, 401, 402,403. Doe V. Phillips, 191. Doe V. Pitt, 197. Doei). Porter, 214,217. Doe V. Prettyman, 702, 816<& Doe V. Prigg, 401, 402. Doe V. Prince, 213. Doe V. ProToost, 401, 402. Doe V. Pukey, 417. Doe V. Hies, 199. . Doe V. Reynold, 199, 200. Doe V. Richards, 37. Doe V. Richardson, 37. Doe V. Rles, 178. Doe 1'. Kivers, 107. Doe V. Robinson, 61. Doe V. Rooke, 569. Ivi Doe 1'. Salkeld, 465. Doe V. Scarljorough, 530, 532, 536, 561 Doe V. Scott, 539, 885. Doe V. Scudamore, 107, 421, 422. Doe V. Selbey, 398, 415, 417, 537. Doe V. Sheffleld, 885. Doe V. Sheppard, 671. Doe V. Shippard, 414, 415. Doe V. Shotter, 563. Doe V. Smith, 218. Doe II. Smyth, 561, 882. Doe V. Stevenson, 398 Doe V. Thompson, 213, 714. Doe V. Tidbiiry, 199. Doe V. Timmins, 504- Doe V. Tunnall, 326. Doe V. Turner, 71, 671. Doe V. Underdown, SSo. Doe V. Vincent, 565, 569. Doe V. Walker, 174, 17.1. Doe V. "Watts, 214, 218. Doe». Webb, 404, 414. Doe V. 'Whittingham, 464. Doe V. Wilkinson, 218. Doer. Wilson, 69, 74. Doe V. Windlass, 193. Doei). AVing, 714, 713. Doe V. Wood, 215. Doe V. Woosley, 404. Doebler's Appeal, 4:M. Doherty v. Matsell, 199, 400. Dolbeardi>. Worduft, 363. Dole V. Hughes, 620. Dole V. Kewes, 883. Dol£e V. Van Nostrand, 538. Dollandi;. Roberts, 189. DoUman v, Harris, 163. Dolin V, Gardner, 817. Dominick v. Michael. 562. Donahue l\ McXichols, 544. Donahue's Estate, 663. Donahue v. Thompson, 699. Donalds r. Plumb, 512. DoualdsoQv. Wilson, 189. Donelson z\ Folk, ]82. Dongale v. Fryer, 728. Dongrey v. Tapping, 130. Donley v. Have, 330. DonuelU'. Clark, 593. Doiinell !•. Edward, 238. Donnelly V. Donnelly, 125. Donnelly I?. Jidelen, 647, 648. Dounels r. Edwards, 2o7. Doody r. Pierce, 333, 352, 333. Dooley V. SLriiighain, 77. Dooley r. Wolcott, 819. Doolitlle V. Cook, 817. Doolittle V. Eddy, 216, 654. Doolitlle V. Haltou, 756. Doolittle V. Lewis, 363, 559, 566. Doolittle V. Tice, 697. Dordge i'. Bowers, 214. Dorkr.iy r. Noble, 329. Dorr V. Ilarrahan, 280. Dorr V. school Dist., 697. Dorr i\ Lovering, 401, 417. Dorman v. liates Mfg. Co.,6U. Dorlingt'. Blanchard, 401. Dorrance v. Jones, 1S3. Dorrellc. Johnson. 214. Dorrow v. Kelley, 339. Dorsey V. Dashiell, 852. Dorsey v. Dorse\ , 3.o8. Dorsey v. Eagle, 71. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Borsey v. Hall, 818. Borsey v. St. Louis, etc., 862. Dorsey v. Smith, 66. Dorsey v. Warfleld, 878, Doswell V. De La Lanza, 714. Dothard v. Denson, 691, 695, 700. Dott V. Cunnington, 433. Dotterer v. Pike, 501. Doty V, Burdicli, 228. Doty V. Mitciiell, 93, 469. Doagherty v. McColgan, 310. Dougherty v. Van Nosirand, 501. Doughty V. Owen, 45. Douglas V. Congreve, 434, 494. 515. Douglas V. Shumway. 10. Douglass V. Bishop, 334. Douglass V. Bruce, 50Q. Douglas V. Cliiie, 324. Douglass V. Crager, 494, 515. Douglass V. Dickson, 122, 123. Douglass V. Daren, 319. Douglass V. Durin, 329. Douglass V. Scott, 724, 728, 731. Douglass V. Sharp, 564. Douglass V. Wiggins, 77, Douijrey r. Tipping, 130. Doupe V. Gerrin, 189. DouLhitt V. 1-lipp, 359. Dow /'. Du\v, 115. Dow V. Gould, 8(J6. Dow V. Jewell, 260, 500, 790, 794. Uow r, MclCenney, G99. Dowtl V. Tucker, 501. Dowel 1 V. Dew, 573. Dowell V. Henning9,599, 620. Dowling V. lieber, 401. 404. Downer v. Clement, 359. Downer v. Fox, 359. 370. Downer v. Smith, 851, 861. Downer v. Wilson, 334, 337. Downer V. Grazebrook, 365, 501, 512. Downes v. Jennings, 501. Downes v. Turner, 278. Downing v, Marshall, 469, 470. 8S1, 885. Downing v. Palmateer, 341, ;!bi. Downing v. Wherrin, 540, 541, 642. Doyle V. Doyle, 885. Doyle V. Howard, 364. Doyle V. Mullady, 542. Doyle V. Peerless Per. Co., 731, 817. Doyle V. Stevens, 8176, 81^. Doyle V. White, 310. Doyley v. Attorney General, 511. Uozier v. Gregory, 77. Drake v. Ramsey, 793. Drake f. Rout, 322. Drakei?. AVells, 10, 77L Drane v. Gregory, 260. Drane v. Gunter, 510. Draper v. Bryson, 817a. Draper v. Jackson, 242, 245. Draper v. Shoot, 697. Drayton v. Grimke, 566. Drayton v. Marshall, 326, 362. Dresser v. Dresser, 506. Drentzcr v. Bell , 103, 802, Drew V. Clark, 875. Drewr. lMorrill.326. DrewtJ. Rust, 373. Drew V. Swift, 830, 831, 838, 839. Druu'v. Towle,854. Drew V. Wakefield, 884. Drey V. Doyle, 218, 226. Dreyfus v. Hirt, 192. Drinan v. Nichols, 364. Diinkwater v. Drinkwater, 192. Drinkwater v. Moreman, 292. Drown v. Smith, 73, 74, 777. Druid Park Co. v. Dittinger, 508. Drum V. Simpson, 500. Drummond v. Drummond, 544. Drummond v. Gant, 326. Drummond v. Richards, 310. Druryu. Clark, 359. 1 )rury v. Drury, 146. Dvury v. Foster, 789. Drury v. Maunders, 699. Drury V. Tremont, 332, 801. Dubois V, Beaver, 9, 620. Dubois V. Kelly, 4, 6, 7, 176. Dubois V. Marshall, 694. Dubois V.Ray, 542. Dubose V. Young, 818. Dubs V. Dubs, 105. 108, 117, 469. Dubuque v. Malouey, 837. Dubuque R. R. Co. v. Litchfield, 144. Duchess of Kingstone'sOase, 731. Duck V. Sherman, 318. Ducker v. Belt, 359. Ducland v. Rousseau, 322. Dudden v. Guardians, 615. Dudley V, Bertren, 336, 337. Dudley tJ.Cadwell, 330, Dudley Canal v. Grazebrook, 617. Dudley V. Davenport, 136. Dudley u. Dickerson,294. Dudley V. Guardians, 615. Dudley z\ Hurst, 4. Dudley u. iMailock,292. Dudley v. Suainer, 824- Dudley Canal Co. v. Grazeb'-n"\, (il7. Diidlow r. N, Y. & Harlem It. u., 27S. Dutf r. \Vilsnn,199. Dulfii.'ldi;. Datfield,401. DulUcld i\ Hue, 278,829. Dumeld r. Morrows, 881. Dutty V. Calvert, 516. Dutfy V. N. Y'., etc., R. R. 862. Duify y. Willis, 164. Diifouru. Peretra, 886a. Dugan V. Hollins, 265. Dugger V. Taylor, 292. Duhringr. Duhring, 116. Duke V. Balm, 292. Duke V. Dykes, 875. Duke V. Harper, 199, 200, 213, 699. Dukes V. Spangler, 813. Dulanyu. Middleton, 402. Dull's Estate, 564. Dumey v. Schaeffer, 275. Dummerslon v. Newlane, 115. Dumont v. Dumont, 881. Dumont v. Kellogg, 614. Dumpas v. Svramons, 184. Bumper's Case, 184, 191, 278. Dunbar v. Starkey, 318. Duncan V. Am., etc.. Ins., 'Co., 818. Duncan V. Central Fas. R. R. Co., 603. Duncan v. Dick, 140. Duncan -y. Drury, 321. Duncan v. Duncan, 148, 890. Duncan v. Forrer, 237, 238. Duncan v, Hodges, 789. Duncan v. Jandon, 501. Duncan v. Lafferty, 670. Duncan v. Moore, 163. Duncan v. Sylvester, 338, 260, 263, 829a. Duncan v. bmith, 321. Iv II TABLE OI* CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Diuict V. Kent, 516. Duncklee v. Webber, 187. DuDCOmb V. 1 :uncomb, 116. Duncome v. Felt, Ti. Dunrlas v. Bowles, 328. Bundas v. Hitc.kcock, 794. Dunham V. Osbora, 116, 121, 135, 145, 335, 388. Buiiham v. Railway Co., 312. Dunham v. Williams, 837. Dunkleej). Adams, 279, 311,312. Duak.ee v. Wilton R. K. Co., 601, 828 Dunkley V. Van Buren, 3(j3. Dunlap V. Burnett, '.^92. 817a. Dualapii. liaugherty, 700. Dunlap w. Dunlap,8b7. Dunlapu. Stetson, 833. Dunlap V. Wilson, 334. Dunlapv. Uichards, 501. Dunn I). Bank of Mobile, 533. Dann v. Bryan, 74. Dunnu. Cartwright, 173. Dunn V. Gaines, 79S. Dunn V. Keeling, 563. Dunn V. iSIerriwcther, 757. Dunu V. Baley, 302, 303. Dunn». Rodgers, 332. Dunn V. Rothermel, 177. Dunn V. ~\\ hite, 853. Dunne v. Trustee, etc., 215. Dunning?;. Dean Nat. Bank. 367. Dunning v. Ocean Nat Bank, 509, 5(16. Dunphy v. Sullivan, 713. Dunscorab v. Duiiscomb, 105, 106. Dunseth r. Bank of U. States, 135. Dunshee v. Paririelee,335. Dunton V. Brown, 792, 793. Dunwoodle ;;. Reed. 415, 417, 53' Dupon V. Walden, 715. Dnppac. Wayo, 277, 646. Dnquois V.Hull, 295ff. Duran I n. Isaacs, 322. Durando v. Durando, 116, 388 Durante. Davis. 292. 294. Durante. Ritchie, 794. Durel V. Boisblane, 597, 613. Duren r. I'resLerry. 831, 832. Durcn v. Sinclair, 714. Burette «. Briggs, 293. Durfee v. Pavitt, 600. Durham V. Angler, 115, 131. Durham v. Heirs of Dangherty Durham v. Townsend, 699. Durland v. Seiber, 164. Durr V. Howard, 796. Durrett v. Whiting, 361. Durruty V. Musacchia, 264. Dustin V. Cowdry, 228. Dutton V. Ives, 321, 332. Dultou V. Rust, 840. Button V. Warschauer, 322. Duty V. Graham, 310. Duval V. Bible, 292, 779. DUV.-11 i;.Marshall,600. Duval V. Mculoskey, 322, 323. Dwlghtw. Cutler,216. Dwight V. Eastman, 402. DwinelH'. Bliss, 812. Dwlnnell v. Perley, 330. Dyer v. City of St. Paul, 618. Dyer r. Clark, 116. Dyer v. Cook, 162. Dyer v. Dyer, 600. 501. Dyer v. Depin, 605. Iviii Dyer v. Martin, 292. Dyer v. Ives Co.. 327. Dyer v. Sanlord, 605, 613, 653, 643. Dyer v. .Shirtlief , 365. Dyer v. Toothaker, 333. Dyerv. Wightman, 191. Dyers i'. Ins. Co., 327. Dvett u. North American Coal Co., 93, "469. DyeLt V. Pendleton, 196, 196ffl. Dyke's Estate, 573. Dyson V. Bradshaw, 814. E. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Sent, 361, 793. Eagle, etc., Co. v. Banks, 695. Eames v, Hardin, 305. Earle V. Earle, SU6. Earle v. Fisk, 816, 817. Earle v. Wood, 881. Earnhart v. Earnhart, 434. East V. Garrett, 52, 538. Eastahrook v. Hapgood, 66. Easter c. S. .M. B. R., 862. Easterly v. Kenny, 502, 503. Eastern R. v. Allen, 697. East Haven v. Hemingwav, 833, 834. Eastman v. Batchelder, 311, 312, 332. Eastman v. Foster, 330. Eastman v. St. Anthony, etc., Co., 827. East Omaha LanlCo. v. Jelfries,6S6. Eaton V. Eaton, 792, 793. Eaton V. Green, 30.5, 306, 307. Eaton V. Knowles, 332. Eaton V. Lyman, 861. Eaton V. Simmonds, 117, 318, 321, 326, 355, 373. Eaton ti. Smith, 827. Eaton V. Straw, 63S, .539, 542. Eaton V. Tallniadge, 326. Eaton V. Whiting, 301, 308. Eaves v. EsLc^, 6a. Eberle v. Fisher, 115. Ebert v. Gerding, 337. Eberts v. Fi.sher, 262. Ebey v. Eboy, 132. Ebney v. Universali.st Gen. Conv., 8S4 Ebner v. Goundle, 818. Ebrand v. Dancer, 500. Echoles V. Hubbard, 695. Echols t'. Cheney, 805. Eckerson r. Crip'pen, ,599. Eckmau v. Eckman, 776, 797 Edder v. Burrus, 834. Eddie II Slimmons, 796. Eddys? Baldwin, 500. Eddy V. Chace, 605. Eddy V. St. Mars, 700. Eddowes v. Eddowes, 533. Edelen v. Hardy, 877. Edgar r. Stevenson, 604. Edge V. Stafford, 329. Edge». Worthington,288. Edgell V. Stanford, 32:1. Edgerton v. Bird, 696, 698. Edgerton v. Jones, SIO. Edgert'>n v. Mcliea, 352. Edgerton v. Page, 196, 196a. Edgerton v. Wolt, 792. Edgerton v. Toung, 321, 330, 362 Edinger v. Heiser, 499. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Eainfcton v. Harper, 302, 303, 305. Edminster V. Higgms, 818. < Edmonds v. Crenshaw, 513. EUmondson v. Welsh, 3(55. Kdrington v. Harper, 302, 304, 806. Edsell?;. Buchanan, 326. Edson V. Munsell, 715. Edwarda, Ex parte, 288, 2S9. Edwards iJ. Bibb, 542. Edwards v. Edwards, 29.5(i, 296, 500. Edwards v. Hall, 225, 226. Edwards v. Mcniaiig,593. Edwards v. McKern'an, 312. Edwards v. Parkhurst, 795. Edwards v. Pope, 7.52. Edwards v. Eovs, 795. Edwards v. Slater, 560, 561. Edwarda v. Smith, 875. Edwards v. Thorn, 335, 810, 816«. Edwards v. Tramble, 287, 289, 290, 292, 8175. Edwards v. TJniversitv, 700. Edwards v. Varick. 530. Bffluger V. Lewis, 695. Bge V. Medlar, 695, 696. Eserton v. Brownlow,445, 483, 484, 495. Ehlew. Brown, 817a. Ehrenberg, Inheritance of, 879 Ehrmaa v. Hnskin3,883. Eidson v. Huff, 817a, Eifert v. Reed, 696. Eitel V. Foote, 761. Ekey v. Inge, 698. Ela V. Card, 794. Ela V. Edwardi, 877. Elam V. Parkhill, 68, 400. Elder v. Eeed, 128. Eldem. Elel, 128. Elder v. Eobbins, 117. Elder D. Reuse, 310. Eldowes V. Eldowes, 633. EldredgB v. Forrestiil, 116, 388 Eldridge v. Eldridge, 401, 888 Eldridge v. Smith, 312. Elf V. Cole, 322. Eliotson v. Teetham, 622. Elisii. Toualey, 817a. Elkins V. Carsey, 401. Elkins v. Edwards, 310, 326. Ellcock V. Mapp, 499. Ellen V. Ellen, 714, 715. Elllcott V. Ellicntl, 667, 668. Ellicott V. Moshier, 139, 140. Elllcott V. Pearl, 696, 697. Ellicott V. Welch, 124, 292. EUinger v. Crowl, 501. Elliottson V. Feeth,am, 622. Elliott V. Aiken, 1S9, 196, 198 Elliott V. Brent, 878. Elliott ?). Davis, 758. Elliott V. Dycke, 695, 697. Elliott V. Eddins, 760. Elliott V. Fitchborg E. E., 614. Elliott V. Fisher, 418, 468. Elliott?;. Maxwell, 305, 308. Elliott V. Northeastern E. K., 616, 617, 618. Elliott V. Patton, 352. Elliott V. Pearce, 794. Elliott V. Ehett, 605. Elliott V. Sleeper, 335, 794, 807. Elliott V. Smith, 199. Elliott V. .stone, 213, 214. Elliott V. Turner, 279. Elliott V. Wilson, 672. Elliott V. Wood, 364, 365, Elliott V. Wright, 4. Ellis V. Davis, 360. Ellis V. Diddy, 130. Ellis v. Duncan, 615. . Ellis i;.E'.li3, 140. E1I13 27. Hatfield, 674. Ellis «. llUBsev, 322. Ellis ti. Kinyoii,310. Ellis D. Leek, 358. Ellis V. Messervie, 332. Ellis r. Piiigo,213. Ellis «;. Temple, 292. Ellis v. Young, 819. Ellison V. Daniels, 300, 301, 318, 829. Ellison V. Ellison, 573. Ellison V. Wilson, 816. Ells V. Mo. Piic. E. E., 814. Ellsworth V. Central E. E. Co., 812 Ellswori h V. Cook, 106. Ellsworth V. Lorkwood, 364. , Elmendorf I). Carmichaid, 744 Elmendorf i;. Taylor, 700. Elmer v. Loper, 355. Elmore v. Marks, SI2, 813. Elsey V. Metcalf, 812, 813. Elstoa V. Chamberlain, 305. Elston V. Jasper, 791. Elwell V. Burnsides, 243, 254. Elwell V. Hinckley, 700. Elwell V. Shaw, 805, 808.' Elwesii. MavveJ6,48D. Elwoodi). Blaffk, 794. Elwoodu. Kloch, 124, 127, 145, 385, 896. Ely V. Kly, 295a, 296, 3'>7, 7'.«1. Ely«. Schofleld, 340,816,817. Ely V. McGuire, 32i. Elyj>. Wilcox, 816a, 817, 8176,818. Emansti. Turnbiil, 63.), 687. Emanuel College v. Kvans, 279. Emanuel v. Hunt, 330. Embree v. E;iis, 142, 143. Embree v. Owen, 614, 617. Embury v. Conner, 817. Emerson V. Atwater, 307. Emerson v, I'.uropean, etc., R. R.,312. Emerson v. Fish, 651. Emerson v. Mooney, 843. Emerson V. Proprietors, etc., 856. Emerson v. Simpson, 273, 373, 8b3. Emery v. Chase, 773, 7S2. Emery v. Owiogs, 310. Emison v. Risque, 292, 295a. Emmert v. Hays, 664. Emmons v. Murrv, 792. 793. Emmons v. Scudder, 225. Emmons v. Sowder, 361, Enders v. Tascoe, 506. Enfield v. Day, 695, 699. Enckingv. Simmons, 364. English V. Carney, 330, 368, English V. Lane, 302, 303. English i>. Ouster, 251. Engli.sh V. Russell, 292. English I' Wap!e3,818. Ennls V. Harmony Ins. Co., 327 Enot>. Dicchio, 618, 619, 620. Enos V. Sutherland, 303, 352. Ensign 1). Colburn, 351. Ensminger v. Davis, 798, 834. Ensmlugeru. People, 834, 835. Epleyi). With row, 818. Erickson v. Jones, 7. lix TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Erickson v, Willard, 506. Equitable Lite Ins. Co. v. Bo»twick, 332. lirskine v. Townsend, 298, 298, 312, 322, 333. Ervine'9 Appeal, 7.34. Erwin v. Fcrgeson, 3.59, 360. Erwin V. Olnistead, 2S1, 2.M, 697. Esclicrv. yimmoDa, 292,2:13. Esdou V. Col burn, 201. Eshlngr. VVllliarns, 599. Eskndge v. McOlare, 292, 291, 295. 295a, 296. Eslana v. Le Petre, 859. Eslava V. Farmer, 664. Esmond v. Tarbor, 832. Essex Co. v. Atkins, 469. Estabrook v. Smith, 332, S55, S58, 361. Bstep V. Estep, 189. Estep V. Hutchnian, 7.54. Esterbrook v. Tlllinghast, 499. Estes V. Eedscy, 228. Estes V. Long, 700. Esterlyi". Pardy.SlO. Esty V. Baker, 213, 829, 830. Esty I'. Clark,665. Esty V. Currier, 2, 842. Etheridgei;. Vernov. 359, S60. Etowah, etc., Min. Co. v. Parker, 696. Eustace V. Scawen, 238, Ens ton v. Friday, 335. Evangelical, etc., Home v. Buffalo Hydraulic Assn., 605. Evans v. Beaver, 613. Evans ». Brittain, 240, 241. Evans V. Chew, 509, 666. Evans v. Dana, 601. Evans t'. Elliott, 324. Evans v. Evans, 104,129. Evans v. Gale, 796, 797. Evans «. Gibbs, 815. Evans v. Goodlet, 292. Evans V. Huffman, 326. Evans v. Inijlehart, 70. Evans v, Jaynes, 620. Evans v. Kimball, 321. Evans v. King, 495, 604. Evans v. McGlcsson, 871a. Evans v. Miller, 726. Evans v. Norris, 311,312. Evans v. Pike, 361. Evans v. Pierson, 148. Evans v. Roberts, 757, 799. Evans s;. Smith, 880, 886a. Evans v. Summerlin, 794, Evans V. "VVebb, 11.5. Evans' Appeals, 887. Evansviile v. Page, 839. Everett t'. Stone, 817a. Evers v. Challis, 544. Everson v. McMuUin, 117. Eversole v. Early, 8.55. Everts v. Agnes, 813, 815. Everts v. Beach, 243, 25.5. Evertson v. Booth, 330, 376. Evittsj). I{oth,696. Ewlng V. Burnet, 694, 697, 827. Evving V. Shropshire, 52. Ewmg V, Savory, 795. Bwingji. Smith, 93, 469. Ewing V. Winters, 40X. Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Ins, Co., 327, Exeter v. Odlorne, 467, 542, .562. ' Executors of Lord v. Carbon Iron IMfa Co., 671. Eyer u. Beck, 883. Eyrick v. Hotrick, 502, 510. Eyris V. H' trick, 608, 510. Eyster v. Hathaway, 810. Eyster v. Gaff, 322. F. Fabens v. Fabens, 883. Faber v. Palin, 04, 486, 770, 771. Fahr v. Dean, 632. Fahrney V. Hilsin2:en,842. Fair V. Brown, 326. Fair V. Stevenat, 819. Fairbank v. Cudworth, 351. Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 812, 815. Fairchild v. Chastelleux, 90,242, 245. Fairchild v. Crane, 542. Fairchild v. Marshall, 148. Fairlittlet!. Gilbert, 727. Fairman v. Bavin, 601. Fairman v. Beal, 664, 696. Fahoney v, Holsiuger, 542. Falesii. Fales, 262, Fallas V. Pierce, 8175. Falls V. Conway Ins. Co., 309, Falls V. County Sutter, 634, Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Brooks, 696. Falls V. Eels, 837. Fallon V. Chidester, 252. l''ancher v. Montagre, 829, Fanning v. Kerr, 363, Fanning i>. Wilcox, 714. Fanshaw's Case, 793. Farabawv. Green, 273, Farlee v. Farlee, 813. Farley v. Craig, 192, 644, 646, Farley v. Parker, 792. l-'arley v. Parker, 392. Farley u. Thomson, 386, Farmer v. Curtis, 352, 359. Farmer v. Grove, 307, Farmer v. Peterson, 765, 795, Farmers Bank v. Bronson, 326, 338, Farmers Bank v. Corder, 242. Farmers Bank u. Glenn, 861. Farmer's Estate, 545. Farmer's Fire Ins. Co. v. Edwards. 333. Farmer's Loan Co, v. Carroll, 461. Farmer's Loan Co, r. Hendrlckeon, 2. Farmer's L. & T. Co. v. Maltby, 731, 817, 8176. Fariner's Loan Co. v. Hughes, 368, 609. Farnam v. Brooks, 501, Farnani v. Farnam, 402, 417. Farnell r. Llovd, 500. Farnham v. Cicmeuts, 501. Farnum v. Hefneir. Farnum v. Peterson, 795. Farnsworth v. Taylor. Farnswonh v. W. U. Tel. Co., G Farquarson v. Eichelberger, 462, 604. Farr v. Doxtater, 310. Farri). Gilreath, 495. Farr V. Smith, 242, 234. Farr 1'. Sumner, 792. Farrand v. Petit, 644. Farrantr, Lowell, 325, Fa rrar v. Avres, SS3. Farrar v. Ciiauffetete, 5, 5n,7o7 larrar v. Farrar, 842. Farrar v. Fessenden, 696, S16a TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. T'arrar v. I-Ielnrlch. 695. Farrar v. Staokpole, 81-2. FarreU v. Enrlght, GtiS. Farrell v. I'arlier, 361. Fanieri). NewEng. Mortg.,eto.,Oo.,319, 810. Farringtou v. Barr, 443, 496. Farrington v. Batidy, 600. Farringtou 4). Duval, 500. Farringtou v. Kimball, 182 Farria v. Houston, 85S. Farris v. Dudley, 616. Farria v. Rogers, 275, I Farvish v. Coon, 700. Farrowv. Kdmundson, 21S Farrow «. Ins. Co., 327. Farsou v, Goodaie, 219. Farwell v. Ootting, 117. Favwellii. Rogers, 795. Fash V. Blake, 781. Fash V. Ravesios, 817a, Fassettv. omith, 336. Fathered'. Fatheree, 671. Fatheree v. Lawrence, 877. Faught V. Hal way, 697, 699. Faulkner «. Adams, 813, 813. Faulkuer v. Breekentarough, 322, 333. Fausen's Appeal, 888. Faustv. Birner, 512, 545. Fawcetti;. Kinney, 741. Fawoettu. Whitehouae, 601 Faxen v. Falyev, 507. Fay V. Brewer, 78, 400. Fay V. Petitioner, 634. Fay V. Cheney, 117, 299. Fay V. Fay, 563 . Fay V. Muzzy, 3, 6, 843. Fay V. Richardson, 813. Fay V. Sylvester, 401. Fay V. Taf t, 468, 498. Fay V. Wood, 728. Bayei). Bk. ot 111., 310. Fears v. Brooks, 92, 93, 469. Feary v. Booth, 93. Feather v. Strohecker, 265. Febeiger v. Craighead, 318. Fee V. Taylor, 881. Feger v. Kuper, 557. Feinster v. Johnston, 5a; Feloh V. Hooper, 49!i. Feloh V. Taylor, 182, 318. Felder v. Murphy, 359. Felds V. Duncan, 161. Fell V. Young, 816, 816a. Fellman's Admr. & Landis, 875 Fellows V, Bunn, 144. Fellows V, Smith, 501. Fellows V. Tana, 460. Felton V. Pitman, S17, 818. Fenu V. Halme, 746. Fenby V.Johnson, 404. Fenne v. Sayre, 817. ,Fena«. Smart, 277. Fenner v. Finker, 364. Fentimanti. Smith, 651,653. Fenton v, Montgomery, 189, Fenton v. Steere, 262. Fenwiok v. Floyd, 788. Ferbishu. Goodwin, 322. Ferebee v. Proctor, 563. Ferguson v. Bull, 793. Ferguson v. Glassford, 342. Ferguson v. Hedges, 883. Ferguson v. Pedea, 693. Ferguson «. Thomasaon, 875. Ferguson v. Tweedy, 107. Ferguson v. Wetsell, 601. Feruald v. LIncott, 318. Fernbacher v. Fernbacher, 564. Ferrace v. Kent, 201. Ferrel v. 'Woodward, 636. Ferrett v. Taylor, 849a. Ferrer v, Kenney, 213. Ferris i>. Carver, 725. Ferris v. Cooler, 760, 830, 831, 841. ' Ferris V.Crawford, 310. Ferris v. Ferris, SOU, 3u9. Ferris v. Gibson, 638. Ferris v. Harshea, 855. Ferris v. Irving, 805. Ferris v. Van Vechten, 501, 647. Fersouv. Dodge, 5:J8. Fery v. Pleiffer, 818. Fessendon v. Taf t, 310. Fetrow v. Merriweaiher, 358, 795, 801. Fetters v. Humphreys, 597, 601, 602. Fetteplace v. Gorges, 469. Fewbold v. Glenn, 275. Fewell V. Kessler,336. Fichtner v Fichtuer's Assignee, 137 Field V. Boynton, 696. Field V. Howell, 175. Field V. Jackson , 81. Field V. Mills, 183. Field V. Stagg, 789. Field V. Swan, 324. Fielder v. Darien, 307. Field's Appeal, 877. Fields V. Watson, 434, 542. Fields V. WhltUeld, 533. Fifleld V. Sperry, 361. ' Fifty Associates v. Grace, 198. Fifty As^iociates v. Howland, 193, 281. Fightmaster v. Beasley, 243, 254. Filbert v. Hoff, 251, 255. Filchrist v. Stevenson, 510, Filley v. Beglster, 501. Filliter v. Phlppard, 78. Filman v. Divers, 601. Filson V. Filson, 878. Finch V. Finch, 500. Finch' w. Hull, 647. Finch V. Winchester, 339. Finch's (Sir Moyle) Case, 708 Flndlay v- Smith, 74, 75, 116. Fink's Appeal, 115. Fink V. Fink, 884. Finlay v. Cook, 697. Finlay v. King's Lessee, 273, 276. Finley v. Simpson, 831. Finley v. V. H. Bank, 339. Finnegan V. Prindevillc, 162. Finney v. Earl of Winchelsea, 817a. Finney v. St. Louis, 225. Fiquet v. Allison, 201 Firebough v. Ward, 817a. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 815. Firestone J). Firestone, 11-2. First Natl. Bk. v. Brlggs, 163. First Natl. Bk. v. Caldwell, 290. First Natl. Bk. v. Gage, 334. First Natl. Bk. v. Hayzlett, 339, 817n. FirstNatl. Bk. v. Hillingsworth, 161. First Natl. Bk. v. Honeymau, 331, 340, 817. . First Parish v. Cole, 461. Fisohbeck v. Gross, 601. Fischer v. Laack, 609. Ixi TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Fish r. Howland, 292, 293, 294. Fisher v. Heckwith, 812. Fishei- V. Cowles, 343, 810. Fisher v, Deering, 190. Fisher v. Dcmerson, 259. Fisher v. Ediugton, 702. Fisher II. Fields, 37, 467, 493, 504, 606, 607. Fi.shcr v. Fisher, 443. Fisher V. Grimes, 116. Fisher v. Hall, 812. Fishery. Jansen, 189. Fisher v. .Johnson, 292, 294, 295 •Fishery. Laach, 843. Fisher ti. Llghthall, 189. Fisher v. Morgan, 143. Fisher V. iVlossman, 310. Fisher v. Otis, 310, 330, 333. Flslier V. Provine, 242, 245. Fishers. Saiilh,837. Fisher v. Taylor, 502, 503. Fisher v. Tannard, 8176. Fisher's Appeal, 307, 601. Fisk V. Eastman, 116, 388. risk V. Fisk, 312. Fisk V. Potter, 292. risk V. Stulibs, 796. Fiske V. Fiske, .311. Fiske V. Tolman, 332. Fitch V. Haldwin, 850, 851. Fitch D. Bunch, 814. Fitch V. Casey, 760. Fitch V. Cothoal, 336, 337. Fitchburg Cotton Co. v. Melvin, 67, 195, 196, 196a, 324 Fitcher v. Anthony, 605. Fithian v. Monks, 332. Pitts V. Beardsley, 329. Fitts V. Hall, 792. Fitz V. Smallbrook, 562. Fitzgerald^. Barker, 332. Fitzgerald v. Eeed, 793. Fitzhnghr. Barnard, 816, 819. Fitzhugh V. Crogan, 809, 850, 860. Filzhugh V. Wilcox, 791. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzgerald, 513. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrlck, 883. Flacks V. Kelly, 370. Flaggi). Bean, 110. Flagg V. Earaes, 844. Flagg V. Flagg, 323, 753. Flagg V. Maun, 262, 259, 302, 305, 306, 307, 310, 507. Flagg V. Thurston, 831, 839. Flaherty v, McOormick, 694, 695. Flau:igan v. Philadelphia, 835. Flanagan v. Westcott, 331. Flanders v. I>amphear, 311, 312. Flanders v. Parker, 311. Flanders u. Thompson, 501. Flaylor v. Malloy, 339. Fleet V. Darland, 60. Fleming v. Burgln, 818. Flnuuery's Will, 876. Fleming v. Griswold, 216, 715. Fleming v. Powell, 808. Fletcher v. Chase, 321, 334, 370 Fletcher v. Fletcher, 47. Fletchers. Holmes, 359.725. Fletcher v. Mansur, 790, 812. Fletcher v. McFarlane, 186. Fletcher v. Pock, 745, 746. Fletcher v. Severs, 668, 808. Fletcher v. State Bank, 853. Fleshner v. Sumpter, 818. Ixii Flinn V. Barber, 292, 293, 295, Flinn r. Davis, 398. Flinn V. Owen, 877. Flinn 1'. Powers, 793. Flint J). Clinton, 510. Flint r. Sheldon, 303, 310. Flint V. Steadman, 4,34. Flood V. Yanders, 808. Fliutham's Appeal, 564. Florence v, Hopkins, 262. Flitch V. Seymour, «00. Florentine v. Barton, 755. Flora V. Carbean, 599. Flower v. Elwood, 366. Floyd V. Barker, 883. Floyd V. Floyd, 218, 889. Floyd V. Mosier, 163, 164. Floyer v. Lavington, 316. Flnke v. Fluke, 563. Flynn v. Williams, 855. Flynt V. Arnold, 817, 8176, 818. Flynt V. Hubbard, 500. Fogarty v. Sawyer, 323, 818. Foley V. Oowgill, 815. Foley V. Harrison, 745. Foley V. Howard, 797. Foley V. Wyeth, 618. Foley's Will, 506. Folk V. Varn, 803, 812, 814. Follett V. Grant, 850. FoUett V. Heath, 310. Follett V. Eose, 808. Folley V. Vantuyl, 813. Folly V. Vantuyd, 813. Folmy V. Palmer, 355. Folsom V. Carli, 159, 160,161. Folsora V. Lewis, 189. Folsom V, Snishauer, 740. Folts V. Huntley, 195. Fonda v. Jones, 293. Fonda v. Sage, 277, 741, 812, 814. Fonnereau v, Fonnereau, .537. Fontaine v. Boatmen's &av. Inst. 812. Fontaine v. Eavenals, 8S4. Foos V. Crisp, 841. Foos V. Whitmore, 506. Foote V. Burnet, 8.)2, 881. Foote V. Cincinnati, 195. Foote V. Oolvin, 2, 201, 501, 503, 503, 799, 842. Foote V. Gooch, 59. Foot V. 'New Haven & Northampton Co., 651, 652, 653. Forbes v. Calenseifer, 651 Forbes v. Hall, 746. Forbes v. Moffat, 321. Forbes v. Smiley, 216. Forbes V. Smith, 105. Ford V. Cobb, 0, 400. Ford V. Cook, 543. Ford r. Erskine, 139. Ford V. Fellows, 725, 726. Ford v. Flint, 434, 844. Ford V. Ford, 544, 887. Ford V. Gregory, 812. Ford V. Holmes, 700. Ford V. James, 813. Ford V, Johnson, 37, 47. Ford 1'. Knapp, 254. Ford u.Philpot, 355. Ford p. Smith, 292, 295ffi, 296. Ford r. Walsworth, 860. Ford V. Whlilock, 652. Ford V. Wilson, 697, 717. TABLE or CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Tordick v. Gooding, UO. Fordyoe v. Hlcka, 163. rordyce v. Willis, 507. Fordeyer v. Willis, 507. Forepatiglx v. Appoid, 818. Forlimf V. Bowlia, 324. Formau v. Troup, 542. Forman's Will, 881, 887. Farres v. Falgonst, 611. Forrest v. Trammel, 122. Forse v. Hembling, 888. Forsliawii. Hijgans, 510. Forster v. Hale, 507. Forsyliie v. Ballance, 746. Forsytti v. Forsyth, 277, 564. Forsytlie v. Price, 70. Fort V. BurcU, 818. Fort V. Fort, 875. Forth V. Chapman, 542, 543, 544. Forth V. Dake o( Norfolk, 318, 502, 503. ForthergUl v. Forthergill, 573. Fortraaa v. Ruggles, 761. Fort Plain Bridge v. Smith, 636. Fortune v. Buck, 878. Forward v. Deeis, 254. Fosher v. Guilliams, 148. Foster v. Browning, 651, 653. Foster ». City of Buffalo, 603, 609. Foster v. Dennison, 782. Foster v. Dwinel, 119. Foster T. Equitable Ins. Co., 327. Foster V. Foster, 60S, 853, 861. Foster v. Hickox, 359. Foster v. Hilliard, 68, 337, 373. Fosters. Joice,37. Foster V. Lelaud, 164. Foster v. Mansfleld, 814, 815. Foster V. Marshall, 65. Foster v. McGregor, 163. Foster v. McKenna, 434, 883. Foster v. Potter, 366. Foster v. Prentiss, 4. ^ Foster v. Reid, 182. Foster V. Robinson, 70, 71. Foster v. Roche, 261. Foster V. Vale, 507. Foster v. VaA Reed, 327. roster's Appeal, 818. Foster's Will, 148, 564. Fouche V. Wilson, 292, 293. Foulke V. Bond, 697, 700. Fountain Co., etc., v. Bnckleheimer, 137. Fountain©. Heudley, 160. Fountain v. Raven el, 884. Fowler v. Bowery Saving Bank, 507. Fowler «. Bush, 335, Fowler v. Depan, 544. Fowler V. Heirs of Rust, 292. Fowler v. Ingersoll. 544. Fowler v. Palmer. .327. Fowler v. Poling, 855. Fowler v. Shearer, 127, 794. Fowler v. Trewhitt, 667, 670. Fowler's Estate, 161. . owley V. Palmer, 327, 353. Fox V. Harding, 318. Fox V. Heffner, 305. Fox V. Mackreth, 501. Fo.x V. Porter, 544. Fox V. Pratt, 366. Fox V. Swann, 184. Fox V. Turtle, 761. Fox V. Union Sugar Co., 841. Fox V. Wharton, 358. Foxcraft v. Banner, 795. Foxwell V. Slaughter, 339. Frailv. Ellis, 292,293. Frailev v. Waters, 605. Forakes v. Elliott, 251. Framptou v. Bliiine, 648. France v. Armbuster, 361. Francestown v. Deenng, 500. Francie's Appeal, 601. Francis v. Wcls, 292. Franciscus ». Reigart, 462, 464. Frank v. Frank, 271, 434. Frank v. Pickle, 310. Franklin v. Ayer, 307, 352. Franklin v. Brown, 196. Franklin v. Gorham, 334. Franklin Land Co. v. SVea. Gas, etc., Co., 163. Franklin v. McEntyre, 500. Franklin v. Merida, 199. Franklin v. Osgood, 3(i8, 511, 513, 563, 66& Franklin v. Palmer, 199. Franklin v. Talmadge, 798. Franklin, The Lady, 883. Franks v. Chapman, 877- Fransen's Appeal, 888. Frary v. Booth, 469, 794. FraserB. Childe, 501. Eraser v. Dieteu, 883. Frazee v. Inslce, 321. Frazier v. Bamum, 502, 503. Frazier v. Brown, 615, Frazier v. Brownlow, 93, 469. Frazier v. Frazier, 885. Frazier's Estate, 876. Frear v. Doinker, 326. Frederick v. Gray, 251. 254. Frederick's Appeal, 875. Freeby v. Tupper, 318. Freed v. Brown, 792. Freedman v. Goodwin, 745. Freeman v. Jfaldwin, 303, 804. Freeman v. Burnham, 501. Freeman v. Cooke, 513. Freeman v. Foster, 853, 858. Freeman v. Headley, 216. Freeman v. Parsley, 568. Freeman v. Scofleld, 360. Freeman v. Schroeder, 339. Freeman v. Wilson, 305,307. Frier v. Stotenbur, 176. Freke v. Carberry, 873. French v. Barron, 355. French v. Burns 307. French v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 605 French v. Crosby, 138. French v. French, 780. French v. Fuller, 217. French v. Marstin, 605, 608. French v. Mehan,242, 246. French v. Patterson, 760. French v. Pearce, 695, 696, 697, 698. French j>. Pratt, 134. French v. Rollins, 110, 696. French v. Spencer, 727. French v. Turner, 330. French v. Sturdivant, 303, 305 French v. Williams, 608. Frew V. Clark, 875, 878. Frey v. Clitford, 818. Frey v. Lawdin, 604. Frey v. Vanderhoof, 337. Freytag«. Harland, 325, 357. Friedlander v. Johnson, 601. l.xiii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keterences are to Sections, J'rledley v. Hamilton, 803, 305, 330, 8176. Frier'l v. Friend, 830, 838. Trink v, Bellis, 852. Frlnk v. Brauch, 310. Frlnk v. Darst, 730. Frink v. Hampden Ins. Co., 327. Frink v. Leroy, 322, 326. Frink v. Eoe, 805. Frisbic v, Batcman, 324. Frisbic v. Mustce, 163. Frisbio V. Whitney, 7'17. Frisclio V, Cramer, 322. FrliscJio V. Fritsclie, 611. Fritscli V. Klansing, 562. Fritli V. Baldwin, 851. Frontin v. Small, 859. Frost V. Beeckman, 338, 812, 815, 8175. Frost V. Deering, 794, 805, 807. Frost V. Frost, 101. Frost V, Metliodist, etc.. Miss. Soc. 738. Frost V Peacock, 117. Frost V. Raymond, 850. Frost V. Spauldlng, 831, 839. Frost V. Sliaw, 331. Frothingliam v. McKusick, 82, 357. Fry V. Scott, 120, 239. Fry V. Vanaerhoof, 336. Fry's Will, 877. , Frye v. Bank of Illinois, 342. Fngate v. Pierce, 695, 697, 698, 714. Pugate V. Pina, 695, 696. Fulir V. Dean, 228, 600, 651, 652. FuUam v. Stearns, 5, 5a. Fullenwider v. Watson, 506. Fuller, Ex parte, 881, 883. Fuller V. Chamier, 434. Fuller V. Hodgdon, 326. Fuller, In re, 881. Puller V. Ruby, 194, 196, I96a Fuller V. Storey, 882. Fuller v. Sweet, 199. Fulmer's Appeal, 255, Fulton V. Norton, 5. Fulton V. Stuart, 182. Pulton V. Whitney, 501. Fulwood's Case, SCO. Funk V. Oreswell, 770, 849, 852, 855, 858, 859. Punk V. Eggloaton, 540, 570. Funk V, Kincaid, 199. Funk V. McReynolds, 330, 336, 370. Funk V. Vonoida, 852, 858, 859,861. Punkhonsert'. Langkopt, 593. Funb'sLessce v. Kincaid, 199. Furbish v. Goodwin, 322, 329, 333. Furbish v. Sears, 311. Furguson v. T\Yecdv, 107. Furlong v. Garrett, 696, 698, 700, 714. Furlong V. Leary, 214. Purman v. Fisher, 508. Furnas v. Durgin, 332. Furuess v. Fox, 401. Furness v. Williams, 851. Furrh V. Winston, 829a. FuBselman v. Worthington, 200, 213. Fussey v. White, 401. G. Gabbert v. Wallace, 332. Gadberry v. Sheppard, 273, 274, 375. Gadsden v. Whaley, 506 Ixiv Gaerrei-s v. Baillone, fiOl. Gaffee's Trusts, 461. GalBold D. Hapgood, 6. Gaffney v. Peeler, 101, 728. Gafford v. Strouse, 698. Gage V. Brewster, 359, 362, 855. Gage V. Barnes, 843. Gage V. Gage, 663, 875. Gage V. Jenkins, 332. Gage V. School District, 275. Gage V. Smith, 715. Gage V. Stafford, 360. Gage V. Ward, 123, 124. Gage r. AVheeler, 163. Games v, Broekerhoff, 305. Gaines v. Gaines. 887. Gaines v, Saunders, 696. Gaines v. Walker, 359. Gaionv. Williams, 506. Galbraith v. Engleke, 827. Galbralth v. Fleming, 138. Galbraith v. Gedge, 246, 2B2. Gale V. Coburn, 777. Gale V. Edwards, 192, 853. Gale V. Nixon, 185, 646. Gale V. Price, 122. Gale V. Ward, 5, 5a. Galkill V. Gratt, 371. Gallagher v. Kilkeary, 877. Gallaghers. Mars, 292. Gallagher v. ReiUy, 218. Galland v. Jackman, 790, 819. Gallego V. Alty.-Gen., 884. Gallier v. Moss, 320,46:. Gallipot V. Maulone, 746. Galloway v. Bonesteel, 603. Galloway v. Carter, 53S. Galloway v. Finley, 292, 756. Galpm V. Paige, 758. Galsii. Wilhite, 884. Gait v. Galloway, 746. Gait V. Jackson, 305, 306. <5alveston v. Menard, 834. Galveston R. R. v. Cowdrey, 312. Galveston, etc., R. E. Co. v. Stealy, 798. Galway v. Mulchow, 817a, 818. Gamble v. McOlure, 859. Games v. States, 760, 798. Gammon v. Freeman, 122. Gann v. Chester, 292, 295. Gannon v. Hagadon, 615. Garabaldi v. Shattuck, 727, 731, 739. Garaty v. Dubose, 160. Garcia v. Collender, 305. Garcia v. Perea, 879. Gardenville, etc., Assn. v. Walker, 647, 648. Gardner v. Bering, 69. Gardner v. Fnrey, 242. Gardiner v. Gardiner, 887o!. Gardiner v. Green, 116, 388. Gardiner v. James, ^6. Gardiner v. Miles, 130. Gardiner v. Miller, 715, 716. Gardiner v. Ogdcn, 501. Gardner v. Astor, 321. Gardner v. Douglass, 162. Gardner v. Hooper, 401. Gardner v. Gardner, 469, 612, 805, 807. Gardner i'. Gooch, 696. Gardner v. Keteltas, 174, 196. Gardner Mfg. Co. r. Herald, 10, 260. Gardner v. Niles, 852. Gardner v. Pace, 663, 80O. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Gardt v. Brown, 827. Gardener v. Heartt, 351. Garetty v. Bithiine, 699. Garetty v. Taunton, 599. Garfield v. Hatmaker, 469, 470 Garfield v. Williams, 860. Garland v. Crow, 66, 67, 146. Garland v. Eiclieson, 330. Garland v. Watts, 5S8, 54,2. Garland v. Wynn, 747. Garllngton v. Copeland, 714. Garnans v. Watt, 542. Garner v. Garner, 495. Garner v. Jones, 240, 242. Garnons v. Knight, 813. Garnsey v. Munday, 495. Garnsey v. Rogers, 332. Garrard v. Tnck, 215. Garrard, Estate of, 888. Garrett v. Cheshire, 162. Garrett V. Jackson, 599. Garrett r. Mops, 794. Garrett v. PacJvett, 332, 360. Garrett v. Backntt, 332, 360. Garrett v. Eamsey, 695, 697. Garrett v. White, 700. Garrison v. Monaghan, 163, Garrison v. Sanford, 852. Garritt v. Sharp, 605, 608. Garson v. Green, 292, 293. / Garth v. Townsend, 673. Gartsido v. Ontley, 324. Garvin v. Garvin, 699. Garwood v. Garwood, 817o. Gascolgne v. Thwing, 500. Gaskell v. Viqnesney, 361. Gass V. Wllhite, 884. Gassett v. Gront, SOi. Gason v. Donaldson, 700. Gates V. Adams, 371. Gates V, Green, 194. Gatenby v. Morgan, S44. Ganger v. Skinner, 792. Gankler v. Moran, 37, 433. Ganlt V. McGrath, 335. Gause v. Chester, 292. Gaven v. Allen, 532, 564. Gavin v. Sherman, 760. Gavit V. Chambers, 835. Gay V. Boston & Albany E. E. Co., < Gay V. Bithune, 694. Gayford v. Nlcholls, 618. Gaylec. Price, 122. Gaylord's Appeal, 877. Gaylord v. Dodge, 115. Gaylord ». Knapp, 292, 293. Gaylord v. Eespass, 700. Gaze V. Hoyt, 801. Gear v. Burnham, 2. Geary v. Porter, 725. Gee V. Bolton, 818. Gee V. Gee, 500. Gee V. Moore, 855, 858. Gee V. Young, 70. Geer v. Hamlin, 145, 383, 385, 396. Geiss V. Odenheimer, 812. Geissman i). Wolf, 813. Gelbke v. Gelbke, 890. Gelston v. Burr, 323. Gelston v, Thompson, 353. German v. Machin, 251, 254. Genobles v. West, 120. Genter v. Morrison, 810. Genther v. Fuller, 760. Gentleman v. Soule, 611. Genter v. Morrison, 810, 812. Gooag V. Morgan, 433. George v. Baker, 319. George v. Kent, 8176. George v. Morgan, 433. George v. Putney, 199. George v. Wood, 326, 817. George's Creek Coal Co. v. Detmold, 81, 823. Georgia Chemical Works v. Cartledge, 321 337. Gerald v. Gerald, 829. Gerber v. Grubel, 602, 613. Gerdine v. Mendge, 332, 337, 370. Gcrham v. Erdman, 697. German Assn. v. Scholler, 798. German Ins. Co. v. Grim, 795. Gernett v. Lynn, 715. Gerrard v. Crooks, 600. Gerrish v. Black, 352, 355, 367 Gerrish v. Brown, 614. Gerrish v. Clough, 616. Gerrish v. Hill, 161. Gerry v. Stimpson, 443. Gest V. Packwood, 302. Getson v, Thompson, 332. Ghegan v. Young, 186. Ghiselin v. Terguson, 292. Gibert v. Peteler, 277. Gibbens v. Glbbens, 401. Gibbes v. Jenkins, 501. Gibblnsii. Shepard, 398. Gibbon v. Eller, 189. Gibbons v. Dillingham, 2. Glbbs V. Marsh, 60S, 666, 674. Gibbs V. Penney, 305, 306, 307. Gibbs V. Eoss, 190, 192. Glbbs V. Swift, 243, 810. 829a;. Gibert v. Peteler, 277, 600. Gibson v. Chouteau, 730. Gibson V. Orehore, 66, 321, 325, 332, 334, 337, 353, 369, 373, 374, 730, 859. Gibson V. Decius, 601. Gibson V. Eller, 189, 302, 305, 306. Gibson v. Parley, 663. Gibson v. Foote, 496, 500, 507. Gibson v. Gibson, 127. Gibson v. clones, 364. Gibson v, McCormick, 374. Gibson v, Minet, 782. Gibson v. Montford. 467, 504. Gibson V, Seymour, 539. Gibson v. Sliearer, 795. Gibson V. Soper, 792. Gibson v. Zimmerman, 242, 245. Gibson v. Eastman, 501. Giddings v. Seevers, 327. Gifflns Estate, 434. GifEord v. Corrigan, 333, 813. Giddings v. Turgeon, 878. Gilbert 1!. Anthony, 789. Gilbert v. Bulkley, 741. Gilbert v. Dyneley, 365. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 878. Gilbert v. Knox, 877. Gilbert v. N. A. Ins. Co., 812, 815. Gilbert©. Penn,312. Gilbert «. Peteler, 817, 8176. Gilbert v. Wiman, 852. Gilbert v. Witty, 404. Gilbertson v. Eichards, 462. Gilchrist v. Boswlck, 252, 307. Gilchrist v. Stevenson, 510. Ixv TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Giles V. Analow, 398. Giles V. Baremore, 326, 358. Giles V. Com stock, 196a. Giles V. Ebsworth, 199, Giles V. Pratt, 824. Giles V. Simonds, 653, 799. Gilford Hosiery Co. v. Pitman Mfg. Co., 617. Gill V. BromTer, 310. Gill V. Faufltleroy, 251, 818. Gill «. Logan, 434, 603, 505. Gills. Lyon, 371. Gill V. Middleton, 189. Gill's Will, 878. Gillan v. Hutchinson, 753. Gillespie v. Bailey, 793, 793. Gillespie ». Jo 11 es, 697, 698. Gillespie v. Wilier, 546. Gillespie V. Somerville, 117. Gillespie v. Thomas, 195. Gilletti). Balcom, 358. Gilley w. Pinney, 310. Gillham v. Muslin, 875. Gilligf. Maass, 339. Gills v. Brown, 116. GillSiJ. Harris, 875. Gills V. Martin, 305, 306, 307, 355 Gills V. Nelson, 603. Gillison v. R. R. Co., 700. Gilman v. Brown, 292, 294. Gilman v. Gilman, 255. Gilman v. Haven. 855. Gilman v. HI. & Miss. Tel. Co., 323, 324, 362. Gilman v. Moody, 310. Gilman v. Morrill, 240, 241. Gilman w. Willis, 3>6. Gilmer v. Limepoint, 753. Gilmorer. Driscoll, 618. Gllmore v. Whitcsides, 813. Gilmore's Estate, 159. Gilpin V. Adams, 192. Gilpin V. Hollingsworth, 241, 244. Gllson V. Gilson, 302, 304, 305. Giraud v. Hughes, 686. Glvan V. Doe, 329, 776, 783, 816. Givan v. Tout, 329. •Givenss. McCalmont, 74, 325. Glvens v. Owens, 262. Gladding v. Warner, 356. Gladney v. Bartln, 700. Gladwyn v. Hitchman, 358. Glasscock D. Glasscock's Admr., 292, 808. Glasscock v. Robards, 216. Glass «. Ellison, 318. Glass V. Hulbert, 307, 827. Glazebrook's Admr. v. Raglaud's Admr. 818. Gleason v. Smith, 855. Gleespiei's Will, 781. Glenn v. Bank of N. S. 127. Glenn v. Davis, 818. Glldden v. Andrew, 3?4. Glidden v, Bennett, 5. Glidden r. B'odgett, 399. Gliddenti. Hunt, 8176. Glidden v. Strupler, 726, 794. Glide V. Dwyer, 361. Glisconn. Hill, 307. Gloi Inger v. Franklin Coal Co., 2, 10. Gloucester v. Beach, 599. Glover v. Payn, 310. Glover v. Powell, 835. Glover v. Reld, 398, 564. Ixvi Glover v. Stillson, 239, 564. Glover v. Thomas, 731. Gluckv. Elkan,278. Gobb 1). Hamp.shire, etc.. Canal, 600 Gohle'8 Will, 883. Godard v. S. C. Railroad, 214, 218. Godardt). Chase, 5, 5a, 757. Goddard v. Armory, 883. Goddard v. Brown, 513. Goddardi>.Go'ldard, 538,539. Goddard v. Pomeroy, 884. Goddard v. Prentice, 817a. Goddard v. Sawyer, 328. Goddard v. Whitney, 538. Goddard'3 Case, 811, 812. Godefroy v. Disbrow, 818. Godfreys. Humphrey, 37. Goebels. Wolf, 401. Goolets. McManns, 8176. Goelott V. Gori, 242. Goerlitz v. Malawesta, 401. Goeway v. Urig, 695, 760. Going V. Emery, 884. Goldlngu. Golding, 875. Goldsmids. Tunbiidgewells, 617. Goldtree v. Thompson, 401, 545. Golson V. Hook, 696. Gomez v. Tradesman's Bank, 506. Gonhenant v. Cockrell, 164. Gooch V. Atkins, 115. Good V. Combs, 260, 829a. Good V. Zercher, 751. Goodale v. Tnttle, 615. Gooaall v. McLean, 396. Goodalls. Mopley, 360. Goodall's Case, 299. Goodburn v. Stevens, 116, 146, 374. Goode V. Comfort, 368. Goodere v. Lloyd, 499. Goodlot V. Smithson, 746. Goodlet V. Hensell, 808. Goodlittle v. Tombs, 171. Goodman v. Beacham, 730. Goodman u.Cin. &C. C. R. R.,358. Goodman v. Han. & St. Joe. E. R. 2. Goodman v. Kine, 351. Goodman v. Nichols, 696. Goodman v. White, 332, 334, 359, 361. Goodpasters. Leathers, 273, 815. Goodrich v. Jones, 2, 5, 799, 842. Goodrich v. Lambert, 433. Goodrich v. Staples, 359. Goodright v. Cator, 277, 561. Goodright v. Cordwent, 219. Goodright v. Cornish, 630, 533, 536. Goodright «. Dunn ham, 415,417, 537. Goodright s. Straphan, 794. Goodrnm v. Goodrum, 93. Goodsell V. Bates, 805. GoodseUti. Sullivan, 818. Goodson V. Beacham, 730. Goodspeed v. Fuller, 801. Goodtitle i\ Billington, 418, 482, 419 Goodtitle v. Holdfast, 279. Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 834. Goodtitle v. Otway, 664. Goodtitle v. Tombs, 171. Goodtitle v. M'hitby, 401. Goodwin V. Cloudman, 81S. Goodwin v. Gilbert, 185, 310, 616, 646. Goodwin v. Goodwin, 116, 700. Goodwin D. Richardson, 245, 246, 252 "53 322,326. Goodwin V. Sawyer, 697. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Goodwin v. Thompson, 835. Goodwright v. Dunham, 415, 537. Gordon v. Avery, 312, 332. Gordon «. Bell, 292. Gordon v. Bulkley, 805. Gordon v. Dickinson, 122, 128 Gordon v. George, 190. Gordon v. Gordon, 638. Gordons. Haywood, 794. Gordon v, Hazzard, 330. Gordon v. Hobart, 325. Gordon v. Ins. Co., 327. Gordon v. Jackson, 839. Gordon v. Lee, 359. Gordon v. Lewis, 825. 332, 365, 366. Gordon v. Overton, 663. Gordon v. Sizer, 694, 699, 790. Gordon v. Small, 700. Gordon v. Tweedy, 696. Gordon v. Ware Savings Bnnk, 327. Gordon v. Whleldon. 243, 251. Gore V. Brazier, 135, 267. Gore V. Faupel, 695. Gore V. Gore, 482, 630, 636. Gore V, Jennison, 351. Gore V. Townsend, 372, 374. Gorham v. Arnold, 322. Gorham v. Betts, 404. Gorham v. Daniels, 469. Gorin v. Gordon, 560, 574. Goring ». Shreve, 318. Gorsuch V. Ru Hedge, 178. Goss V. Froman, 128. Goss V. Singleton, 610. Gothard ». Flynn, 290. Gott V. Cook, 468, 494. Gottii. Gandy, 189, Gott V. Powell, 758. Gonchenonr v. Mowry, 731, 817. Goudte V. Johnson, 562. Goudy V. Goudy, 863. Gouhenant v. Cockrell, 163. Gonid V. Barnes, 798. Gould V. Boston Duck Co., 614. Gould t>. Howe, 843. Gould V. Lamb, 37, 504. Gould V. Lvnde, 443. Gould V. Mansfield, 886, 886a. Gould V. Marsh, 332. Gould V. Newman, 329. Gould V. O'Keden. 501. Gould V. School District, 172. Gould V. Thompson, 215, 216. Goulding V. Bunstir, 3S2, 336. Gourley v. Woodbury, 264, 397. Gove V. Learoyd, 443. Govier v. Hancock, 128. Governeur v. Titus, 817«. Goweu V. Phlla. Exch. Co., 654. Gowen v. Shaw, 242, 255. Gower v. Andrews, 601. Gower v. Doheny, 817o. Gower i>. Howe, ESO. Gowern. Winchester, 310. Grobill V. Barr, 876. Graces;. Hale, 792. Grace v. Mercer, 318. Grace v. Wade, S17a. Grady ». McCorkle.lSO. Graff®. Fitch, 799. Grafton Bank v. Foster, 335. Grafton v. Grafton, 694. Grafton V. Moir, 604. Gragg V. mchardson, 860. Graham ti. Anderson, 810. Graham v. Bleakie, 361. Graham v. Carter, 359. Graham v. Crockett, 160. Graham v. Davidson,, 513. Graham v, Houghtaling, 402. Graham v. Graham, 877. Graham v. McCampbell, 294, 295. Graham v. Newman, 329, 330. Graham v. OTallon, 878. Graham v. Samuel, 816a. Graham v. Way, 182. Gram v. Seton, 805. Cranberry v. Granberry, 365. Grandin v. Anderson , 8176. Grandin v. Carter, 18-2. Grand Tower, etc., Co. v. Gill, 251, 262, 699, 731, 798, 843. Granger v. Brown, 218. Grangers. Swart, 795. Grant v. Bissett, 339, 341. Grant v. Chase, 698, 601, 602. Giant D.Duane, 334. Grant v. Fowler, 694, 699, 717. Grant v. Whitwell, 646, 646. Grant V. Jackson, 127. Grant v. Townsh end, 104. Granham v. Hawlej^, 70. Grapengetheru. Fejerrary, 292. Grattan v. Wiggins, 322, 330, 360, 861. Gratts V. Gratts, 260. Gratz V. Bates, 831. Gratz V. Ewalt, 859. Gratz V. Bates, 831. Graves v. Amoskeag Co., 842. Gravest!. Bedau, 194,621. Graves v. Campbell, 164. Graves v. Contant, 292, 293. Graves v. Deterling, 603, 862. Graves v. Dudley, 814. Graves D. Graves, 816, 816a, 443, 496, 500. Graves v. Hampden Ins. Co., 327. Graves v. Pierce, 5a, 6. Graves v. Potter, 190. Graves v. Trueblood, 564. Graves v. Ward, 818. Graves v. Weld, 71. Gray v. Bailey, 884, 885. Gray v, Baldwin, 351. Gray v. Bartlett, 725. Gray v. Blanchard, 277, 377, 278 Gray V. Bridgeforth, 644. Gray v. Brignodella, 757. Gray v. Glvens, 251, 254. Gray v. Harris, 614. Gray v. Henderson, 509. Gray v. Hornbeck, 755, 827. Gray v. Jenks, 333. Gray V. Johnson, 199. Gray v. Lesslugton, 792. Gray v. Lynch, 611, 663. Gray v, MIsMonary Society, 564, 883. Gray v. Nelson, 321 . Graydon v. Church, 312, 360. Gray's Admrs. v. Cruise, 818. Great Falls Co. ii. Worster, 251,264,260, 319,731,817,8290. Great Luxembourg Ey. Co. v. Magnay, 607. Great Western, etc., Co. v. Saas, 850. Greeder's Appeal, 197. Greeley v. Maine Cent. E. E., 616. Green v, Armstrong, 10, 799. Green v. Arnold, 238, 239, 260, 262, 264. Ixvi TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Green v. Ball, 501. Groen v. Biddle, 702. Greim v. Blackwell, 609. Green v. Butler, 310. Green v. Crockett, 294, 295, 368. Gr<.'eri ^■. Crosa, 364. Green v. Currier, 321. Green v. l)emo6, 292, 294, 295. Green v. Dennis, 461, 884, 885. Green v. Dietrich, 600. Green «. Drinker, S16a, 818. Green v. Garriugton, 338, 8176 Green v. Green, 128, 148, 792. Green v. Hart, 300, 301, 332. Green ti. Han, 319, 829. Green i;. Hewitt, 418, 419. Green v. Liter, 106,696, 696. Green v. Marble, 332. Green v. Maasie, 663. Green v. Pettingell, 277. Green v. Phillips, 4. Green v. Pietnam, 10, 116, 264 Green v. Eamage, 371. Green v. Sherrod, 307. Green v. Sutter, 564. Green v. Tanner, 341. Green v. Tennant, 136, 143. Green v. Thomas, 801. Green v. Tomllnsoii, 389. Green v. Wilding, 793. Greene. Tarnall, 813. Green's Estate, 744. Greenaway V. Adams, 182. Greonby v. Wilcoclis, 850. Greene v. Barbard, 292. Greene v. Brooks, 498. Greenes. Butler, 309. Greene v. Cole, 77. Greene v. Conant, 813. Greene v. Creighton, 603, 862. Greene v. Dennis, 885. Gfreone v. Greene, 39, 129, 276, 470 Greenes. Munson, 199, 200. Greene v. Wilbur, 604. Greene v. Witherspoon, 81 7&. Greenbalgh v. Marggraf , 275. Greenland?;. Waddell, 644. Greenleaf v. Birth, 843. Greenleaf v. Kdes, 339, 817aj. Greenleaf v. Francis, 615. Greenough v. Turner, 163. Greenough v. Welles, 663, 666 Green's Case, 278. Greenup v. Sewell, 261. Greenyault v. Davis, 856. Greenwood, etc., Co. v. N. T,, etc., E. E. Co.,g06, 361. Greenwood v. Tyler, 844. Greenwood v. Wakefield, 510 Greenwood's Appeal, 601. Greer I). Oldham, 162. Greer v. Pate, 434. Greer?;. Tripp, 699. Gregg II. Blackmore, 260, 739. Gregg V. Currier, 663. Gregg V. Eichardson, 860. Gregnr v. Cady, 189. Gregory v. Cowgill, 562, 564. Gregory v. Pierce, 794. Gregory v. Savage, 321, 329. Gregory v. Walker, 814. Greider's Appeal, 197. Greig V. Eussell, 305. Grellet v. Heilshom, 321, 818. Ixviii Gresham v. Webb, 795. Greve v. Coffin, 829. Grice v. Scarborough, 852, 853. Grider's Estate, 251, 838. Gridley v. Watson, 501, 802. Gridley v. Wynant, 806. Gridley'B Heirs v. Phillips, 573. Griesbanm v. Baum, 358, 362. Grifflni'. Bixby, 9. Griffln v. Blanchor, .Ml. Grifflni'. Buruetl,342. GriiFin v. Camack, 292. Griffln v. Fairbrother, 849, 850, 860' Griffin v. Graham, 884. Griffln v. Griffln, 290. Griffln v. Haskins, 819. Griffin v. Lovell, 333. Griffin v. Reece, 115. Griffln V. Sheffield, 226. Griffln v. Shepard, 411. Griffln V. Sutherland, 160. Grifflth V. Deerfelt, 746. Grifflth V. Grifflth, 92, 122, 877. Grifflth V. Pownall, 544, 575. Griffith r. Sohwenderman, 714 Grifflthes r. Penson, 829. Griggs r. Smith, 122, 124. Griggaby v. Hair, 294, 296. Grignon v. Astor, 746. Grim v. Curlev, 699. Grim v. Murphy, 699. Grimes v. Harmon, 883. Grimes v. Kimball, 336. Grimes v. Portman, 163. Grimes v. Eagland, 696. Grimiey v. Davidson, 613. Grimsley v. Riley, 808. Grimstone v. Carter, 8176. Grissom v. Moore, 135. Griswold v. Bigelow, 756. Griswold v. Butler, 792. Griswold v. Greer, 642. Griswold v. Johnson, 238, 239, 260, S29a. Griswold v. Messlnger, 443. Griswold v. Miller, 791. Griswold J). Smith, 818. Griswold v. Warner, 398. Gritton v. McDonald, 292. Grode v. Van Valen, 647. Groesbeck r. Mattlson, 340, 371, 817. Groesbeck v. Seeley, SIO. Groft.ti. Weakland, 714. Groner v. Smith, 808. Grove v. Todd, 127. Gross V. Janesok, 364. Gross r. Wellwood, 694. Gross' Estate, 885. Grosvenor v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 327. Grosvenor v. Bowen, 401, 661. Grothe's Appeal, 494. Groustra v. Bourges, 213. Grout V. Townsend, 65, 104, 400, 770, 801. Groue v. Spilker. 8S1. Grover v. Plye, S3S. Grover v. Thacher, 321. Grubbs v. Marshall, 877. Grubew. Wells, 699. Gruber v. Baker, 726, 731. Grueuwald i\ Schaales, 218. Grumble v. Jones, 642. Grumley v, Gmmlev, 501. Grumley v. Webb, 601. Grundy v, Rlartin, 253. Guard v. Bradley, 814. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. •Gnerln v. Smith, 852. . Twitchell, 115. Gunst V. Pelham, 370. Gunteri). Gunter, 878. Guphilli!. Iebell,514. Guthrie v. Gardner, 600. Guthrie v. Jones, 6. Guthrie i;. Kahle, 325. Guthrie v. Owen, 131. Guthrie v. Sorrell, 352. Guy V. Brown, 602. Guy V. DeUpsey, 337. Gwathmeys v. Ragland, 330. Gwyn V. Turner, 3»8. Gwynn v. Jones, 226. Gwynne v. City ol Cincinnati, 132. H. Haaven v. Lyo^-s, 360. Habergham v. Vincent, 667. Racket V, Amsden, 4. Hackett v. Calleudar,339, 817a. Hackett v. Reynolds, 290, 291. Hackett v. Snow, 324. Hackney v. Tracy, 542, 544. Hade v. James, 135. Hadley v. Pickett, 294. Hadlock v. Bulflnch, 335. Hadlock v. Gray, 244, 434. Hadlockv. Hadlock, 812. Haflick'B. Stover, 7. Hafner v. Irwin, 844. Hagan v. Campbell, 744. Hagan v. Parsons, 310. Hagan v. Walker, 369. Hagar v. Bralnard, 322, 351. Hagar v. Wiswall, 264. Hagemau v. Hageman, 433. Haggard v, Benson, 496. Haggerstou v. Hanbury, 782. Hagi hrop v. Hook, 32o, 355, 817. Hague «>. Jackson, 359. Hahnv. Baker Lodge, 621. Haigh, E.K parte, 288. Haines v. Thomson. ,303, 304, 305, 306, 310. Hair v. Goldsmith, 148. Halcomb v. Hood, 162. Haldeman v. Haldeman, 642. Hale V. Glidden, 695, 697. Haines v. Hewitt, 264. Hale V. Hale, 644, 645. Hale V. Jewell, 308, 304. Hale V. Marsh, 398. Halo V. Morgan, 313. Hale V. Munn, 122. Hale V. New Orleans, 855 Hale V. Plummer, 116. Hale V. Richards, 162, Hale V. Rider, 362. Haley v. Bennett, 292. Halford v. Hatch, 182. Halford'i). Stains, 499. Hall V. Arnot, 305, 307. Hall V, Armstrong, 608. Hall V. Ashby, 781. Hall V. Benner, 812. Hall V. Bliss, 365. HallD. Bragg, 875. Hall V. Burgess, 213. Hall V. Carter, 513. Hall V. Chaffee, 530, 538, 642, 544, 875. Hall V. Chaffers, 653. Hall V. Davis, 727, 827, 830, 832. Hall V. Dean, 862, 853. Hall V. Dewey, 199, 694. Hail V. Ditto, 700, 716, 731. Hall V. Gale, 851. Hall V. Gray, 695. Hall V. Gittings, 714. Hall V. Hall, 148, 869, 517, 700, 803, 843, 883, Hall II. Harris, 815. Hall V. Hurd, 343. Hall V. Horton, 272. Hall V. Klepzig, 369. Hallt). Lance, 318, Hall V, Leonard, 797. Hall V. Lawrence, 693. Hail V. Loomls, 163. Hall V. Mayhew. 830, 840. Hall V. McCaughey, 605. Hall V. McDuff, 289, 290, 741, 8176. Hall «.Nnte, 401. Hall V. Orvls, 728. Hall V. Patterson, 810. Hall V. Priest, 398, 404, 536, 538, 643, 544. Hall V, Robinson, 530, Halli>. Savage, 794. Hall V. Savill, 305. Hall ». Sayre, 90. Hall V. Shotwell, 840. Hall V. Swift, 605. Hall V. Stevens, 700. Hallti. Tennell, 322. Hallii. Tufts, 275, 310. Hall V. Townes, 365. Hall V. Tunnell, 318, 322. Hall V. Wadsworth, 214. Hall V. Westcott, 312, 326. Hall V. West. Transportation Co., 216. Hall V. Young, 607. Halli>. Yoell, 359. Halladay v. Stickler, 275. Hallenbeck v. DeWitt, 811. Hallenbeck v. Rowley, 837. Hallett D.Pope, 542. Hallettw. Thompson, 502. Hallettu. Collins, 461. Hallettw. Thompson, 503. Hallett V. Wylie, 179, 194. Hallett's Estate, 501. Hallifax V. Higgins, 308, 309. Halligan v. Wade, 196. Halloway v. Planter, 817a. Hallook V. Smith, 294, 295. Halsey v. Martin, 303. Hall's Heirs v. Hall, 818. lxi.-> ,x TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Halsey v. McCormlck, 686, 6S7. Halsey v. Eeed, 370. Halt«. Kees, 352. Halstead v. Bank of Ky., 816a, 817. Ham V. Ham, 725. Ham V. Kendall, 2. Hamertou v. Stead, 214, 216, 217. Hamilton u. Burum, 760. Hamilton v. Crosby, 75S. Hamilton v. Cutts, 855, Hamilton v. Dobbs, 334. Hamilton v. Doolittle, 781. Hamilton v. Elliott, 276, 277. Hamilton v. Farrar, 605. Hamilton v. Fowlkes, 292, 293, 818. Hamilton ». Gilbert, 294. Hamilton v. I.ubukee, 364, .'ies. Hamilton v. Nutt, 817, 8176, 819. Hamilton v. Phillips, 260. Hamilton v. Redden, 251. Hamilton v. Taylor, 700. Hamilton v. West, 699. Hamilton v. White, 610. Hamilton v. Wright, 188, 187, 695. Hamitu. Lawrence, 199. Hamlin r. Hamlin, 117. Hamlin v. Pairpoint Mfg. Co., 837- Hamlin v. Werner, 603. Hamman v. Jordan, 620. Hammer v. Hammer, 542. Hammersloagh v. Cheatham, 789. Hammon v. Steer, 665. Hammons v. McUlnre, 199. Hammingwayv. Hammiogway, 563. Hammiugton v. Rudyard, 530. Hammock v. Creekmore, 201. Hammond v. Alexander, 786, 807. Hammond v. Crosby, 695, 714. Hammond v. Eckhardt, 227. Hammond v. Hopkins, 303, 304, 326. Hammond v. Lewis, 329. Hammond v. Pennock, 501. Hammond v. Steer, 665. Hammond v. Zechner, 599. Hamon v. DyeXt 401. Hampson v. Edelen, 817a. Hampson v. Tall, 600. Hampton v. Hodges, 351. Hampton v. Levy, 339. Hampton v. >'icholson, 336. Hampton v. Wheeler, 248. Hanchet v. Whitney, 21S. Hancock v. Beverly, 817. Hancock v. Bntler, 433. Hancock®. Hancock, 321, S59. Hancock u. Carlton , 279. Hancock Jno., etc., v, Patterson, 602. Hancox v. Fishing Ins. Co., 327. Hancox v. Meeker, 68. Hand v. Armstrong, 854. Hand v. Marcy,885. Handforth v. Jackson, 2. Hands v, James, 877. Handy «;. MoKim, 431. Hanford v. McNair, 805. Hankey v. Clark, 600. Hanks v. Folsom, 498, 776. Hanks v. Rhodes, 307. Hanly v. Morse, 818. Hanna v. Carrington, 368. Hanna v. Peake, 879. Hanna v. Renfro, 695. Hannah v. Carrington, 301, 368. Hannah v. Henderson, 855. I XX Hannah v. Swarner, 812. Hannan v. O^born, 244, 255, 638. Haunum v. West Chester, 827. Hanrahan v. O'Reilly, 6, 724, 725. Hans V. Palmer, 878. Hansard*. Hardy, 326. Hanson v. Campbell, 837. Hanson v. Johnson, 855. Hanson v. Meyer, 190. Hanson v, McCue, 615. Hapgood V. Brown, 842. Harbert v. Hansick, 697. Harberts' Case, 370. Harbison v. James, 243. Harbison v. School Dist., 696. Hardaway v. Semmes, 818. Hardenburgv. Larkin, 806. Harder v. Harder, 74, 77, 81. Hardin v. Barrett, 696. Hardin v. Hardin, 798. Hardin v. Lawrence, 135. Harding j;.Glyn, 606. Harding v. Hardv, 792. Harding v. Mill River Co., 368. Harding ti. Springer, 242, 245. Harding v. Tibbits, 760. Harding II. Townshend, 327. Hardisty v. Glenn, 696. Hardy v. Clarkson, 8^5. Hardy, Ex parte, 289, 290. Hardy II. McCnllongh, 855. Hardy v. Nelson, 861. Hardy v. Van Harlingen, 93, 469. Hare v. Van Densen, 294. Hargadine v. Palte, 888. Harglsw. Kans. City, etc., R. R. Co., 696. Hargrave v. King, 182, 183. Haring v. Van Honten, 832. Harkeru. Chamblibs, 81. Barker v. Forsyth, 361. Harker v. jS'ightingale, 603. Harkey v. Cain, 4. Harkins v. Forsyih, 361. Harkness v. Sears, 6. Harlan v. Seaton, 817. Harlan 57. Smith, 361. Harlan II. Stout, 262. Harlem v. Co.-Op. Bldg. &Loan Assn. v. Qulnn, 359. Harlow v. Thomas, 853, 855, 861. Harman v. Dyer, 275. Harman v. Gartman, 242. Harmickel u. Orndoff , 363. Harmon v. Brown, 275. Harmon v, Harmon, 796. Harms v. McCormlck, 253. Harney r. Little, 816a. Harney v. Morton, 728. Harnickle v. Wells, 363. Harpending v. Dutch Church, 251, 254. Harper v. Archer, 673. Harper v. Barsh, 816, S16a. Harper 11. Dowdnev, 853. Harper v. Ely, 322, 325, 355, 358. Harper v. Hampton, 805. Harper v. Harper, 672. Harper v. Little, 805. Harper v. Perry, 801. Harper v. Phelps, 600, 506. Harper v. Reno, 816o. Harper v. Tapley, 816. Harper's Appeal, 353, 355. Harral v. Gray, 818. Hatral v. Leverty, 795. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Harrell v. Butler, 827. Harrimau v. Gray, 127. Harrington v. Bradford, 875. Harrington v. Fortner, 302. Harrington v. Wilkins, 694. Harris v. Arnold, 817. Harris v. Bell, 818. Harris v. Barnes, 530, 533, 538. Harris v. Barnett, 498. Harris v . Burdock, 794. Harris v. Burton, SlO. Harris v. Carpenter, 401. Harris v. Carson, 71. Harris v. Elliott, 837, 842. Harris V. Exors. -y. Barnett, 506. Harrisc. Exrs. ■!). Switzer, 506. Harris v. Frink, 71, 201, 216. Harris v. Gllllngham, 651, 653. Harris v. Hamie, 292. Harris v. Hanks, 292. Harris v. Harris, 813. Harris v. King, 700. Harris v. Knapp, 562. Harris v. McKlvoy, 614, 515. Harris v. McKissack, 746. Harris v. Miles, 326. Harris v. Mine, 76. Hai ris v. Norton, 339, 812. Harris f . Petty, 513. Harris v. Eichey, 700. Harris v. Biding, 10, 618. Harris v. Kucker, 508. Harris v. Smitli, 542. Harris v. Thomas, 81. Harrisburg Electric Light Co. v. Good- man, 2. Harrison v. Augusta Factory, 611. Harrison U.Blackburn, 174. Harrison v. Burgess, 879. Harrison v. Burlingame, 312, 332. Harrison v. Cachelin, 714. Harrison v. Good, 603. Harrison v. Gray, 728. Harrison v, Harrison, 506. Harrison v. Jackson, 805. Harrison v. Jones, 412. Harrison v. Lemon, 304, 305. Harrison v. Middleton, 213, 214, 215. Harrod v. Myers, 792. Harrison v. Oakman, 810. Harrison v. Phillips Academy, 303, 304, 812 Harrison v. Trustees, 303, 305, 309. Harrison v. Wood, 115. Harrison v. Wyse, 325, 353. Harrold v. Simonds, 818. Harshaw v. McKesson, 358. Havsiman v. Gray, 127. Hart V. Burd, 120, 127. Hart V. Chalker, 310. Harti). Epstein, 307. Hart V. Farm. & Mech. Bank. 817a, 8176. Hart V. Bed Cedar, 611. Hart V. Sheldon, 4. Hart V. Thompson, 538. Hart u.Vose, 599. Hartford Ins. Co. ■». Walsh, 327. ' .Hartford Iron Mine Co. v. Cambria Min. Co., 840. Hartley v. Frosh, 810. Hartley v. Harrison, 331. Hartley & Minor's Appeal, 563, 566. Hartley v. Wharton, 793. Hartman v. Gartmau, 254. Hartman v. Herblne, 275. Hartman v. Kendal, 793. Hartman v. Strickler, 881. Hartmeyer v. Gates, 818. Hartness v. Thompson, 792. Hartshorn v. Day, 811. Hartshorn v. Cleveland, 853,861. Hartshorn v. Hubbard, 323. Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 128, 138. Harton v. Harton, 469. Hartwell v. Blocker, 360. Howard College v. Society, etc., 884. Harvey v. Aston, 274. Harvey v. Bridges, 228. Harvey v. Chouteau, 877, 890, 890a. Harvey ». Harvey, 77. Harvey v. Kel'ey, 292. Harvey v. Mitchell, 816, 816a. Harvey r. Morton, 728. Harvey v. Mount, 501. Harvey v. SuUens, 879. Harver v. Tyler, 700. Harvey v. Wickham , 106, 108. Harvie v. Banks, 355. Harvy v. Aston, 274. Hassett v. Kidgley, 261. Haskell v. Bailey, 326. Haskell v. House, 563. Haskell v. N ew Bedford, 753. Haskell v. Putnam, 199. Haskell v. Scott, 292, 293. Haskin v. Homes, 352, Haskin v. Woodward, 5a, 35. Haskin v. Hawks, 319. Haskin 17. Spiller, 673. Hasle V. McCoy, 21. Merrill, 243, 243, 254, 255. Hayden v. Stoughtan, 272, 273, 276, 277, 880, 885. Hayes 2'. Bowman, 832, 833. Hayes v. Davis, 275. Hayes ». De Vlty, 608. Hayes v. Ferguson, 854. Hayes v. Foorde, 434. Hayes v. Horlne, 292. Hayes v. Kershaw, 465, 775, 777. Hayes v. Scattuck, 359. Hayes v. Tabor, 401, 464, 494. Hayes v. Ward, 372. Hayes v. Wood, 329. Hayrordi). Spokesfleld, 605. Hayne v, Cummings, 185. Hayne v. Irvine, 883. Hayneri;. Smith, 196. Haynes v. Boardman, 701. Haynes v. Jackson, 839. Haynes v. Jones, 715, 716. Haynes i;. Powers, 139. Haynes v. Seachres, 805, 818. Haynes v. Sherman, 544. Haynes v. Swann, 307. Haynes v. Thomas, 611. Haynes v. Young, 853, 855, 861. Hayes Appeal, 262.| Hays V. Askew, 728. Hays V Doanc, 4, 6. Haj 8 V. Forde, 434. Hays V. Jackson, 663. Hays V. Kershaw, 465. Hays V. Lewis, 329. Hays V. McHulre, 818. Hays V. Morrison, 700, 714. Hays V. Quay, 506. Hays I). Elehardson,652. Ixxii Hays V. Tabor, 401, 464. Hays V. Thomas, 667, 695. Hayward v. Oathbert, 143. Hayward v. Howe, 47. Hayward v. Kinney, 64, 277. Hayward v. Ormsbee, 746. Hazard v. Robinson, 852, 599, 603. Hazelbriggc. Donaldson, 796. Hazeltlne v. Donohoe, 808. Hazelton v. Putnam, 597, 651, 653. Hazen v. Thurber, 143, Hazleton v. Lesure, 124, 128. Hazleton v. Moore, 292, 293. Hazlett V. Powell, 195. Head v. Egerton, 289, 290. Headley v. Gonndray, 300, SOL Healey v. Alston, 512. Heard v. Baird, 368, 614. Heard v. Fairbanks, 757. Heard v. Pilley, 500. Hearle v. Greenbank, 105. Hearst v. Rujol, 607, 510, 700. Heart v. Kruger, 620. Heath v. Crealock, 501. Heath v. Hewitt, 798. Heath v. Knapp, 92. Heath v. White, 108. Heath v. WiUiiams, 305, 306, 307. Heaton v. Hodges, 832. Hebert v. Lavalle, 693. Hebert v. Wren, 146. Hebron v. Centre Harbor, 304, 305. Heburn v. Warner, 240. Hecock V. Van Dusen. 696. Hedge v. Drew, ISO, 813. Heed v. Ford, 126, 138, 146, 148. Heffernau v. Otsego Water Power Co., 841. Hegerman v. McArthur, 196a, 198. Heinricks v. TerreU, 696. Heise v. Heise, 887. Heiser (David) v. Rhodes, 615. Heiskell v. Cobb, 700. Heist V. Baker, 293. Helster v. Fortner, 817. Heisterw. Green, 292. Heister v. Maderia, 306. Heistner v. Fortner, 816a. Hellenstem's Estate, 304, 305, 353. Hellman v. McWilliams, 506. Hellwlg V. Bachman, 184. Helms V. May, 795, 8)9. Helms V. O'Bannon, 818. Hemingway v. Hemingway, 563. Hemmlngway i\ Scales, 242, 245. Hempfleld R. R. v. Thornborg, 292. Hemphill v, Giles, 324. Hemphill v. Haas, 163. Hemphill v. Ross, 322. Hemphill v. Tevis, 213. Hempton v. Lew, 817a. Henagan v. Harllee, 124, 374. HenchlifE v. Hinman, 812. Ilendershot v. Lawrence, 262. Henderson v. Burtons Exr., 292. Henderson v. Chalres, r2s. Hendei'son v. Downing, blln. Henderson v. Farbridge, 875. Henderson v. Grammar, 312. Henderson v. Henderson, 434, 506, 544. Henderson v. Hcrrod, 330. Henderson v. Hunter, 277, 281. Henderson v. Huntington, 281. Henderson v. Kinnard. 37, 538. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Henderson v. McGee, 339. Henderson v. Pilgrim, 803, SOS, 329. Henderson v. Walthour, 434. Hendricks v. Smith, 201. Hendricks v. Spring Valley Mining and Irrigation Co., 618. Hendricks v. Stark, 855. Hendrickson'3 Appeal, 8176. Hendrix v. McBeth, 75, 116. Hendrix v, Munn, 501 . Hendrix v. Seaborn, 162. Hendry v. Hollingdrake, 262. Henecke v. Floring, 500. Henkle v. Allstadt, 371. Henkle v. Dillon, 4, 5a . Henley «. Hotallng, 305. Henley v. Eobb, 538. Hennen v. Wood, 746. Hennesey v. Andrews, 303, 305. Hennesey v. Walsh, 500. Hennesy v. Farrell, 322. Hennew v. Wood, 746. Hennlng v. Burnett, 608. Henry Co. v. Bradshaw, 812. Henry V. Carson, 812. Henry v. Davis, 302, 308, 309, 310, 312. Henry v. Tapper, 279. 311, 312. Henshaw v. Bissell, 726. Henshaw v. Foster, 875. Henshaw v. Wells, 322, 324, 332. Henson v. Westcott, 292. Hepbnrn v. Dubois, 794. Hepburn v. Snyder, 292. Hepburne v. Hepburne, 513. Her V. Eouth, 694. Herbert iJ. Doussan, 332. Herberts. Henrick,326, 697, 699. Herberts. Jjavalle, 593. Herberts. Pue, 843. Herbert);. Scofleld, 292. Herbertij. Wren, ]B3, 148. Herbert v. Wrenomitch, 148. Herberts v. Herberts, 563. Herdman v. Bratten, 815. Hermann. Roberts, 604. Hermans ji. Schmaltz, 700. Herndou v. Kimball, 816, 816a, 818. Herns v. Swope, 816a. Herrlok v. Atwood, 289, 290. Herrlck v. Babcock, 664. Herrick v. Malin, 790. Herrlck ». Moore, 853. Herrick's Estate, 281. Herring v. Pollard, 702. Herrington v . Bradford, 875. Herron v. Williamson, 126. Herr's Estate, 601. Herschfeldti7. George, 802. Hershy v, Berman, 567. Herskell v. Bushnell, 201. Hersky v. Clark, 240. Hertell v. Van Buren, 566. Hervey v. Hervey, 573. Heslop V. Gatton, 647. Hesperia Land, etc., Co. ©.-Rogers, 714. Hesselc. Johnson, 198. Hesseltlne v. Seavey, 198. Hester v. Glasgow, 810. Hetfleld v. Central R. R., 653. Heth V. Cocke, 117, 129, 130, sm. Hetherington v. Clark, 817, 8176, 818. Hethington v. Graham, 128. Hetsiol V. Barber, 8176. HeilBSc V. Allen, 884. Hewitt v.Loosemore, 289, 290. Hewlins v. Shippam, 60, 652, 653 Heyer v. Pruyn, 810, 326, 359. Heyes v. Wood, 329. Heyman v. Lowell, 359. Heywavd v. Cuthtaert, 143. Hey ward ti. Hazard, 877. Heyward v. Mayor, 751. Ileatt V. Kirtpatrick, 699. Hibbard v. Bovler, 8176s. Hibbard v. Lamb, 511. Hibbard v. Ramsdell, 199. Hlbb.ard v. Smith, 812. Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 789. Hiclilin V. McClear, 714. Hickman «. Dill, 363. Hickman v, Irvine, 74. Hickox V. Low, 305, 310, 311 . Hicks V. Coleman, 696, 831, 833. Hicks «. Cram, 725. Hicks V. Dowllng, 182. Hicks V. Hicks, 304, 305. nicox V. Chicago, etc., R, R. Co., Hidden v. Jordan, 365, 500, 501. Hidden v. Kretschman, 312. Hide V. Thornborough, 618. Hiern v. Mill, 289, 290. Hiester v. Madura, 305. Higbee v. Eice, 251, 254, 695. Higdonw. Higdou,600. Higginbotham v. Barton, 324. Higginbotham v. Cornwell, 148. Higginbotham v. Fishback, 700. Illgglnbottom v. Short, 269, 264. Higgins V. Brcen, 125. Higglns V. Kendall, 292. Higgins V. Carlton, 876, 877, 878. Highstone v. Burdette, 251. Hilbourn v. Fogg, 199, 212, 214. Hildebrand v. Fogle, 827. Hildreth v. Conant, 213. Ilildreth v. Thompson, 115. Hill V. Aifderson, 792. Hill V. Bacon, 853, 855. Hill V. Bailey, 700. HUI V. Bank of London, 647. Hill V. Barclay, 279. Hill V. Barge, 877. Hill V. Barnes, 790. Hill V. Baron, 397. Hill ». Bloom, 672. Hill V. Crosby, 699. Hillo. Den, 506. Hill ». Edwards, 304, 305, 329. mill). Elliott, 310, 510. Hill V. Epley, 725. Hilli?. Hewett, 325. Hill V. Savage, 794. Hill V. Hill, 4, 46, 47, 538, 542, 652. Hill«. Jordan, 213,324. Hill V. Josselyn, 613. Hill V. Lord, 599, 843. Hill V. McCarter, 817. Hillji. Meeker, 817. Hill V. Meyers, 160, 498. Hill «. Miller, 74B. Hill V. Moore, 329. Hill V. McRae, 502, 503. Hill B.Mowry, 787. Hill V. Pixley, 321. Hill V. Reno, 262. Hill V. Robertson, 322. Hill V. Roderick, 400. Hill V, Saunders, 714. Ixxiii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Hill V. Sewell, 4, 5, 5a. Hill V. Smitli, 318. Hill V. WenLworth, 4. Hill V. Woodman, 194. HiUary v. Hillary, 632, 538. Hilbourne v. Fogg, 199, 212, 214, 228. Hillhouse v. Chester, 663. Hillhouse v. Dunning, 305. Hillhoueei). Mix, 239, 240. Hilliard v. Binford, 148. Hilliard v. ScoviUe, 262. Hilllary v. Hilliary's Lessee, 532. Hillman v. Bouslaugh, 433, 434. Hills V. Barnard, 401. Hills V. Bearse, 794. Hills V. Chicago, 760. Hills V. Dey, 264. Hills ti. Elliott, 310, 501. Hillsu. Loomis, 307. Hills V. Miller, 697. Hillyard v. Miller, 884. Hillyer v. Bennett, 792. Hilsendegen v. Scheriok, 191. Hilton V. Oilman, 2. Hilton V. Lathrop, 352. Hilton V. Otoe Cr. Bk. 362. Hiuchcliff V. Hinman, 816. 816n. Hlnchliffe v. Westwood, 885. HiDOhman v. Stiles, 115, 366, 367. Hinokle's Appeal, 37. Hinckley V.Baxter, 2. Hindes' Lessee v. Longsworth, 802. Hinds «. Allen, 358, 361. Hinds V. Ballon, 117, 124, 337, 32L Hine v. Railroad Co., 81. Hine v. Robhins, 818. Hinesw. Allen, 860. Hines v. Frantham, 239, 240. Hines V. liobinson, 242, 254. Hinkley V. Green, 251, 254. Hinman v. Booth, 815. Hinman v. Hinman, 818. Hinneman v. Rosenbeck, 883. Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 185, 646. Hipp V. Hackett, 824 Hiacock V.Norton, 292. Hise V. Finches, 8b7. Hitch V. Wells, 877. Hitchcock V. Carpenter, 122. Hitchcock V. Harrington, 117, 122, 143, 318. Hitchcock V. Merrick, 329. Hitchcock V. Smith, 671. Hitchcock V. V. S. Bank of Pa., 358. Hitchensv. Hilchens, 116, 145,385, 396. Hitchings v. Morrison, 695, 699, Hitner v. Ege, 107. Hittj). Holliday, 334. Hoag V. Carpenter, 198. Hoag V. Hoag, 199. Hoag V. Owen, .812. Hoag V. Wallace, 696. Hoagland v, Crum, 67. Hoaglaud v. Latourette, 817a. Hoagland v. Watt, 130. Hobbs V. Hobbs, 576. Hoboken Land Co. v. Kerrigan, 837. HolBcn V. Roles, 329. Hobson V, Trevor, 487. Hockenbury v. Snyder, 199. Hockley V. Mawley, 376. Hocker v. Hocker, 879. Hodgdon v. Heidman, 826. Hodge 0. Boothby, 834. Hodge V. Twitchell, 510. Hodge V. Wallace, 696. Hodge V. Weeks, 305. Hodgens v. Powell, 842. Hodges V. Taylor, 310. Hodges V. Eddy, 695, 699. Hodges V. Howard, 601. Hodges V. Rowing, 840. Hodges V. Shields, 199. Hodges V. Tenn. Mar. & F. Ins. Co., 302. Hodges V. Thayer, 861. Hodgkinson v. Ennor, 615. Hodgkin v. McVeigh. Hodgkinson v. Petitioner, 262. Hodgson V. Butts, 816a. Hodson V. Treat, 331, 361. Hoesier v. Hemsath, 615. Hoey V. Furman, 714. Hottar V. Dement, 244. HofEey v. Carey, 310. Hoffman v. Anthony, 364. Hoffman v. Armstrong, 9. Hoffman v. BeU, 760. Hoffman v. Clark, 226. Hoffman v. Harrington, 364. Hoffman v, Hoffman, 877. Hoilman r. Porter, 79d. Hoffman v. Stigers, 237, 238, 244, 24o, 251, 261. Hoffman v. Strohecker, 818. Hoffman Co. v. Cumberland, 601. Hoffman v. White, 714. Hoffstetter v. Blattner, 251, 264. Hogan'P Exrs. v. Calvert, 852. Hogan V. Brainard, 312. Hogan V. Page, 798. Hogan V. Jaques, 499. Hogan V. Manners, 161. Hogan V. t^targhorn, 493. Hogan V. Stone, 325. Hogden v. Heidman, 359. Hoge V. Hoge, 501. 633, 883. Hogel V. Lindoll, 307, 367. Hogg V. Wilkins, 601. Hogsett V. Ellis, 216, 227, 324. Hoit V. Russell, 364. Hoitv. Underhill,793. Holtt V. Hoitt, 886, 890. Holablrd v. Burr, 325. Holbrook v. Helton, 312. Holbrook v. Bowman, 699. Holbrook v. Chamberlain, 6. Holbrook v. Dlckerson, 339, Holbrook v. Finney, 124. Holbrook v. Forsythe, 696. Holbrook v. Gouverueui, 697. Holbrook i\ Tirrell, 714. Holbrooke. Tonng, 212. Holcomb V. Coryell, 242, 829a. Holcomb V. Holcomb, 359, 361. Holcomb V. Lake, 642, 883. Holcomb V. Mooney, S27. Holcratt v. King, 611. Holdcn V. Fletcher, 856. Holden v. V. Y. & Erie Bank, 501. Holden v. Pike, 321. Holden V. Pinney, 163. 1 tolden V. Mlckuey, 368. Holder u. Coates, 9. Holderby v. Walker, 533. Holdfast V. Shepard, 714. Holdridge v. Gillespie, 309. Holdridge v. Sweet, 360. Holeman v. Boiling Springs Co., 614. 622. Holtord V. Hatch, 182. XXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Holiday v. Franklin Blr., 817ffl. HolladaytJ. Mene£el,855, 861. Holland v. Citizens Sav. Bank, 337. Hollenbeok v. McDonald. 601. Hollers v. Brown, 213. HoUett V. Pope, 642.- HoUey v. Hawley, 817, 693, 700. Hollidayv. Achle,214. Holliday w. Cromwell, 694. Holliger v. Bates, 840. Hollinshead V. Naumon, 696. HoUinshead v. Simms, 501. HoUiS!). Pool, 227. Hollister v. Young, 697. Holloday u. Dailey, 806. Holloman v. HoUoman, 134. HoUoway v. Holloway, 262. Holmaa v. Bailey, 333. Holmaa v. Creagmiles, 853. Holman v. Hopkins, 873. Holman v. Patterson's Heirs, 292, 293. Holmes* Appeal, 401. Holmes v. Best, 255. Holmes v. Blogg, 793. Holmes v. Coghill, 676. Holmes v. Fisher, 311,312. Holmes v. Grant, 303, 304, 305, 306, 310. Holmes v. Hall, 363. Holmes v. Holmes, 259. Holmes v. McGinty, 330. Holmes v. Mead, 884. Holmes v. Railroad, 739. Holmes v. Seeley, 603, 608. Holmes v. Serby, 605. Holmes V. Tremper, 6. Holmes v. Trout, 741. Holmes v. Turners' Falls, etc., Co., 199, 326, 363, 364. Holmes v. Seller, 600. Holridge v. Gillespie, 501. Holsen v. Kockhouse, 564. Holsten v. Needles, 829. Holt V. Agnew, 794. Holt u.Eees, 333, 357. Holt V. Kobertson, 243, 255. Holti;. Sargent, 611. Holtey V. Wiiitney, 699. Holterhofl v. Mead, 252. Holtzapple v. Phillibaum, 695. Home V. Eichards, 836. Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 195. Homer v. Groshals, 818. Homers v. Homer, 501, 507. Homestead Cases, 160, 162. Homiet v. Bacon, 542. Hon V. Hon, 600, 501. Honeywood v. Honeywood, 74. Honore v. Blakewell, 292, 293, 294, 295. Honore v. Hutchlngs, 305. Honore v. Lamar Ins. Co., 327. Hood V. Easton, 325. Hood V. Haden, 398, 564, 569. Hoodless V. Reid, 358, 364. Hooker v. Hamill, 818. Hooker V. Hooker, 116. Hooker v. N. H. & H. Co., 763. Hooper i>. Curamlngs, 277. Hooper, Ex parte, 288, 289. Hoopes V. Garver, 694. HoopeSD. Knell, 818. Hoover v. Hoover, 401, 500. Hoover I). Samaritan Soc, 565, 568. Hoovey v. Newton, 853. Hope V. Stone, 294, 296, 727, 837, 853. Hopewell Mills v, Taunton Saving Bank, 5, Hopkins v. Garrard, 273, 293. Hopkins V. Glunt, 506. Hopkins V. Hopkins, 462, 463, 465, 539, 640. Hopkins V. Lee, 861. Hopkins V. Myall, 567, 667. Hopkins V. Robinson, 694. Hopkins v. Ward, 360, 360. Hopkinson v. Dumas, 118, 600, 501, 512. Hopkinson v. Eolt, 342. Hopkinson v. Stepbenson, 355. Hopper V. Haines, 201. Hopper V, Honper, 139. Hopper's Will. 881. Hopping V. Burnham, 816. Hoppock V. Tucker, 885. Harback v. Miller, 695. 698, 714. Horn V. Kettletas, 307. Horn V. Peterer, 278. Hornbeck v. WesI brook, 798, 843. Home V. Syeth, 495. Home V. Smith, 4. Horner «. Seeds, 173, 199. Horner v. Stillwell, 605. Horner v. Swann, 561. Horner v. Watson, 618. Horner v. Zimmerman, 361. Horning V. Wiederepalen, 647. Hornsey v. Casey, 148. Horselyjj. Garth, 818. Horsely v. Hilbum, 63. Horsey v. Horsey, 273. Horsey v. Hough, 364, Horseford v. Wright, 861. Horstman v. Gerl^ln, 332. Horton v. Davidson, 699. Horton v. Horner, 294. Horton v. Horton, 493, 494. Horton v. Kelley, 376. Horton v. Sledge, 398. Hortwitz V. Norris, 568. Hosford V. Merriam, 261. Hosir V. Gray, 358. Hoskin v. Woodward, 5. Hoskins v. Rhodes, 201. Hosnerv, Carter, 312. Hosper v. Ahnstedt, 321. Hostv. Kearney, 190. Hotchkiss V. Elting, 669. Hougan ti. Milwaukee, etc , R. R. 615. Hough V. Bailey, 310, 311, 326. Hough V. Blrge, 216. Hough V. Osborne, 330. Houghton V. Bartholomew, 818. Hoaghton v. Hapgood, 105, 373, 337. Houghton V. Jones, 816, 816a. House V. House, 66, 600. House V. Jackson, 433. Houser v. Lament, 303. Houser v. Reynolds, 793. Houston V. Blythe, 264. Houston V. Saffee, 653. Houston V. Markly, 506. Houston V. Sweed, 726. Houston V, Stanton. 813. Houston V. Workman, 715. Hout V. Hout, 573. Houx V. Batteen, 699. Houze V. Barber, 371. Hovell«. Barnes, 494. Hovey V. Hobson, 793, 793. Hovey v. Sawyer, 831. Ixxv TABLE OF CASES CITED. Eeferences are to Sections. How V. Tlgnres, 299. Howard v. Ames, 364, 365. Howard v. Carpenter, 227, 574. Howarrl v. Chase, 339. Howard v. Davis, 365. Howard r. Graham, 333. Howard v. Gresham, 333. Howard v. Hundv, 359. Howard r. Harris, 303, 309. Howard v. Hlldreth, 326. Howard I! . How, 333. Howard v. Houghton, 322. Howard V. Huffman, 741. Howards. Hudson, 725. Howard v. Merrlam, 213. Howard v. Priest, 245, 252, 2S3. Howard v. Eeedy, 669, 699. Howard v. Shaw, 216. Howard v . Wadeworth, 843. Howard v. Watson, 148. Howard's Will, 877. Howard Ins, Co. v, Halsey, 817. Howard Mutual L. Ass. v. Mclntyre, 810. Howard v. Wheatley, 273. Howard v. Adams, 159, 164. Howe V. Alger, 837. Howe V. Batohelder,71, 661, 799. Howe V. Dewing, 814. Howe V. Freeman, 312. Howe V. Howe, 792, 793, 813. Howe V. Lewis, 333. Howe, Matter of, 461, 817a. Howe V. Kussell, 302. Howe V. Wilder, 336, 741. Howell V. Aclserman, 37. Howell i\ Barnes, 563. Howell,!!. Howell, 600. Howell V. McCoy, 614. Howell V. Price, 298. Howell V. Eay, 810. Howell V. Richards, 851, 864, 858. Howell V. Saule, 829. Howell V. Schenck, 70. Howell v. Tyler, 560. Howland v. Coffin, 182, 186, 190, 192. Howlandti. Bhurtlefl, 326. Howse V. Delv, 829a. Hoxie V. Ellis, 115. Hoxiew. Finney, 85. Hoxie V. Hoxie, 498. Hoy V. Alien, 817a. Hoy V. Bramhall, 336, 817. Hoy V. Holt, 189, 194. Hoy V. Master, 664. Hoy V. Sterritt, 613, 618. Hoyt>. Swan, 696. Hoyle V. Cazabat, 333. Hoyle V. Logan, 775, 795. Hoyle V. Plattsburg, etc., E. E., 2, 312. Hoyle r. Stowe, 792. Eoj'lemani;. Kanawha, eto.,R. E. Co., 189. Eoyt V. Bradley, 311, 312. Hoyt i\ Carter, 600. Hoyt V. Hovt, 647. Hoyt V. Hu'dson, 615. Hoyt I!. Kimball, 273. Hovt r. Martense, 312, 334, 360. Hovt r. Swan, 127. Hoyt V. Thompson, 328, 828. Hubbard v. Auslin, 696. Hubbard r. Burrell, 501. Hubbard T. Cox, 813. Hubbard v. Cummiugs, 793. Ixx Hubbard v. Hubbard, 148, 277, 278, 311' 312 Hubbard v. Little, 701. Hubbard v. Norton, 853. Hubbard v. Savage, 310. Hubbard v. Shaw, 69, 325, 365. Hubbard v. Steams, 699. Hubbard V. Town, 602, 613. Hubbard v. 'Walker, 818. Hubbell V. Mouleen, 3i2, 323, 353. Hubbelljj. Sibley, 364. Hubbell V. H arren, 603. Hubble V. Medbury, 601. Hubble v.AVrlght, 310. Huddlestoni). W. Bellevue, 615. Huctabaj;. Abbott, 310. Hucklns r. Straw, 318. Huckshorn v. Hartwig, 699. Hudgine v. Crow, 714. Hudmiti;. Wash, 369. Hudson V. Poindexter, 808. Hudson V. AVadswortli, 642. Huff V. Earle, 601, 602. Huff J). Farwell,371. Huff V. McAwley, 653. Huff V. McCauley, 600, 771, 797. Huff V. McDonald, 242, 255. Huff ti. Webb, 810. Hugginsv. Hall, 360. Huggins V. Huggina, 883. Hughes V. Blackwell, 326. Hughes V. Bucknell, 524. Hughes V. Debnam, 8176. Hughes V. Easton, 813. Hughes V. Graves, 716. Hughes V. Hatchett, 294. Hughes V. Hodges, 163. Hughes t'. Holliday,240. Hughes V. Kearney, 294. Hughes V. Micklas, 546. Hughes V. Monty, 802. Hughes V. Nicholas, 434. Hughes r. Pickering, 699,714. Hughes V. Providence, etc., E. E., 611. Hughes V. Robot^am, 197. Hughes V. .Scheafl, 305. Hughes r. Torrence, 836. Hughes V. M'atson, 127, 793. Hughes V. AVellp,673. Hughes J). Williams, 325. Hughes r. Worlev, 310, 341. Hughes r. Gregg, 122. Hugunin r. Cochrane, 126. Hine j> Gunier, 878. Hulbert v. Emerson, 47, 48. Hulburtr. Post, 196. Hulett r. Inlow, 242. Hulettr. .etockwcU. 182. Hulett r. Whirplp,292. Hulick V. Scovil, 745, 707, 812, 814. Hulings V. (inthrie, 817(t. Hull i\ Alexander, S32, 336. Hnll J). Jlealp,433. Hull?;. Burns, 189. Hull I'. Cushman, 364. Hull p. C. B. & Q. E. E. Co., 603. Hull V. Hull, 120. HuUti. Lyon, 359, HulU'. Vaughn, 216. Hulme V. Montgomery, 671. Hulme V. Shreve, 605. Humbertson v. Humbertson, 417 418. Hummer v. Schott, 292, 294 ' Humphrey v. Hurd, 326. CVl TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Humphrey v. Phlnncy, 135. Humphries v. Brogden, 618. 619. Humphries v. Huffman, 695, 696, 697, 69S. Humphries ^'. Humphries, 70, 215. Humphries v. Newman, 8176. Hundley v. Mount, 8176. Hungerlord r. Bent, 189. Hunkins v. Hunltms, 118, 149. Hunnicutt v. I'eyton, 696. Hunnewell v. Taylor, 262. Hunt V. Acres, 359. Hunt V. Bayley, 225, 226. Hunt V, Ohrisman, 695. Hunt V. Danforth, 190. Hunt V. Derllng, 714. Hunt V. Hall, 81, 400. Hunt V. Hunt, 321, 326, 339, 361, 512, 782, 791. Hunt V. Maynard, 324, 353. Hunt V. MoHenry, 832. Hunt V. Moore, 500. Hunt V. Morton, 214, 218. Hunt V. Pealie, 618. Hunt V. Roberts, 601. Hunt V. Rousmaniere, 566, 573, 805. Hunt V. SUles, 330, 362. Hunt V. Thompson, 192. Hunt V. Watson, 817a, 818, 819. Hunts. Wiclilifle, 747. Hunt J7. Wright, 275. Hunt's Appeal, 883. Hunter ?;. Dennis, 334. Hun teri). Kelly, 696. Hunter v. Martin, 245, 252. Hunter v. Miller, 805. Hunter v. Osterliondt, 278. Hunter v. Parlser, 805. Hunter v. Watson, 798. Huntington v. Allen, 695. Huntington v. Cotton, 318. Huntington v. Hayens, 727, 728. Huntington v. Smith, 329. Huntington v. Whaley, 695, 699. Huntley v. Cline, 265. Huntley v. Russell, 72, 75, 77, 78. Hun ton v. Nichols, 697. Huutzleman's Appeal, 434. Hurdi). Case, 364. Hurd V. Curtis, 843, 860. Hurd V. Gushing, 60. Hurd V. Grant, 140. Hurd V. Robinson, 310. Hurdy v. Robinson, 310. Hurley i;. Hurley, 253. Hurley i;. Molver, 148. Hurley v. Ramsey, 808. Hurser v. Anderson, 336. Hurst V. McNiel, 464. Hurst V. Rodney, 190, 192, 862. Huse V. Den, 813. Huson V. Wallace, 501. Huson V. Young, 605. Huss V. Morris, 573. Huss V. Stephens, 797. Huston V. Cantril, 802. Huston V. Marckley, 506. Hutch V. Holly, 164. Hutchings v. Huggins, 827. • Hatchings v. King, 9. Hutchings v. Low, 747. Hutchins v. Byrnes, 786, 807. HutchinSD. Carlton, 329. Hutchins v. Heywood, 502, 503. Hutchins V. Moody, 852. Hutchins V. State Ban!:, 566. Hutchinson's Appeal, 885. Hutchinson v, Oliase, 242, 254. Hutchinson v. Tindall, 607. Hutchinson i>. Rust, 816,816a. Hutchinson v. Wells. 332. Huth V. Carondelet R. R. Co., 793. Huttemeier v. Albro, 603. HuttoQ V. Moore, 294, 295. Hatton V. Sohumaker, 697. Hutz V. McCune, 853. Huxley v. Rice, 501. Huyler v. Atwood, 332. Huysen v. Chase, 218. Hyat V. Pagsley, 670. Hyatt i;. Wood, 225. Hyde v. Morgan, 794. Hyde v. Stone, 242, 254. Hyde v. Thoruburgh, 618. Hyden u. Hyden, 800. Hyland v. Habick, 310. Hyman v. Devereux, 330, 363. Hymes v. Burnstein, 696. Hyndman v. Hyndman, 310, 365. Hyne v. Osborn, 699, 812. Hynes v. Ecker, 182. I. Ide V. Ide, 543. Idle V. Cooke, 47. Idley V. Bowen, 887. Iglehart v. Arliger, 292. Iglehart v. Crane, 817. lies V. Marlin, 513. Ills. 0. R. R. V. McCuUough, 815. Ills. Ins. Co. V. Stanten,327. Ills. R. K. Co. V. Ind. R. R. Co., 843. Ills. Starch Co. v. Ottawa Hydraulic Co., 175. Use V. Lammsheimer, 827. Imlay v. Huntington, 93, 469, 495. Inches v. Leonard, 826, 358. Ingalls V. Cook, 853. Ingalls V. St. Paul, 2. lugersol 1 V. Sergeant, 644. Ingersoll's Appeal, 642. IngersoU's Will, 506. Ingle V. Culbertson, 361, 368. Ingle «. Partridge, 513. Inglehart v. Armiger. 292, 294. Inglehart v. Crane, 371, 375, 376. Inglis V. Trustees S. S. Harbor, 533, 884. Ingoldsby v, Juaii, 794. Ihgraham v. Baldwin, 199, 213, 792. Ingraham v. Disborough, 332. Ingraham v. Hutchinson, 613. Ingraham v. Fraley, 506. Ingraham v. Wilkins, 835. Ingraham v. Wilkinson, 686, 835. Ingraham v Wyatt, 879. Ingram v. Hall, 809. Ingram v. Hutchinson, 613. Ingram v. Little, 789. Ingram v. Porter, 875. Inhabitants, etc., v, Huntrass, 789. Inhabitants, etc., v. Stoddard, 2. In man v. Jackson, 563. Innes v. Sayer, 573. International Bk. v. Bowen, 336. International Press Assn. -y. Brooks, 187. Iowa College Trustees v. Fenno, 339. Ixxvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Iowa Loan & Trnst Co. v. Mowery, 339. Ireland v. Nichols, 191. Irvin V. Clark, 402. Irvin V. Smith, 816. Irvine tJ.Adler, 699. Irvine v. Irvine, 72S, 792, 793. Irvine v. MarBhall, 744, 747. Irvine v. McKeon, 801. Irvine II. NuBe,292, 293. Irving v. Campbell, 127. Irving V. Cunningham, 829. Irvine's Lessee v. Smith, 816, 818. Irvin V. Cavade, 75. Irwin V. Garner, 292, 293. Irwin V, Langworth, 844. Irwin's Appeals, 513. Isett v. Lucas, 330. Isham V. Bennington Co., 807, 816a. Isham V. Morgan, 2. Israel v. Israel, 242, 243, 255. Ives V. Allen, 882. Ives V, Davenport, 567. Ives V. Van Anken, 843. Ivory V. Burns, 507, 803. Izard V. Bodine, 242, 265. Izard V. Middleton, 886. Izon V. Garton, 214. J. Jackiman v. Kingland.SOS. Jackmanv, Hallock, 295. Jackman v. Rmgland, 500. Jacks V. Henderson, 875, 891. Jackson 17. Aldrich, 213. Jackson v. Alexander, 801, 803. Jackson r. Allen, 277, 278. Jackson v. Andrew, 77, 795. Jackson v. Babcock, 651. Jackson v. Bard, 812. Jackson v. Beach, 782. Jackson v. Berner, 699. Jackson v. Einney, 699. Jackson v. BiUinger, 543. Jackson v . Blanshan, 632, 883. Jackson v. Blodgett, 332. Jackson v.Bodle, 180, 814. Jackson v. Bowen, 310, 332, 739. Jackson v. Bradford, 728, 730, 781. Jackson v. Bradt, 214, 216, 217. Jackson v. Bnukerholf, 727. Jackson v. Brown, 417, 418. Jackson v. Brownaon, 69, 73, 74. Jackson v. Bryan, 218. Jackson v. Bull, 37, 398. Jackson v. Burchin. 793. Jackson v. Caldwell, 758, 776, 782, 801. Jackson v. Carey, 463, 464. Jackson?;. Carpenter, 793. Jackson v. Catlin, 447, SCO, 812, 815. Jackson v. Cator, 77. Jackson v. Chamberlain, 817a. Jackson r. Chase, 790. Jackson v. Churchill, 139. Jackson v. Clark, 829. Jackson V. Cleveland, 500, 812, 813. Jackson v. Chase, 790. Jackson v. Chew, 538, 542. Jackson v, Cody, 798. Jackson v. Colden, 810. Jackson v. Coleman, 564. Jackson v. Collins, 200. Ixxviii Jackson v. Corey, 463, 798, 811, Jackson v. Corliss, 183. Jackson V. Crofts, 364. Jackson v. Croj , 757. 811. Jackson v. Crysler, 277, 278. Jackson iJ. Davia, 182. Jackson v. Defcndorf, 830. Jackson ?7. Delacroix, 178, 179. Jackson v. Delaucey, 319, 320. 324, 329, 398, 801. Jackson v. Denniston, 878. Jackson v. Dewitt, 117. Jackson v. Deyo, 213, Jackson v. Diefendorf, 716, 830, 840. Jackson v. Dillon, 801. Jackson v. Dubois, 339, 322, 817a. Jackson v. Dunlap, 180, 812, 813, 814. Jackson v. Dunsbaugh, 483, 776, 783. Jackson v. Dysling, 605. Jackson v. Eddy, 196. Jackson u. Eldndge, 179. Jackson v. Elm.eudor, 538. Jackson v. Elston, 696. Jackson v. Farmer Ins. Co., 327, 328. Jackson v. Feller, 500. Jackson v. Ferris, 563. Jackson v. Florence, SOI. Jackson v. Foster, 700. Jackson V. Frost, 696. Jackson v. Gardner, 198. Jackson v. Gilchrist, 794. Jackson v. Given, 511. Jackson -y. Giimaer, 792. Jackson v. Hallock, 294. Jackson w. Harder, 260. Jackson v. Harrison, 193. Jackson v. Hart, 682, 798. Jackson V. Harcwell, 461. Jackson v. Hathaway, 837, 842. Jackson V. Hayner, 811. Jackson v. Henry, 364, 802. Jackson v. Hixon, 144. Jackson v. Hoffman, 728. Jackson v. Hoover, 875. Jackson v. Hopkins, 323, 332, 823. Jackson v. Housell, 37. Jackson v, Howland, 812. Jackson v, Hoyner, 810. Jackson v. Hubble, ~2S, 781. Jackson v. Humphrey, 810. Jackson v. Hull, 322. Jackson v. Ireland, 844. Jackson v. Jackson, 434, 675, 876, 877. Jackson v. Jansen, 563. Jackson v. Johnson, 106, 108. Jackson v. Jones, 307. Jackson v. Joy, 694. Jackson v. Ketchum, 795. Jackson v. King, 792. Jackson v. Kip, 122, 193. Jackson v. Kisselbrack, 179. Jackson v. Langhcad, 190. Jackson v. Lawrence, 307. Jackson v. Leek, 801, 812, 816. Jackson v. Leggett, 795. Jackson v. Leonard, 714. Jackson v, Livingston, 242, 819, 829a. Jackson v. Loree, 359. Jackson v, Loomis, 702. Jackson v. Losse, 359. Jackson v. Luce, 817a. Jackson v. Lynch, 305, 326. Jackson v. Mancms, 64, 65. Jackson v. Matsdorf, 500, 580, 730. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Jackson v. MoCall, 832. Jackson v. McKcnny, 777. Jackson v. McLeod, 2U, 226. Jjickson V. Blcrrill, 37. Jackson v. MiUcr, 21tl, 638. Jackson v. Miner, 79S. Jackson v. Wmklcr, 382. Jackson v. Moore, 607, 074, 700. Jackson v, Mouell, 359. Jackson v. Morse, 498. Jackson v, Mnrray, 727, 857. Jackson v. Myers, 60, 179, 463, 466. Jackson v. Newton, 696. Jackson v. Noble, 644. Jackson v. Odell, 196. Jackson v, O'Donaghy, 115. Jackson v. Ogden, 726. Jackson v. Oltz, 696. Jackson v, Osborn, 790. Jackson v. Parkhurst, 225. Jackson v. Peck, 728, 858. Jackson v. Phillips, 644, 809, 884. Jackson v. Phipps, 812, 813, 814. Jackson v. Pierce, 215. Jackson v. Pike, 801. Jackson v. Post, 817a. Jackson v. Reeves, 839. Jackson v. Eiciiards, 180, 596, 696, 813. Jackson v. Roberts, 767. * Jackson v. Robins, 398, 564. Jackson v. Rowland, 199,815. Jackson v. Salmon, 214. Jackson v. Schauber, 511, 563. Jackson V. Scboonmaker, 65, 695, 715, 801, 812. Jackson v. Sebring, 782. Jackson y. Sellick, 106. Jackson v. Sharp, 699. Jackson 11. Shelflon, 813, 815. Jackson v. Shepard, 760. Jackson v. Shoemaker, 714. Jackson u. 8111,883. Jackson v. Slater, 326. Jackson v. Smith, 700. Jackson v. Spear, 199. Jackson v. Siaats, 538. Jackson t>. Stackhouse, 333. Jackson v. Stanley, 798. Jackson v. Stevens, 694,857, 730. Jackson v. Sublett, 399. Jackson v. Swart, 767, 777. Jackson v. Thomas, 714. Jackson v. Thompson, 538. Jackson v. Tabbitts, 73, 77, 259. Jackson v. Thurman, 668, 669. Jackson v. Tapping. 277, 883. Jackson v. Tibbitts, 251. Jackson v. Town, 8i7a. Jackson v. Van Dusen, 876. Jackson v, Vankerheyden, 115, 757. Jackson v. Van Hoesen, 64. Jackson v. Van Slyck, 513. Jackson v. Van Zandt, 52. Jackson v. Vermilyea, 696. Jackson v. Vincent, 199, 200. Jackson v. Waldron, 728. Jackson v. Walker, 502, 503. Jackson v. Walsh, 365. Jackson v Warford, 697. Jackson v. Warren, 359. Jackson v. Wendell, 808. Jackson v. Wheat, 694, 699. Jackson v. Weeeler, 200. Jackson v. Whitbeck, 251, 254. Jackson v. Wilcox, 746. Jackson v. Wlllard, 30O, 301, 318, 329. Jackson v. Wmslow, 858. Jackson v. Wood, 696, 783,808, 878. Jackson v. WoodrnfE, 696. Jackson v. Woods, 878. Jackson v. ^^ right, 727, 730, 80O. Jacob V. Yale, 730. Jacobs V. Allard, 614. Jacoby v. Crowe, 339. Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co., 161. Jacocks V. Gilliam, 730, 731. Jacoway v. Gault, 810. Jacquet v. Bachman, 184. Jaite V. Harteau, 189, 194. Jakeway v. Barrett, 696, 836. Jamaica Pond Co. v. Chandler, 816, 842, 843, 844. James v. Allen, 499. James v. Brown, 817. James v. Claim, 433. James v. Cowing, 513. James I'. Dean, 213. James v. James, 291, 292, 885. James I). Johnson, 303, 805, 329,340, 817. James v. Marvin, 890. James v. Money, 302, 321, 512. James v. Morey, 8176. James v. Plant, 842. James v. Rice, 288, 289. James v. Thomas, 308, 309. James v. Vanderheyden, 115, 815. James v. Whitebread, 798. James v. AVorcester, 318. James v. ^\''yufo^d, 544. Jameson v. Emerson, 307. Jameson v. Smith, 193, 563. Jameson v. Miliman, 653. Jamison V. Glascock, 501, 607. Jane v. Gregory, 815. Janes v. Jenkins, 602. Janes v. Penny, 809. Janes v. Throckmorton, 700. Janie V. Patterson, 696. Jaques V. Gould, 192, 193. Jaques v. Methodist Church, 814. Jaques v. Weeks, 310, 311, 817ffl, 8175. Jaqni v. Johnson, 605. Jarechl v. Philharmonic Soc, 6. Jarstadt, v. Smith, 812. Jarvis V. Aikens, 731, 817. Jarvis V. Davis, 38. Jarvis V. Dutcher, 288, 290, 292, 312. Jarvis v, Russick, 756. Jayne v. Gregg, 812. Jeifersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Oyler, 714. Jefford V. Ringgold, 792. Jeffreys. Hursh, 303. Jelf rey v. Underwood, 808. Jeffries V. Allen, 120. Jencks v. Alexander, 356, 363, 364, 300. 600, 666. Jenks V. Compton, 398, 564. Jenkins v. Doolittle, 501. Jenkins v. Freyer, 402, 414. Jenkins v. Frink, 501. Jenkins v. Gething, 6. Jenkins v. Hart, 808. Jenkins v. Hopkins, 853. Jenkins v. Hun, 808. Jenkfns v. International Bank, 366. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 125, 193, 792. Jenkins v. Jones, 366. Jenkins V. Smith, 360. Ixxix TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Jentins v. Stetson, 311, 312. Jenkins v. Trager, 69fj, Jeukins v. Young, 463, 464. Jenkins' W ill, 876. Jenks V. Morgan, 831. Jenks' Lessee v. Backhouse, 237. Jenksr. Ward, 841, 853. Jennert v. llouser, 567. Jennings v. Brizeadine, 803 Jennings -y. Freyer, 412. Jennings v. Harrison, 725. Jennings f. Jennings, 544. Jennings v, McComb, 216. Jennings r. Morten, 852. Jennings v. Ward, 308. Jennings V. Whittaker, 746. Jennings v. Wood, 817&. Jennor v. Hardies, 564. Jenny v. Andrews, 576, Jenny v. Jenny, 126. Jenny v. Jennings, 244. Jenny v. Norton, 852. Jenny V. AVard, 309. Jenny v. Whitaker, 746. Jennison v. Hapgood, 320, 146, 365,501. Jennison v. Walker, 605, 608, 617. Jerome v. Carter, 359. Jervis v. Bruton, 46. Jesserv. Gifford,389. Jesson V. Doe, 434. Jeter V. Glenn, 862. Jeter v. Penn, 201. Jewell V. Warner, 52. Jewett V. Bailey, 306, 307. Jewettv. Brock, 159. Jewett V. Foster, 242, 829o. Jewett w. Huseey, 695. Jewett V. Jewett, 605. Jewett V. Miller, 725, 726. Jewett V. Whitney, 251, 255, 605. Jewett's Lessee v. Stockton, 260, 829a. Jillson V. Wilcox, 433. Jobe V. O'Brien, 371. Johannes v. Kielgast, 227. John V. Cherry Streets, 751. John«J. Beers, 401. John V. Biimpstead, 364. John V. Nutt, 312. Johns V. Church, 310. Johns V. Rcardon, 359, 816a. Johns V. Scott, 338. Johnson v. Anderson, 336, 837. Johnson v. Baker, 813. Johnson v. Beaucharap, 216. Johnson v. Blair, 254. Johnson v. Blydenbnrg, 862. Johnson v. Boorman, 617. Johnson v. Boutock, 781. Johnson v. Brailsford, 887. Johnson v. Brown, 360. JoJinson V. Buckhaults, 358. Johnson v. Camp, 71. Johnson v. Candage, 329. Johnson v. Carpenter, 340, 329, 332, 817. Johnson v. Cawthorn, 292. Johnson v. Clark, 818. Johnson v. Collins, 747, 861. Johnson v. Conn. Bank, 502, 503. Johnson v. Cook, 795. Johnson v. Copeland, 873. Johnson v. Cornett, 329. Johnson v. Cushing, 576. Johnson v, Delaney, 507. Johnson v. Dougherty, 501. Ixxx Johnson v. Elliott, 146. Johnson r. Elwood, 760. Johnson v. Farley, 812, 814. Johnson v. Golden, 361. Johnson v. Gorham, 699. Johnson v. Gray, 304, 308. Johnson r. Hanahan,228. Johnson v. Harmon, 362. Johnson v. Harris, 239, 340, 241, 244. Johnson v. Houston, 322. Johnson v. Hart, 243, 251. Johnson v. Houston, 322. Johnson v. Johnson, 61», 418, 419, 883. Johnson v. Jordan, 601, 602, 609. Johnson v. Knapp, 617. Johnson v. Lewis, 362. Johnson v. Massy, 824. Johnson 1?. McGrew, 292. Johnson v. Mcintosh, 682, 744. Johnson v. McMillen, 696. Johnson v. M. E. Church, 875. Johnson v. Mehaffey, 5. Johnson v. Miller. 324, 325, 356, 741. Johnson v. Morrell, 332. Johnson v. Mussey, 1S5. Johnson v. Muzzy, 646. Johnson v. Nash, 714. Johnson v. Nunnerly, 292. Johnson v. Nyce, 854. Johnson v. Parker, 127, 696. Johnson v. Phillips, 361. Johnson i\ Prairie, 795. Johnson V. Quarles, 600. Johnson v. Rice, 369, 375 . Johnson v. Ronald, 507. Johnson v. Shields, 115. Johnson v. Shank, 201. Johnson v. Sharp, 881. Johnson v. Shelter Island Grove, etc* 6U. Johnson v. Sherman, 333. Johnson v. Simpson, 829. Johnson v, Simcock, 883. Johnson v. Smith, 307. Johnson v. Stevens, 829a. Johnson v. Sugg, 293. Johnson v. Thomas, 367. Johnson v. Turner, 363. Johnson v. Valentine. 401. Johnson v. Warren, 273, 278. Johnson v. White, 351, Johnson v. Williams, 370, 371. Johnson Co. v. Wood. 829. Johnson's Exr. v. Citizens Bk.,533. Johnston v. Gray, 308. Johnston i\ Hyde, 605. Johnston v. Irwin, 714. Johnston v. McDuflie, 359. Johnstons. Smith, 370, 871. Johnstons. Vandyke, 135. Johnston v. Zane's Trustees, 502, 503. Johnstone v, Huddlestone, 198, 314. Johnstone v. Wallace, 810. Joiner 1'. Borders, 714. Jones V. Bacon, oUS, 564. Jones V. Beers, 402. Jones V. Blake, 305, 307. Jones r. Bhimenstein, 164. Jones V. Brewer, 115, 134, 136, 137. Jones V. Brewington, 302, 303. Jones v. Britton, 169. Jones V. Bush, 493, 792, S12, 813. Jones V. Butter, 793. Jones* Appeal, 613. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Jones* Assignee v. Clilton, 676. Jones V. Carter, 191, 277, 805. Jones V. Cable, 883. Jones J). Chappell, 72, 77. Jones V. Chiles, 251, 255. Jones V. Clark, 324. Jones V. Conde, 298, 362. Jones V. Crane, 237, 238. Jones w. Crawford, 808. Jones V. Crow, 5a9. Jones V. Currier, 163. Jones V, Davies, 197. Jones V. DeLassns, 251, 255, 8i3. Jones V. Dexter, 501. Jones V. Doe, 273, 274. Jones V. Doss, 294. Jones V. Dougherty, 513. Jones j;. Feloh, 192. Jones II. Gaddis, 695, 714. .Tones v. Gibbons, 340, 817. Jones V. Gillman, 361. Jones t). Hill, 81. Jones V. Hacknian, 699. Jones V. Hoar, 82. Jones V. Hnrst, 562. Jones V. Hough, 810. Jones V. Jenliiny, 602, 613, 855. Jones V. Jonson Harvester Co., 818. Jones V. Jones, 135, 210, 292, 817, 813, Jones V. Kimble, 832. Jones V. King, 857. Jones V. Lapham, 359, 818. Jones V. Laughton, 434. Jones V. Lawrence, 358. Jones V. Loveless, 813. Jones V. Longwood, 808. Jones V. Marable, 664. Jones V, McDougal, 501. Jones V. Marsh, 218. Jones V. Marks, 818. Jones V. Merchants Nat, Ek,, 725. Jones V. Miller, 538, 542. Jones V. Moffett, 510. Jones V. Monroe, 795. Jones V. Motley, 840. Jones V. Myrick, 371. Jones V. Pashby, 840. Jones V. Pjitterson, 90, 140. Jones V. Percival, 610. Jones V. Perry, 752. Jones V. Phelps, 339. Jones V. Pierce, 307. Jones V. Porter, 695, 699. Jones V. Eeeder, 601. Jones V. Reynolds, 179. Jones V. Rigby, 361. Jones V. Rolibins, 163, 164, 806, 809. Jones V. Roberts, 881. Jones V. Roe, 277, 386, 487, 530. Jones V. Roper, 163. Jones v. Say & Seal, 468. Jones V. Sheward, 63, 373. Jones V. Sheward, 373. Jones u. Shewmake, 890. Jones V. Sothoran, 642. Jones V. Soulard, 686. Jones V. Taylor, 756. .Tones V. Thomas, 71- Jones V. Todd, 127. Jones «. Waddy, 160. Jones V, Wagner, 618. Jones V. Walker, 273. Jones V. Weatherslee, 251, 254. Jones V. Webb, 534. 890. / Jones V. Whitehead, 76. Jones V. Winwood, 561. Jones V. Wood, 569. Jones V. Zanes Trustees, 603. Jordan v. Bryan, 201. Jordan v. Davis, 813. Jordan v. Temm, 307. Jordan v. Furlong, 336. Jordan v. Lang, 714. Jordan v. MoMllty, 262. Jordan v. Mead, 818. Jordan v. Staples, 201. Jordan v. Smith, 335. Jordan v. Stevens, 777, 790. Josephs. Fisher, 117. Joseph V. Fisher, 806. Joslin V. Rhoades, 398. Joslin V. Sones, 604. Joalyn v. Wyman, 336,841. Jonrdanv. Haran, 116. Journegy v. Brackley, 183. Joyce V. Williams, 726. Juddw. Suking, 321. Judd V. Woodruff, 818. Judge of Probate v. Stone, 792, Judge, Opinion ol], 769. Judge, Report of, 776. Judson V, Dade, 818. Judson V. Gibson, 510. Judson V, Siena, 806. Judy V. Williams, 883. Jumel V. Jumel, 870, 371, 819. K. Kabley «. Worcester Gas Co., 179. Kahn v. Gumbcrt, 501. Kaiser v. Karhart, 730. Kaler v. Beaman, 505. Kalis u, Shattuck, 139. Kane v. Bloodgood, 700. Kane v. Roberts, 818. Kane v. Sanger, 860. Kane u. Van denbnrg, 81. Kankakee R. R. Co. v. Horan,614, Kannady v. McCarron, 322. Kanovalinka v. Schlegel, 148. Kansas City Land Co. v. Hill, 402. Karmiller v. Kratz, 828. Karn v. Haisley, 696. Karnes v. Lloyd, 322. Kallham v. Rockwell, 700. Kauflelt V. Bower, 290, 292. Kaufman v. Fore, 164. Kauff man v. Peacock, 120. Kaul V. Brown, 881, Kay V. Davis, 792. Kay V. Jennings, 697. Kay V. Scates, 544. Kay V. Penn. R. R. Co., 654. Kay V. Whittaker, 359. Kean's Case, 889. Kean v. Connelly, 256. Kean v. Hoffecker, 530. Kean v. Roe, 880. Kearney v. Fleming, 497. Kean v, Kolkochmeler, 181. Kearney v. Kearney, 181. Kearney v. MoComb, 305, 806. Kearney v. Post, 182. Kearney v. Taylor, 755. Kearneys. Vaughan, 675. Ixxxi TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Kearslng v. Eilian, 741. Keats V. Hugo, 602. Keating v. Condon, 84. Kenting Implement Co. & Machine Co. V. Power Co , 2, 5. Keating v. Reynolds, 542. Keay V. Goodwin, 192, 2.i5, 260. Kedney V. Rohoback, 198. Keech v. Saiidlord, 601. Keedle v. Flaclj, 332. Keelerj). Eaatman, 73, 74, 76. Keelerw. Tatnell, 127. Keeleri>. Wood, 843. Keen's Appeal, 646, 755, 827. Keiffer v. ImliofE, 601. Keim's Appeal, 434. Keisel V. Earnest, 255. Keiperi;. Klien,613. Keith V. Horner, 292, 294, 295. Keiths. Swan, 36. Keith V. Trapeer, 120. Keith V. Wolf, 293. Kellaii. Miles, 196a. Kellam v. Jansom, 228, 817a. Kellar v. Ashford, 332, 858. Kellar v. Linton, 310. Kellers;. Jlichael, 115. Keller u. Nntz, 817. Keller n. Sin ton, 310. Kelleranw. Brown, 303, 304, 306,307, 808. Kelley v. Greenleaf. 601. Kelley v. Jenness, 500. Kelley v. Johnson, 500. Kelley u. WcBlain, 816. Kelley v. Mills, 339. Kelley v. Weston, 201. Kellogg, Ex parte 761. Kellogg V. Ames, 336, 3S7. Kellogg V. Frazier, 310. Kellogg V. Ingersoll, 853. Kellogg.i;. McLaughlin, 760. Kellogg V. Miilin, 851, 853. Kellogg K. Mullen, 698. Kelloggsj. Piatt, 855. Kellogg 17. Eobmson, 853, 860. Kellotrgi;. Rockwell, 326. Kellogg V. Smith, 329, 340. Kellum». Smith, 600. Kelly i;. Baker, 161. Kelly V. Bryan, 307. Kelly w. Burn ham, 339. Kelly V. Johnson. 600. Kelly j7. Kelly, 883. Kelly V. Langshore, 360. Kelly u. Miller, 878. Kelly V. McGuire, 670. Kelly V. Mills, 339, 817a. Kelly V. Payne, 294, 295. Kelly V. Thompson, 303, 304, 305. Kelly V. Wait, 213. Kelly V. Watson, 201. Kelseyi). Hardy, 667, 670. Kelso V. Fleming. 332. Kemerer v. Bloom, 336. Kemp V. Holland, 148. Kempton v, Viker, 193, Kempner v. Comer, 3(58. Kenison v. Ashbee, 792. Kenady v. Edwards, 508, 513. Kenrial v. Garland, 193. Kendal v. Granger, 499. Kendal v. Lawrence, 792. Kendal v. Mann, 500. Kendal v. Treadwell, 358, 361. Ixxxii Kendriok v. Judas, 183. Keunard v. Kcnnard, 401. Kennebec Purchase v. Tiffany, 831, 84L Kennebec i'uvclia?e v. Springer, 696, 697. Kenicott v. Supervisors, 332. Kennedys'. Fury, 613. Kennedy v. Hay, 544. Kennedy s;. Johnstone, 148. Kennedys. Kennedy, 6ul, 538. Kennedy v. Marrast, 793. Kennedys. McCartney, 744. Kennedy v. Mills, 148. Kennedy v Medrow, 147, 148. Kennedy v. Numan. 499, 503, 503. Kennedy v Price, 500. Kennedy v. Ta\ lor, 600. Kennedy v. Taylor, 600. Kenned\'s Appeal, 237. Kennerly v. Burgess, 351. Kennerly V. Missouri Ins. Co., 135. Kennt tt v. Plummer, 318. Kenniston v. I>eightnn, 443. Kenrick v. Latiram,696, 714. Kensingtons?, i.ouverle. 66. Kensinglon, Ex parte, 289. Kent V. Allbritiiin, 303. Kent V. Gerhard, 292, 293. Kent V. Kent, 651. 662. Kents;. Mahnffcy, 887. Kent v. Plum liter, SIS. Kent V. Wait, 599, 601, 842. Kent r. Welch 859. Kenworthy v. Tnllis, 844. Kenyon v. Nichols, 601, 602, 662. Keppell V. Bailey, 190. Kercheval v. Triplett, 728. Kerley v. Kerley, 169. Kermilleri'. Krotz. 843. Kern v. Saxman, 878. Keiyiochan v. K. Y. Bowery Ins. Co., S27. Kerns v. Swope,816, 816a, 8176, 818. Kerr ti. Bell, 792. Kerr v. Clark, 177. Kerr, Matter of, 636. Kerr v. Freeman, 781. Kerr v. Gilmore, 207, 307. Kerrz'. Hill, 305. Ki'rr V. Hitt, 697. Kerr v. Moon, 744, 873. Kerr v. Moor, 873. Kerr v. Russell, 127, 810. Kerrigan v. Hart, 887. Kersel v. Earnest. 243. Kersenbrock v. Mutf , 355. Kershaw v. Thompson, 358, 361. Kessler i: McOonachy, 196a. Kessler v. State, 818. Ketchin v. Patrick, 265. Ketchum i\ Barber, 798. Ketchum v. Mobile II. R., 509. Ketchum v. Wal8worth,342, 'M5 Key V. Gamble, 630, 632. Key V. Jennings, 697, f98. Keyes!'. Scanlan, 164. KeycHu. Wood, 330. Keyport Steamboat Co. v. Farmer's Transp. Co., 8:». Keyser v. Covell, 617. Keyser r. School District, 2. Keyser v. Mitchell, 502, 503. Kibby V. Chitwood, 752. Kibler v. Huver, 398, 664. Kldd r. Dennison, 74, Kldd V. Temple, 312. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Kiddall V. Trimbell, 138. KiefEer v. Imhotf, 697,598, 602, 619. Kier v. Petersou, 75. Kiersted v. Avery, 817a. Kiester v. Miller, 198. Keighley v. Bulkly, 2U. Kilbee v. Myrick, 992. Kllborne v. Bobbins, 373. Eilbourne v. Laokman, 714. Kilbroethi;. Root Admr., 120. Kilbum V. Eitchle, 700. Kile«. Fleming, 696. Kile V. Giebner, 6. Kileij.Tabbs, 698. Kilgore v. Kilgore, 401. Kilgour V. Cniwford, 262. Kilpatrick v. Kllpatrick, 292, 293. Killam V. Allen, 563. Killoremv. Murtaus:h, 199. Kilpin V. Kilpln, 500. Kimball v. Blaladell, 727, 728, 731, 817. Kimball v. (Jocheco E. K., 609. Kimball v. Eaton, 811. Kimball u. JobnBon, 810. Kimball V. Kenosha, 837. Kimball v. Kimball, 122. Kimball V. l.ewiston, 351. Kimball r. Lockwood, 199, 324. Kimball v. Lahmas, 695, 696. Kimball v. Myers, 810, 311. Kimball v. Pike, 192. Kimball v. Rowland, 193, 219. Kimball v. Sohoft, 730. Kimball v. Slormer, 695. Kimball v. Story, 884, 885. jKimball v. Temple, 855. Kimball v. Walker, 801. Kimball v. Wethington, 843. Kimbell v. Kodgers, 842. Kimber v. Barber, -601. Klme V. Brooks, 805, 807. Kimmarle v. Houston, etc., R. R. Co., 810. Kimniell v. Caruthers, 163. Kimmell v. Willard, 331. Kimpton v. Walker, 186, 188. Klncaid v. Britton, 850, 853, 855, 861. Kincaid v. Howe, 798. Kincaid v. McGowan, 843. Kincaid v. Meadows, 795. Kinohloe v. Tracewell, 695, 700. Kindro v. Johnson, 8o3. King». Aldborough, 182, 187. King II. Anderson, 192. King V. Barnes, 37. Kingw. Bell, 509. King v.Bronsom, 364. King!). Donnelly, 608, 510. King 2). Duntz, 364. King V. Foraser, 818. King«. Foscue, 70,71. King V. Gelson, 730. King V. Gilson, 7H0, 816, 857, 859, 861. King V. Goetz, 162, 163. , Kingt). Grant, 275, 883. ICingu. Harrington, 329. King V. Herndon, 653, 654. King)). Hunt, 695. King V. Ins. Co., 325, 327. King V. Kerr's Admrs., 855, 860. King V. Kilbride, 310, 858. King V. King, 310. King V. Lawson, 212. King V. Litter, 303, 305. King V. Longner, 805. King V, McCarley, 161. King 17. Murphy, 605. Kingu. Mutual Ins. Co., 327. King);. Phillips, 261,2.55. King V. Porter, 817», 8176. King V. Reed, 264. King V. St. Patrick's Cathedral, 842. King V. Scoggin , 399. King V. Smltn, 714, 715. King tJ. State Ins Co., 327 King V. Stetson, 124. King V. Trick, 401. Kingij. Wells, 843. Kingi). Whittle, 71. King V. Wilson, 182. King V. Yarborough, 687. Kingdon v. Bridges, 500. Kingdon v. Mottle, 860. Kingley v. Holbrook, 10, 71, 799, 809. Kingman v. Harmon, 401. Kingman v. Sinclair, 343. Kingman u. Sparrow, 705, 716. Kingsbury v. Burnsidee, 507, 812, 8U. Kingsbury v, Buckner, 334. Kingsbury V. Collins, 214. Kingsbury D. Wild, 756. . King's Chapel v. Pelham, 277. Kingsland v. Clark, 195. Kingsmill v. Millard, 199. Kingston's Case, 731. Kinkle v. Wolfersberger, 323. Kinnati. Smith, 301. 319, 329, 330, 337,»60. Kinnan v. Card, 401. Kinne v, Kinne, 881. Kinnear v. Lowell, 336, 370. Klnnebrew v. Kinnebrew, 801. Kinney v. Smith, 330. Kinsell v. Daggett, 694. Kinsley v. Abbott, 237, 238. Kinsley v. Ames, 363. Kinsley v. Scott, 361. Kinsman v. Loomis, 700. Kintnerv. Jones, 506,513. Kintz V. Friday, 672. Kip V. Bank of New York, 502, 503. Kip V. Deniston, 613. Kiplinger v. Meeks, 201. Kirby v. Giddings, 163. Kirchner v. Miller, 726. Kirkt). Dean, 116, 127. Kirkendall v. Mitchell, 850. Kirdham v. Boston, 292, 294. Kirkham U.Sharp, 605,608. Kirklaiid v, Hepsi'lgelser, 794. Kirkpatrick v. Chestnut, 647. Kirkpatrlok v. Peshlne, 862. Kirksey v. Cole, 65. Kirschnerti. The W. & A. Ey. Co., 599. Kisler V. Kisler, 501. Klsteibook v. Lanning, 4. Kistland v. Pounsett, 216. Kitchen V. Burgwin, 160, 161, 163, 164. Kitchen v. Bedford, 506. Kitchen v. Lee, 792, Kittle V. VauDyck, 124, 360. Kittredge v. Woods, 71, 799, 842. Klapner v. Laverty, 4;i3. 434, 642. Klapwortht;. Drissler. 332. Klappner v. Laverty, 542. Klien v. Gehrung, 613. Kline v. Beebe, 106, 792, 793. Kline V. Jacobs, 24"^, 255. Kline v. McLain, 177, 179. Kline V. Eaglaid, 730. Ixxxiii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. KUnk V. Keoiley, 117, 124. Klink i\ Price, 307. Klockr. Walter, 307. Knarr v. Conaway, 351. Knecker «■. Voltz, 697, 605. Knell V. IJuilding Assn., 817a, 818, Knell V. Green St. Building Assn., 339. Knejiper ■;;. Kurtz, S.iS. Knevals v. Prince, 260. Knight v. Bell, 92. Knight V. Clemeiita, 790. Knight V. Dyer, 803, 305, 600, 841. Knight r. Elliott, 8;)2. Knight V. HouKhtallng, 356. Knlgliti>. Knig'ht, 228. Knight i\ Mains, 123. Knight J). Blosely, 75. Knight V. Paxson, 411. Knoderer v. Merriman, 538. Knotts V. Hydrick, 10. Know i\ Hinson, 696. Knowles v. Brown, 700. Knowies v. Nichols, 693. Knowles v. Roblin, 334. Knowies v. Toothaker, 726, 831. Knowlton V. Galligan, 310. Knowltoii V. Smith, 699. Knowlton v. Walker, 326. Knox V. lOastOn, 322, 323, 324. Knox V. Galligan, 310. Knox V. Gye, 498. Knox II. Hook, 700. Knox's Appeal, 875. Koch V. Briggs, 36b, 806. Koehlerr. Biack Hiver, etc., Co., 808. Koehler v. Kline, 264. Koehler v. !?clieider, 198. Koelegi'. Phelps,20l. Koenigheim v. Milep, 843. Koenig's Appeal, 137. Kohn V. Kumpp, 307. Kolasky v. Mickles, 190. Kolheini v. Harrison, 326. Konvalinka v. Geibbel, 401. Konvalinkav. Geibcl, 533. Koons V. Grooves, 818. Korns v, Shaffer, 365. Kortright v. Cady, 330, 333. Kradley v. Sharp, 8.^2. Kramer v. Cook, 180, 194. Kramer V. Rebman, 361. Krant v. Crawford, 686 Kreitz v, Hamilton, 715 Kreslni'. Mace, 161. Krevet v. Meper,228. Kriddeu v. Lafferty, 818. Kripp V. Curtis, 609. Krueger v. Ferry, 370. Kruger v, LeBlanc, 160. liruse V. Scripps, 331, 332. Krnse v. Wilson, 701. Krusman v. Loomis, 728. Kuhn V. Newman. 484, 494. Knhn v. Kumpp, 307. Kumler v. Ferguson, 801. Kunckle v. Wymick, 186. Kunkle v. Wolf esberger, 303, 304, 305, 324. Kuntzv. Fisher, 601. Kursheedt v. McCnne, 329. Kursheedt v. Union Dime Sav. Inst., 359. Kurstv. Paton, 401. Kurtz V. Sponable, 330. Knrz V. Brusch, 161. Kutcb V. Holly, 164. Ixxxiv Kutter V. Smith, 2, 7, 176. Kutz V. McCune, 853. Kyger v. Eyley, 322. Kyle V. Kavenagh, 781. Kyle V. Thompson, 817,8176. Kyles u. Tait's Admr. 292. L. Labanne v. Payne, 321. Labaree v. Oarleton, 273, 801. Laberge v. Chauvin, 330. Lacey v. Arnett, 653. Lacey v. Marnan, 861. Lackman v. Wood, 731. Lacon v. Allen, 288, 289. Lacy V. Hale, 501. Ladd V. City of Boston, 604. Ladd V. Ladd, 563, 568, 667, 568. Ladd V. Perley, 263. Laberee v. Carlton, 801. Lace V. Gould, 697. Lacey v. Arnett, 653. Lacey v. Marnan, 861. Lackman v. Wood, 731. Lacustrine, etc., Co. v. Lake Gnano, etc., Co., SIS. Ladue v. Detroit, etc., R. B., 329, 330, 333, 342. Lafarge v. Mansfield, 174. Lafavour v. Homan, 700. Lafayette v. Blanc, 746. Laffen v. Naglee, 501. Lafferty v. Whitesides, 498. La Franibois v. Jackson, 696, 697. Lagow V. BadoUet, 292, 294. Laldley v, Aikin, 339. Lake v. Brown, 368. Lake V. Craddock, 237. Lake v. Doud, 302, 303. Lakei'. Gray, 801. Liike«. Nolan, 126, 161. Lake v. Thomas, 326. Lakiu V. Lakin, 128. Lamar v. Minter, 702. Lamar v. Scott, 115, 140. Lakin v. Sierra ButterGold Min. Co., 501- Lamar v. Minter, 702. Lamb v. Danforth, 230, 240, 265, 851, 853, 855, SUl. Lamb L\ Gritman, 877. Laml) V, Lamb, 881. Lamb v. Montague, 334. Lamb v. Shays, 163. Lambdin v. Lambdin, 642. Lambert 2'. Lstes, 855, 861. Lambert v. Ilyers, 360. Lambertin y. Van Voorhis, 292. Lamden v. Sharp, 808. Liimdert r. Blumenlhal, 262. Laniperti*. Haydel, 503. Lampet's Case, 411 . Lampleigh v. Lampleigh, 443, 600. Lampman v. Milks, bO-j. Lamprey v. Nudd, 329. Lamson v. Clarkson. 199. Lamson i\ Drake, 337. Lancaster i\ Dolan, 468, 469. Lancaster )'. Thornton, 563. Lancaster Bank v. Myler, 252. Lancaster Co. Bank v. Stauffer, 109. Lance's Appeal, 307. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Land v. Lane, 321. Landei-B v. Bolton, 810, 818. Landon v, Burke, 358. Landrum v. Union Bank of Mo., 364. Lands v. Pf ieffer, i. Lane v. Davis, 330. Lane v. Debenham, 511. Lane v. Dighton, 500, 501. Lane v. Duchac, 330, 8176. Lane v. Dovman, 752, 755. Lane v. Kwins, 506, Lane v. Gould, 697. \ Lane v. Hitchcock, 351. Lane v. King, 71, 324. Lane v. Lane, 498. Lane v. Lewis, 509. Lane v. Ludlow, 294, 296. Lane v. Mason, 818. Lane v. McKean, 794. Lane v. Richardson, 163. Lane v. Shears, 303. * Lane v. Thompson, 82, 828. Lane v. Tyler, 245, 252, 253. Lanfairi;. Lanfair, 804,305,312. Lang V. Waring, 245, 252, 253. Langdon v. Buchanan, 4. Langilon v. Keith. 330. Langdon v. Paul, 82, 351. Langdon v. Poor, 760. Lang Ion v. Strong, 896, 756. Langfordo. Eyre, 567. Langford v. Selmes, 643. Langes v, Muservey, 307. Langley v. Hammond, 697. Langley v. Ross, 191. Langster v. Love, 329. Langston, Ex parte, 288, 289. Langston v. Maxey, 164. Langton v, Horton, 817a. Langworthy v Myers, 697. Lanier V. Booth, 601. Lannay v. Wilson, 360. Lanoy v Athol, 376. Lanphere v. Lowe, 6. Lansing v. Goelot, 358, 362. Lansing v. Stone, 79. • Lansing v. Wiswall, 599, 602. Lantenschloger's Estate, 875, Lapayre v. Paul, 700. Lapman v. Milks, 697. Lapsley v. Lapsley, 642. Laramore v, Miuish, 714. Larges v. Case, 275. Larges v. Van Doren, 311, 336. Laring v. MoKee, 601. Larkin v. Misland, 187. Larkin v. Rich, 401. Lamed v. Clark, -ilZ. Larrabee v. Lumbert, 327, 330. Larrowe v. Beam, 135. Lasala v. Holbrook, 618. Lassen v. Vance, 124. Lathiim v. Blakely, 4. Latham v. Henderson, 500. Latham v. Staples, 294. Lathrop v. Atwood, 852. Lathrop v. Bampton, 501. Lathrop v. Foster, 139. Lathrop v. Standard Oil Oo„ 227. Lathams. Morgan, 869. Latrobe ti. Tieman, 613. Laughton v. Atkins, 887. Laughram v. Ross, 7. Lavender v. Abbott, 292. Lavender v. Lee, 576. Lavensen v. Standard Soap Co., 4. Law V. Hempstead, 829. LawD. Smith, 700. Lawrences. Brown, 115, Lawrence v. Barrel), 190. Lawrence v. Carnell, 309. Lawrence v. Cook, 606. Lawrence v. Farmer's Loan & T. Co., 364. Lawrence v. Fox, 332. Lawrence v. French, 196, 196o. Lawrence v. Hebbard, 396. Lawrences. Kemp, 6. Lawrence v. Knap, 330, Lawrence v. Knight, 191. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 698, 699. Lawrence v. Miller, 199. Lawrence v. Senter, 860, Lawrence v. Stratton, 310, 329, 336, 741, 817(1. Lawrence v. Tucker, 818. Lawry v. Williams, 730, Lawsou V. Morrison, 890. LawBon v. Morton, 117. Lawton v. Adams, 251, 255. LawtoQ V. Buckingham, 801. Lawton v. Gordon, 818. Lawton v. Lawton, 6, Lawton v. Sager, 815. Lawyer v. Sllngerland, 163, 794. Lay V. Neville, 832. Layman v. Thorp, 226, Layton v, Butler, 143. Lea V. Polk Co, Copper Co., 819. Leaz'. Stone, 341. Leach v. Beatties, 817, 8176. Ijcach V. Leach, 501. Leader v. Homewood, 7, Leak v, Richmond Co,, 658. Leake v. iiobinson,644, 558. Leake v. King, 164. Leake V, Watson, 433. Lear v. Leggett, 183. Learned v. Cutler, 115,794. Learned v. Foster, 365. Learned v. Riley, 810. Leather V. Gray, 52, 433. Leavett v. Leavett. 776. Leavitt v. Beirne, 603, 513. Leavitt v. Fletcher, 189, 194. Leavitt v. Lamprey, 115, 145. Leavitt v. Leavitt, 775. Leavitt v. Pell, 665, 567, 568. Leavitt v. Pratt, 337. Leavitt v. Lowle, 842. Leaycraftw. Hedden, 93, 469. Leaycraf t v. Simmons, 877. Lebanon Mining Co. v. Rogers, 696. Leiiarren v. Babcock, 266. Leblanc v. Ludrique, 746. Lecompte v. Wash, 128. Ledford v. Smith, 292. Ledger v. Doyle, 818. Ledyard v. Butler, 318. Ledyarde. Ohapin, 333, 336. Ledyard v. Ten Eyck, 834. LedouxD. Black, 746. Lee«. Adkins, 808. Lee V. Baker, 161. Lee V. Brouder, 600. Lee V. Campbell, 143, 159. Lee V. Cato, 818. Lee V. Clark, 330, 343. Lee V. Dean, 861, Ixxxv TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Lee V. Evans, 308, Lee V. Kingsbury, 362. Lee«7. Lindell, ]16. Lee-y. Mason, 364. Lee V. Mass. Ins. Co., 812. Lee V. McMaster, 36i. Leev. Miller, 161. Lee V. S etherton, 200. Leev. Ogden,819. Lee V. Pembroke Iron Co., 614. Lee V. Simpson, 569. Leeu. Stone, 341. Lee V. Tower, 544. Ivce V. Tucker, 844. Lee's Appeal, 893. Leech's Appeal, 817&. Leeds V. Cameron, 310. Leeds v. Gifford,341. Leedy v. Wakefield, 566, 570. Leeper v. Baker, 697. Leeper v. Neagle, 38. Leesv. Mosley, 434. Lefpvre v. Murdock, 794. Leffler v. Armstrong, 368. Legard v. Hodges, 8i7«. Leger v. Boyle, 818. Lcggett V. Bullock, 339, 818. Leggett V. Perkins. 93, 460, 469. Leggett V. Steele, 135. Legro V. Lord, 163. Lehman v. Dreyfus, 182. Lehman v. Uolhbarth, 601. Lehndorf v. Cope, 47, 52, 64. Leibyv. Wolf, 817. «1T6. Leighton v. Leighton, 81. Leighton v. Preston, 323. Leiman's Estate, 81S. Leishmanv. White, 196, 196a. Letter V. Pike, 195. Leith V. Irvme, 308. Leland v. Loring, 362. Lemanu. Best. 7. Leman V. Whitley, .^00, 501. Lemlng v. Ocean ( 'ity Assn., 603, 837. Leming's Estate, 332. Lemmon v, Hartrook, 726. Lemmond v. Peoples, 499. Lemon v. Graham, 37. LcmoQ V. Hayden,611. Lench v. Lench, 501. Lenfors v. Henke. 75, 116, 135. Lenoir V. Valley River Miu. Co., 251. Lenox v. Beed, 36tj. Lenz V. Preecott, 401. Leonard v. Armstrong, 1S9. Leonard v. Blnford, 3Jfi, 358. Leonard v. Countess of Sussex, 495. Leonardo. Diamond, 494. Leonard «;. Hart, 700, Leonard V. Leonard, 135,714, 791. Le mard v. Villars, 359. Leonard's Lessee v. Diamond, 515. Lepage v. McXamara, SS3, SS4. Leppo V. Lee, 399, 401. Leppoe V. Nat. Unittn Bank, 818. Lerned v. Morrill, 831. Lerow v. Wllmarth. 802. Le.sesne'c. Witte, oOfi. Lesley v. Randolph, 214, 217. Leslie u. I>eslie,b90. Leslie V. Marsliall, 397, 532, 533. Le-^see v. Eckert, 700. Lessee v. Sotden, 105. Lester V. Citizens Sav. Bk., 364. Ixxxvi Lester v. Garland, 503. Lester v. llardesty, 818. Lestrade r. Barth, 819. Lethbridge v. Mytton, S.3-2. Lethienllifr v. Tracy, 31)7, 398, 413. Lethienlliur V. Lower, 397. Levengood V. Hopple, 275. Levering v. Heighee, 6!i8. Levering V. L;.ngley, 198. Levin v. Rovegno, 1.59. Levisoa v. Abrahams, 164. Levy v. Brush, 469. Levy V. Levy, 88i. Lewes v. Ridge, 277, 8176. Lewis V. Baird, 510, 727, 728. Lewis V. Bannister, 296. Lewis v. Baruhart, 52. Lewis V. Beattie, 837. Lewis V. Bradford, ei8. Lewis r. Campbell, 861. Lewis r. Carpcrton's Exr., 292. Lewis V. Coffee Co., 835. Lewis V. Coxc, 806. Lewis V. De Fore-^t, 310. Lewis r. Hawkins, 71j0. Lewis V. James,' 146. Lewis V. Jones, 6, 76, 851. Lewis V. Kirk,34"i. Lewis V. Lewis, 851, 514, S77. Lewis V. Lyman, 843. Lewis V Mcsserve. 122. Lewis V. Overby, SOS. Lewis V. Payne, 196, 790. Lewis r. Pitman. 39>i, 564,. Lewis V. Uidge, 190. Lewis V. Smith, 14S, 361. Lewis V. Waters, 413. Lewiston r. Proctnr,611. Libbey v. Tufts, 371. Liddoa V. Hodnett. 699. Lienaa v. Summerfield, 564. Life Insurance Co. r. Patterson, 603. Liford'3Case,46. Liggins V. luge 605, 614. Lightner v. Mooney, 818. Liles V. Darden, 574. Lillard v. Kucker, 816, S17a. Lillibridg r. Ross, 542. Lilly V. Palmer, 336. 3-'7, 370. Limerick i\ Voorhis, 32ti. Lincoln v. Aldrich, 546. Lincoln B. & L. Association v. HaSS, 818. Lincoln v. Edgercomb, 695, 699. Lincoln v. Emerson, S26. Lincoln r. Purcell, 716. Lind v. Hook, 798, Linden v. Hepburn, 182. Lindeu v. Waifield, SI. Lindley V. Crombie, SOO. Lindleyr. Dakin,S5L Lindley v. ISLartindale. 819. Lindsay v. Leighton, 189. Lindsay?'. Lindsay, S91. Lindsay I'. Springer, 72ii. Lindsey r. Bates'^ 2^2, 294. Lindsey v. Hawes. U7. Lindsey V, Lindsev. 272. Lindsey v. Miller, 716, 746. Lindsey r. Stite, SOS. Lindsi'V V. Veas . S50. Line v "Darden, 4(i9, 4\n, 506. Line y. Stevenson, 8.v.t Linebergcr v. Tidwell, SIO. Lingan u. Carroll, 8&5. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Linlnger's Appeal, 564. Linker v. Benson, 700. Linn v. Uoss, 194. Linville r. Golding, 7S2, Linville v. Savage, 2!)3, 294. Linsee v. Mixier, '280. Lintliicum v. hoan,6S7. Laithicuni v. Tapi-cott, 292, 293. Lion V. Ijuri iss, 538, 642. Lippctt V. Kellcy, 827. 841. Lippii'COLt V. .stoker, 574. Liptrot V. Iiolmt;s, 504. Lisburn v. Davis, 199. List V. Ruilncy, 51. I^ifttcTi'. Turner, 291. Litchfield r. Cudworth, 108, 109. Litchfield V. Furj,^n>,on,422, 833, 834. Lithgowi'. Kavanaugh, 794. Liitlew. lialier, itjl, 164. Little u.Browu, 293. Little V. Downing, 694, 695, 716. Little V. Gibson, 813. Little v. Giles, 37, 275,398. Little V, Herndon, 760. Little et al. v. Lake, 674. Little V. Lake, 674 Little V. Wacadaras, 189. Little V. Mequirer, 696. Little V. Pearson, 216. Littlefield v. Cole. 513. Little's Appeal, 434, 546. Littlejohn v. Gordon, 292. Littleton v. E,ichardt-on,860. Littlewortu. Davis, 307. Lively V, Hartwell, 890. Lively V. lilce, 853,858. Livermore v. Aldrlch, 500. Livingston v. Hayv\rood,389, Livingaton v. Livingston, 500. Livingston v. Moingona Coal Co., 618. Livingston v. Fenn. Iron Co., 795. Livingston v. Peru Iron Co., 795, 805. Living&ton v. Potts, 198. Livingston v. Proseus, 795. Livingston v. Reynoldb, 69, 75, 81. LivinjiSton v. Tanner, 225, 228. Livingston v. TenBroeck, 593. Living-stoa v. Tomkins. 279. Llewellyn v. Jersey, 829. 830, 840. Lloyd V, Conover, il6. Lloyd V. Cozens, 182, 218. Lloyd V. Gordon, 251, 254, 260. Lloyd V. Lloyd, 275. 499. Lloyd V. Lynch, 259, 507. Lloyd V. Mitchell, 275. Lloyd V. Passingham, 359. Lloyd V. Read, 500. Lloyd V. Spillett, 443, 499. Lloyd's Lessees v. Taylor, 794. Lobdell V. Hayes, 117, 126, 663. Lochenour v. Lochenour, 500. Locku. Fulford, 370. Locke V. Locke, 883. Locke V. Palmer, 309, 310. Locke V. Rowell, 159. Locke V. Smith, 792. Locke V. Whitney, 714. Lockewood v. Stiirdevant, 8oO. Lockhart v. Hardy, 374. Lockman v. Hobbs, 883. Lockwood V. Benedict, 359. Lockwood V. Jessup, 663. Lockwood V. Lockwood, 177, 214, 217. Lockwood V. Studevant, 321, 830. Lockwood's Appeal, 881, 883. Loder v. Hatfleld, 647. Lodffe V. Barnett, 839. Lodge V. Patterson, 700. Lodge v. Tysclcy. 817a. Lodge V. White, 186. Loe V. Fonnercau, 632. Lopsky V. Maujer, 324. Lofton V. Blurcheson, 37, 882. Lofton V. Witbeard, .500. Logan V. Anderson, 198. Logan V. Fitzgerald, t.99. Logan V. Herron, 214, 218. Logan V. Walker, 500. Logue V. Baieman, 562. Logmaxv. Bird, 334. Lombard v. Willis, 401. Long V. Cokern, 5a. Long V. DoUarhidc, 817, 818. Long V. Fitzsimmons, 77. Long V. Hewitt, 573 Long-y. Higginbolliam,696. Long V. LoDf?, 672, 808, Lougu. Mast, 700. Long V. Moles, 853. Long V. McDow, 251. Long V. Paul, 37, 275. Lo 11 i< V. Ram sey , 808, 809. Long V. Walker, 162. Long V. Watkinsou, 885. Longv. White, 92. LoDgendykev. Anderson, 598. Longfellow v. LontrfqUow, 199. Longlord v. Eyre, 567. Longley v. Longley, 499. Longwith v. Butler, 3(i4. Longvvorlh v. Bank of U. S. 756. Longworth v. Butler, 363, 364. Longworth v. Flagg, 362.- Longwortby v. Myers, 697. Lonquet v. Scawen, 298. Loonipr v. Wheelwi ight, 321. I.oomis V. Bedell, 855, 858. Lonmis V. O'Neal, 201. Loomis V. Pingree, 812. Loomis V. Stuyvesant,359. Lord Abergaveny's Case, 238. Lord V. Bourne, 665. Lord Lovelace's Case, 805. Lord V. Morri-, 310, 326. Loreng v. Carnes, 399. Lorentz v. Lorentz, 500. Lorick v. McCrcer>, 37. Lorieaux v. Kellar, 888. Loring V. Cooke, 341. Loring v. Eliot, 411, 412, 499. Loring v. Marsh, 566, 884, 888. Loring t?. Palmer, 507. Lormore v. Campbell, 802. Lorrimer v. Lewis, 745. Losey v. Simpson, 332, 817. Lalhrop v. Foster, 139. Loubat V. Nouree, 116, 245, 246, 253. Loud V. Brigham, 813. Loudv. Darling. 795. Loud V. Lane, 337. Loughran v. Ross, 855, Louisville, etc.,R. Co. v. Covington, 605. Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hays. 599. Louisville Bkg. Co. v. Leonard, 163. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Philyan, 714. Louk V. Woods, 611. Loundsbury v. Purdy, 469, 470. Lounsbury v. Snyder, 196. Ixxxvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. liOnrall v. Grldley, 713, Love V- Buchanan, 883. Love V. Siera, etc., Co., 673, Love V. A\'hite, 832, 833. Loveacres v. BlighL, 604. Lovejoy v. llichardson, 805. Lowell V. Leland, 362. Loveman v. Saylor, 509. Lovering v. Lovering, 186, 187. Lovie'e Case, 646. Low V. Henry, 305. Low V, Purdy, 364. Lowdermilk v. Oorpening, 162. Lowe V. Emerson, 199. Lowe V. Grinnan, 866, 368. Lowe V. Maccubben, 671. Lowei;. Wilier. 201. Lowe V. Pew, 312. Lowe V. Weatherly, 801. Lowell V. Daniels, 731, 794. Lowell V. Middlesex Ins. Co., 294, 296. Lowell V. liobinson, 836. Lowman v. Lowman, 321. Lownder v. Chlsholm, 355. Lowrie v. Ryland, 38. Lowry v. Mnldrow, 544. Lowtherv. Carlton, 817. Loy V. Kennedy, 877. Loyd V. Bead, 500. Lozear v. Porter, 115. Lozicr V. New Yorli Cent. R. R., 837. Lnbbock v. JMcMftiin, 161. Lucas V. Coulter, 189. Lucas V. Darren, 288, 289. Lucas V, Harris, 330. Lucas V. James, 875. Lucas u. Lockhardt, 506. Lucas V. Parsons, 877, 881, Lucas V, Sawyer, 115, 140. Luce r. Carley, 599, 833. Luce V. Stubbs, 139. Luck's Appeal, 268, 2S9, 290, 292. Lucketti'. Townshend, 305, 306. Luckey v. Gannon, 327. Lucy V. Wllkins, 198. Luddingrton v. Garlock, 218. Luddington v. Kime, 415, 417, 537. Ludiugton V. Low, 332. Ludington v. Garlock, 218. Ludlow V. Cooler, 246, 253. Ludlow V. Kidd, 795. Ludlow V. N. Y. & Harlem E. E., 271, 273, 277. Lufkin V, Curtis, 794. Luige V. Lucliesi, 513. Luke V. Marshall, 885. Lund V. Lund, 296, 298, 303, 304, 306. Lund V. Parker, 699. Lund V. Woods, 115. Lunsford v. Turner, 199. Lunsiord v. LaMotte Lead Co., 808. Lunt V. Holland, 832,833. Lutes V. Reed, 814. Luts V. Grere, 101. Luper V. Wertz, 877. Luplou V. Almy, 325. Lupton V. Lupton, 374. Lush V. Druse, 827, 829. Luther v. Winnisinett Co., 615. Lutereli'a Case, 605, 612. Luthel's Case, 605. Lux V. Hoffi, 242, 246. Lnxlord v. Cheeks, 413, 414, 415. Luxford V. Checker, 414. Ixxxviii Luxford V. Thurston, 501, 602, 503. Lyerly v. Wheeler. 812. Lyle V. Bark, 606, 510. Lyle V. Ducomb, 342. Lyle V. Eichards, 49, 52. Lyles V, Digge, 433. Lyles V. Lyles, 243, 255. Lyman v. Arnold, 827. Lyman v. Hale, 9. Lyman v. Lvman, 371. Lynch v. Allen, 832, 883. Lynch v. Clements, 507. Lynch v. .lackson, 305. Lynch v. Livingston, 803, 810. Lynch v. Lynch, 264. Lynde r. Budd, 7i)3. Lynde v. Hough, 182. Lynde v. Eowe, 6, 5a, 71, 324. Lynde v. Williams, 696, 6a7, 714. Lyon V. Kain, 127, 663, 794. Lyon V. Mcllvain, 337, 321, 812. Lyon V. Kain, 663, 794. Lyon V. Powell, 358, 369, 361. Lyon r. Eeed, 198. Lyonr. Sanford, 369. Lyon V. Smith, 877. Lyon r. Van Eiper, 811. Lyster v. Dolland, 318. Lytle V. Arkansas, 747. Lytle V. Beveridge, S76. M. M. and Indiana Plank Eoad Co. v. Stey- ens, 815. IVlabie r. Matteson,597. Maccubbin v. Cromwell, S73. Mack r. Benslev, 827, 617. Mack V. Patchin, 186, 187, 861. Machette v. Manless, 310. Mackason's Appeal-^, 503. Mackay v. Bailey, 808. Mackent}le v. Savory, S30. Mackenzie v. Childers, 603. Mackey v. Collins, 865. Macklot J". Dubreuil. 694. Macknct v. Macknet, 396. Mackreth v. t^vmmons, 292, 294, 295. Mackubin v. AVhitcrolt, 191. Macomb !'. Prenters, 332. Macombe i: Miller, 538. Macomber v. Godfrey, 614. Maoomber v. Cambridge Ins. Co., 327. Macon v. Franklin, 1. Macumber v, Bradley, 434. Macy V. Williams, 506, f07. Madden v. Barnes, 29i, 293. Madlgan v. McCarthy, 6, 77, 400. Madison Av. Church ». Olive St. Church. 694. Sladison Citv r. Hildreth, 832. Magan r. Field, 885. Magan v. Lambert, 194. Magee r. Magee, 693, 694, 699. Magee r. Wlllon. 130. Maggot r. Uausbarger, 194. Magie V. Hinsdale, 199, 324. Maynasson v. Williams, 364. Maguire v. Thoitipsou, 469. Magnolia Steam Boat r. Marshall, 836. Magnusson v. Johnson, 806. Magoon v, Harris, 827. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Magrnder v. Eggleston, 351, 358. Magruder v. Ofiuth, 359. Magruder v. Peters, 292. Magulre v. Biggan, 850. Maguire v. Blssel, 829. Magnire v. Sturtevant, 839. Magwood V. Johnson, 469. Mahagan v. Mead, 371. Mahau v. Brown, 613. Mahom v. Williams, 356. Mahoney ». Mlddleton, 8175, 818. Mahoney v. McGraw, 601. Mahoneyn. Van Winkle, 725. Maigley v. Haner, 443. Main v. Feathers, 190, 192. Main V. Ryder, 876. MainwaringtJ. lieever. 533. Mainwariug v. Templeman, 817a. Majoribant t». Herender, 567. Majors. Todd, 813. Major V. Watson, 832. Major V. Landsdey, 92,469. Makepeace v. Bancroft, 851. Malcomb v. Malcomb, 542. Malback v. Gatton, 361. Mallett V. Page, 336, 814. MalloneyiJ. Heron, 127, 725. Malloneyii. Hitchcock, 321. Mallony v. Stodder, 817a, 818. Malloy V. Bovvden, 695, 698, 714. Malone v. Majors, 144, 148. Maloiiei'. McLannin, 101, 107. Mainer v, Lussern, 618. Manj'. Blklns,336. Manchester ij. Doddridge, 213, 216, 700. Manchester v. Dnrlee, 433. Manchester v. Hoag, 611. Manchester v. Hough, 794. Mandell v. McClare, H7. Manderschid v. Dubuque, 611. Manderback v, Bethany Orphan's Home, ,597. Mandelbanm v. McDonnell, 398, 544. Manderschid v. Curtis, 611. Manderson v. Luckens, 401, .536, 538. Mandeville v. Welch, 288, 289, 290. Manhattan Co v. Evertson, 127i Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Weill, 327. Maines v. Manice, 401, 540, 544, 545. Manley v. Pettee, 260. Manly v. Best, 363. 364. Manly «. Lakin,875. Manly v. Slason, 292, 293, 294. Mann v. City of Elgin, 727. Mann v. Darlington, 501. Mann v. Kdson, 121, 122. Mann v. Kelsey, 163. Mann v. Mann, 883. Maun V. Pearson, 830. Mann v. State, 339. 827. Mann's Appeal, 817a. Manndrell v. Manndrell, 144. Mannier v. Myers, 599. Manning v. Elliott, 352, 358. Manning v. Prazier, 292. Manning v. Hayden, 501. Manning v. Johnson, 792. Manning v. Laboree, 127, 140, 145. Manning v. Markel, 332, 334. Manning v. Smith. 605, 844. Mannings. Wasdale, 617. Manning's Case, 401,646. Mannisig v. Markel, 332. Jtlans II. Worthing, 789. Mansell v. Hart, 77. Mansell's Estate, 374. Manser's Case, 811. Mansfield v. Alwood, 513. Mansfield v. Gregory, 818. Mansfield v. Mansfield, 805. Mansfield V. Pembroke, 144. Manton v. Blake, 836. Mantz V. Buchanan, 134. Manwaring V. Buvor, 533. ' ftlanwaring v. Jeunison, 4. Meapes v. Newman, 808. Maple V. Kussart, 725, 726, 731. Maple V. Stevenson. 699. Maples V. Millon, 6, 6. Mapps V. Sharp, 330, 364. Mara v. Pierce, 819. Marble v. Meager, 809. iMarble v. Lewis, 135, 143. Marble v. Price, 695. Marbury v. Cole, 242, 245. March v. Turner, 292. Marden v. Chase, 777, 803. Mark«7. Willard, 817. Mearinerv. Saunders, 794, Mark v. Patchen, 861. Mark v. Pike, 332. Markell v. Elchelberger, 335. Markell v. Evans, 361. Marker v. Marker, 74, 80. Markham v. Guerrout, 502, 503. Markham v. Merritt, 116. Markhan v. Porter, 558. Markings v. Markings, 647. M.irkland v. Crump, 190, 860. Marklev's Appeal, 546. Marks V. Marks, .398,411, 412, 532. Marks «. Pell, 326. Marks i\ Bvan, 7. Mai'latt V. Warwick, 601. Marlborough v. Godolphine, 575. Marlow v. Smith, 509. Marmouth v. Plimpton, 2. Marri;. Gilliam, 700. Marr v. Lewis, 376. Marsellis v. Thallmer, 108. Marsh v. Austin, 311,312, 814. Marsh v. Lee, 341. Marsh v. Lozenby, 160. Marsh v. Marsh, 890. Marsh v. Pike, 332. Marsh v. Turner, 292. Marshall r. Applegate, 164. Marshall v. Christmas, 292, 294. Marshall v. Cohen, 189. Marshall v. Conrad, 644, 646. Marshall v. Crehore, 262. Marshall v. Crutvvell, 500, 580. Marshal! «. Fisk, 782, 818. Marshall v. Green, 799. Marshall v. Joy, 501, 607. Marshall v. King, 401, 664. Marshall v. Niles, 827. Marshall v. Stewart, 304, 305, 310. Marshall v. Stephens, 93, 469, 601. Marshall 11, Wood, 321. Marshall, etc., School v. Iowa, etc.. School, 272. Marstonn. Hobbs, 850, 857. Marston v. Marston, 362, 802. Martin v. Almond, 805. Martin v. Atkinson, 702. Martin v. Baker, 850, Martin v. Ballou, 273, 274. Ixxxix TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Martin ». Cauble, 292, 293. Martin v. Crowles, 860. Martin v. Crompe, 192. Martin v. Evausville, 83^, 835, 837. Martin v. Flowers, 805. Martin v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 327. Martin v. Funk, 494, 506. Martin r. Gable, 613. Martin v. Gordon, 862. Martin v. Houghton, 654. Martin u.JudU. 697. Martia v. Knowles, 242, 254. Martin v. Martin, 127, 130, 192, 196, 196a, 601, 603, 8t>2. Martia v. McReynolds, 237, 330, 360. Ma tin V. Nance, S33, 834, »35. Martin «. O'tSrlcn, 834. Martin v. O'Connor, 182. Martin v. Qualtlebaum, 251, 264, 816. Martin v. Kcnaker, 104, 108, 538. Mariiu V. Reynold.'f, 3:^9. Martin v. belgler, 275. Martin V. Waddell, 632, 744. Mariindale v. Smith, 333. Martlingv. Martling, h72. Marvin v. Schilling, 663. Marvin v. Ellloit, 841. Marvin v. Smith, 469, 470. Marvin v. Trumhull, 245, 252. Marvin v. The Brewster Iron Mfg. Co., 618. Marvin v. Vedder, 336. Marwioki). Andrews, 273. Maryland Mut. Benov. Soo. u. Clendi- ner, 669. Masick V. Shearer, 292. Mason t). Amnion, 883. Mason v. Bailey, 646. Mason v. Crowder, 715. Mason v. I>enison,2i7. Mason v. Feun, 7, 176. Mason v. Grant, 309, 310. Mason v. Hilt, 614. Mason v. M. E. Church, 461, 884. Mason v. Mason, 5, 127, 612. Mason v. Moody, 302, 3i'3. Mason v. Payne, 371, 819. Mason's Estate, 374. Mass. Hos. Life Ins. Co. u. Wilson, 199. Massey v, Craine, 851. Masey v. Davenport, 883. IHasscy V. Goyder, 6iS, 610. Massey v, Thompson, 818. Massey r. Westcott, 817a, 818. Mass V. liaper, 292. Masters v. PoUie, 9. Masurv V. Soulhworth, 190, 194. Matesty v. Feld.iK.n, 819. Matheny v. Sanford, 307, 513. Mather v. Chapman , 834. Mather v. Corliss, 814, 815. Mather v. Norton, 562. Mathews v. Aikln, 339, 372. Maihews v. Heyward, 601. Mathews v. Light, 601. Mathis V. Hammond, 639. Mathis V. Siufllebeam, 500. Mat ley v. Long, 827. Mattopon v. Vaughn, 650. Matlock V. Matlock, 246, 263. Matthews v. Coalter, 790. Matthews v. Davis, 702. Matthews f). Duryel, 367. Matthews v. Hudson 638. XC Matthews v. Tabener, 198. Matthews v. Wallwyn, 800, 301. Matthews v. Ward, 64, 215, 695. Matihewson v. Smith, 117. Mattice v. Lord, 191. Mattix V. Weand, 292, 294. Mattock V. Brown, 37. Mattock V. Stearns, 90, 108, 109 Matts V. Hawkins, 620. Maul V. Eider, 817. Mauldin v. Cox, 697. Mauldingti. Scott, 646. Jlaule V. Ashmead, 186. Maulej). Weaver, 185. Maull V. Wilson, 79. Maundrell v. Maundrell, 144, 560, 561, 562, 664. Maupin v. Emmons, 816, 817,819. Maupin v. McCormick, 292. Maurice v. Blaurice, 401, 542. Manser v. Dix, 613. Mauzy w. Mauzy, 37. Maverick v. Lewis, 174. Mavrick v. Grier, 301. Maxcy V. O'Connor, 746. Maxfleld v. Patchen, 309, 310. Maxcy v. O'Connor, 746. Maxon v. Lane, 862. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 891. Maxwell xi. Newton, 358, 364, 365. May V. Ah Loy, 761. May V. Feaster, 81. May r. Fletcher, 71, 322, 324, 351. May V. Foley, 761. May V. Judah, 308, 309. May V. Le Clair, 781. ISIay V. McKeenan, 818. MaytJ. Taylor, 513. Mayi>. Tllman, 122. May ». Tomkies,359. Mayhurg v. Brien, 117, 124, 138. Mayer v. Hover, 8S3. Mayer t". Rafferty, 699. Mayers' Appeal, 434. Mayes v. Hi'ndry, 292, 293. Mayes v. Manning, 251. Mayham t'. Coombs, 292, 294, S17o. 818. Mayhen v. Harditty, 182. Maynard v. Esher, 613. Maynard v. Hunt, .333. Maynard v. May, 163. Maynard v. Maynard, 813, 814. Mayo r. Feaston, 81. Mayo V. Fletcher, 71, 323, 324, 351. Mayor. Newhofl, 621,843. Mayor, etc., v. Chadwick, 61R, 617. Major, etc., v. De Armas, 746. Mayor, etc., v. Elliott, 461. Mayor, etc., r. Galluchat, 617 Mayor, etc., v. Mabie, 186, 187. Mayor, etc., Macon v. Franklin, 611. Maj-or, etc., v. Ohin & P. E. R. 744. Major, etc., r. Whltt, 199. Maywood v. Logan, 189. Mazych v. Vanderhost, 642. McAfee V. Arline, 841, 843. McAfee V. Keim, 159, 747. McAlester v. Landers, 187, 854, 861. McAllister v. Dovane, 598. McAllister ». McAllister, 884. McAlptne V. Burnett, 292, 293. ilcAlpine i'. Powell, 104. McAlpine v. Woodruff, 863. MoAnlnoli v. Smith, 714. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. McArthur v. Franklin, 115, 117, 334, 359. McArtliur v. Soott, 401. McAteer v. McAteer, 310. McAuleyi). Wilson, 881. McBrayerr. Roberts, 302. MoBiide v. Willfinson, 810. MoBrieri). Marshall, 225. McBrown v. Dal ton, 843. MoCabe r. Bellows, 362, 318, 334, 337. McCabe v. Gray, 8176, 818. MoOabe v. Hunter, 808. McCabe v. Swap, ] 17, 334, 337. MoCailcrty i: MoCafferty, 135. McCall V. Coover, 727. McCall V. Lenox. 71 , 862. MoCall V. Mash, 365. McCall J). Wells, K99. MoCall V. Yard, 359. McCalla v. Bayne, 814. McCall ister v. McCalllster, 499. McCallister v. WiUey, 499. McCall's Lessee v. Carpenter, 261. McCandlcss v. Warner, 507. McOann v. Oregon Ey. &Nav. Co., 727. McCanon v. CahPidy,305, 355. McCannon v. Pettit, 700. McCansi'. Board. 148. McCarley v. Tappah County Supervisors, 808. McCarney v. Higden, 696. McCarron v. Cassidy, 305, 355. MoCartee v. Teller, 147. McCarthy?? McCarthy, 700. McCartney v. Hunt, 199. McCarty v. Leggett, 850. McCarty v. Kitchenman, 602, McCasker v. McBvery, 860. McCaslin v. The State, 295a, 351. McCauley v. Bnckner, 433, 434. McCauley v. Grimes, 123, 124. McCausland v, Fleming, 841. McChandles v. Engle, 329. McClain v. Gregg, 96. MculaiD 1). Weit-e, 321. McOlanahan v. Barrow, 700. McCianahan v. Fortur, 135, 143. McClellan v. Krall, 70. McClellan v. Larcher, 398. McCleilan v. McClellan, 507. McClellan's Appeal, 494. McClenahan v. New York, 194. McClennan v. McClennan, 506. McOlintock v. Cummings, 796. McClintock V. Curd, 881. McOlintock v. Rogers, 832. McClintock's Appeal, 672. McCln*iy v. Ross. 694, 700. McClure v. Douthltt, 794. McClure v. Harris, 123, 124. McClure v. Thistle's Exrs., 817a, 818. McOlurg V. Phillips, 302. McOlurkan v. Thompson, 308. McComber v. Mills, 335. McConnel v. Hololjush, 325, 355. McConnel v. Reei, 781. McConnell v. Am. Bionze, etc., Co., 605. McConnell v. Brown, 812. McConnell v. Wilcox, 564. McCook V Harp, 68. WcCord V. McCord, 562. McCokle V . Black, 542. McCormic v. Li'g,c;etl, 792. McCormicku. Barnum, 699. McCormick v . Bi8hop,621. McCormick v. Counell, 193. McCormick -y. Fitzmorris, 790. McCormick v. Grogan, 601. McCormick V. McCormick, McCormick v. McEliigott, 71. McCormick v. Silshy, 699. 415. McCormick t>. Taylor, 137. McCormick, etc.. Machine Co. v. Gates, 276. McCorry v. King's Heirs, 771. McOoskey v. Brady, 610, 515. McCowcu V. King, 443. McL'oy V. Dickinson College, 714. McCoy V. Gallon ay, 83, 831, 832. McCoy V. Trustees, 714. Mccracken D. Hall, 617. McCracken v. Roberls, 700. McCrady v. Brisbane, 852. McOrury v. Foster, 601. McCrea v Marsh, 662. McCrcady u. Thomp.'^on, 613. McCrearyi). Casey, 600. McCrearyv. Evei-ding, 697. Mccreery v. Shaffer, 355, 376. McCroan v. Popo, 469. McCubbin v. Cromwell, 507. McCue V. Gallagher, 500. McCuliai'. Beadluston, 334,337. McOulloch V. Aten, 832, 833. McCulIoch V. Endaly, 817. MoCuUoohiJ. Maryland, 759. McCullum V. McKenz]e,888. McCullum V. Tarpie, 371. McOullough V. Ford, 600. McCullough V. Gliddon, 434. McCnllough V. Irvine, 69, 74, 77. McCullyj;. Smith. 115. McCumber v. Gilman, 855. McOune v. MoMichael, 725, 726. SicCurdyt). Alpha Mining Co., 844. McCardy v. Canning, 242, 246, 246. MoCurdy's Appeal, 368. McCusker v. McEvoy, 817, 730, 860. McDanielsc. Allen, 401. McDaniels V. Cummings, 617. McDaniel v. Grace, 106. McDaniel v. McDaniel, 135. McDanieis v. Colvin, 310, 342. McDermott v. Burke, 324. McDermott t>. French, 244, 251. McDill V. McDill, 807. MoDole V. l-'urdy,292. McDonald ». Black 327. McDonald v. Crandall, 1.59. McDonald v. Dunbar, 434, 883. McDonalil v. Eggieston, 789. McDonald u. Hanlon,2l7. McDonald v. Lindall, 609. McDonald v. Morton, 791. McDonnell v. Pope, 198. McDonough V. Laughlin, 878. Mcuonough V. Squire, 307. McDonough v.O Neil. 501. McDowell u. Adams, 669. McDowell V. Riorgan, 746. McDowell V. Simpson, 177, 214. McDuiBe p. Clark, 798. McEachiQv. >tewart,501. McElmoyne v. Cohen, 711, 717. MclClroy «J. Hines, 601, 812,814. McEiroyv McElrny, 506. McEntlro V. Brown, 714. McEvoy II. Lloyd, 6!)6. MoFarlan v. W atsou, 182. xci TABLE OF CASES CITED. Eeferences are to Sections. McFadden v. AUen, 5a. McFadden v. Worthlngtou, SVJa. McFall V. Sherrard, 8i8. McGahan's Case, 761. McGahee». Sliced, 292. McGan v. Marshall, 329, 793. MoGary v. HastinK-, 8.53, 834, 855, 861. McGaughy v. Henry, 564, 664. McGeeii. Hall,404. McGee V. MoCants 873 . McGoe V. McGee, 126. McGee V. Morgan, 699. McGee v. Porter, 876. McGeorge v. Hoffman, 617. MoGlllj). Ash, 251,255. McGilUvray v, Evans, 264. McGinnis v. Porter, 200. McGier v. Aaron, 508. McGiveni'. Wheelock, 335, 336. McGlaughlln v. Holnmn, 819. McGonigalv. Plummer, 293. ilcGorrick v, Dwyer, 4, 5a. McGovern v. KnOx, 500. McGowan v. Reed, 262. McGready v. McGready, 308, 309, 310, 311. McGregor v. Brown, lu, 72, 74, 76, 77, 796. McGregor v. Comstock, 49, 52, 676. McGregor v. Hall, 308. McGufley v. Flnley, 332, 360. McGuffey v, Humes, 861. 3IcGuire's Appeal, 275. McGuire v. Grant, 618, 619. McGuire v. Joslyn, 189. McGuire v. McRann, 803. McGuire v. McEaven, 808. McIIcndy v. Eeilly, 2, 992. Mcflenry v. Cooper, 372. JMcIlhaney v. Shoemaker, 321. McIUvaine v. Harris, 2, 799, 842. Mcllvaine v. Smith, 603. Mcllvaiue v. Smith, 503. Mclntier v. Shaw, 303, 304, 322, 332. Mclntlre v. Brown, 714. Mclntire v. Cross, 663. Melntostx v. Eeotor, etc., St. Peter's Church, 189, 191. Mclmyie v. Agricultural Bank, 368. Mclntyre v. Costello, 120, 123. Mclntvre v. Mclntyre, 275. Mclntyie v. Whitfield, 322. Mclvre v. Cherry, 117, 359, 360. Mclver v. Walker, 831, 832. McJilton II. Loye, 758. McKay v. Bloodgood, 805, 807, 808. McKay V. Gillman, 292. McKean v. Brown, 128. McKean v. Mitchell, 816, 816o. McKee V. Straub. 261. McKecgan v. O'Ni-'ili, 893. McKee's Admrs. v. Means, 506. McKei I'. AngeLrodt, 182. McKee v. Hicks, 812. McKee 4). Marshall, 798. McKee V. Moans, 238. McKee v. Pfout, 110. McKee's Admra. v. Means, 506. McKelnay v. Seymour, 273, 277, 385. McKelvey v. McKelvey, 8S3. McKenzie's Appeal, 397, 564. McKenzie v. Lexington, 198. McKenzie v. Murphy, 160. McKeon v. Whituey, 182. McKey v. Welch, 238, 239, 260, 829. McKlUsack v. BuUington, 216. xeii McKinn v. Mason, 4, 5a. McKinley v, Peters, 253. McKinleyt). Smith, 827. McKinney v. Kenney, 695. McKinney v. Miller, 371. McKinney ij. Moore, 262. McKinney v. Reader, 198. McKinney i;.Ehodes, 812, 814. McKinney i\ Settles, 803. McKiuster v. Babcock, 310. MpKinstry I). Merwin, 341. MT^Kinzle r. Elliott, 599, 604. McICinzie v. Perrill, 819. McKlrcher v. Hawley, 324. McKnlght V. Bell, 260. McKnight V. Brady, 292. McKnlght t>, Wimer, 563, 568. BIcLainv. School Directors, 884. McLaln'i'. Thompson, 292. McLanahanz'. Eee6lde,S176. JMcLane v. Moore, 715, 7l6. McLanev. Paschal, 161. McLamie v. PorLlow, 507. McLaren v. Brewer, 501, McLaren v. Spalding, 195. McLaughlin v. Curta,334. McLaughlin v. Cecconi, 358. AfcLaugliliu v. Johnson, 5. McLaughlin v. Lester, 4. McLaughlin v. Sheppard, 303, 304. McLaurie v, Thomas, 292. McLean v. Barnard, 878. v McLean V. Booce, 71. McLean v. Burr, 327 McLean v. McDonald, 398. McLean v. McLean, 292. McLean v. Nelson, 513. McLean v. NicoU, 177. McLean v. Smith, 697, 699. McLean v. Swanton, 675. McLean v. Towle, 370. McLean v. Wallace, 292. McLean r. Wilson, 808. McLean i: Wunder, 189, 194. McLeery v. McLeery, 145. McLellaud r. Jenn£ss, 242, 254. Mci^emore v. Carter, 501. McLeuan v, Sullivan, 500. Mel.orleyi'. Larissa,355. MoLoy V. Arnett, 161. McLure r. Colclough , 813. McMahon v. Burchell, 243, 255. McMahon v. Bowe, 795. McManus v. Oarmichael, 85. McMillan v. Bissell, 303, 307. McMillan t'. Gambill,696. McMillan v. Elchards, 301, 303. McMillen v. Watt, 618. McMinn v. O'Connor, 818. McMuUiu V. Erwin, 697, 714. McMurphy v. Minot, 182, 192, 193 McXaas v. McCombs, 829. McNair V. Furit, 694. McXair v. Lee, Siii, 336. McNair V. Picottc, 333. McNally r. Connolly, 6. McN'.-imee v. Jloreland, 714. McNatty -i'. Jefferson Co., 162. McXaughton v. McNaughton,889. McXaughton v. Partridge, 805 McXcar r. McCombcr, 829. McXcely v. Langdon, 714. McXeelv v. Ruclier, 810. McNeer i\ Comber, 858. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. McNeil V. Kendall, 182. McNerle v. Pope, BOl. McNlsh V. Guerard, 609. McNishi). Pope, 501. McNoble V. Justinians, 697. McNulty u. Cooper, 60(j. McPhoeters v. Wrigln, 242. McPherson v. Acker, tiOl. MoPherson v. Cox, 609. McPherson v. Feather9tonc,694, 8H. MoPherson v. Haywood, 307. McPherson v. Honsell, 359. McPherson v, Sequine, 251, 255. McQueen v. Fletcher, 698. McQueen v. Ivey, 700. MoQuesten v. Morgan, 193. McQuiddy v. Ware, 700. McQuie V. Rag, 302. McKae v. Darrow, 573. MoLlaini;. Millen, 808. McKaven v. McGulre, 808, 818. McEee's Admrs. v. Means, 398, 530, 540, 541. McRimtnon v. Marlin, 292, 293. McRuberts v. ^Vashburne, 634. McShane v. Main, 827. McSarley v. Laribsa, 355. McTaggart v. Thompson, 313. McTaTish v. Carroll, 597, 598, 602, 603, 609. McVay v. Bloodgood, 330. McVay v. Quality, 601. McWhinm v. Martin, 498. McWilliams v. Hones, 162. McWiliiams v. Morgan, 725. McWilliams v. Nisby, 38, 39, 273, 275. Meacham v. Stearns, 617. Mead v. Maben, 401. Mead v. McLaughlin, 364. Mead v. Randolph, 367. Mead v. York, 337. Meade v. Lefflugwell, 696. Meador v. Meador, 290, 292. Meadows v. Parry, 537. Mebane v. Patrick, 699 Mebane v. Womack, 884, 885. Meohan. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 174. Mechanics Bank v. Bank of Niagara, 330. Medford v. Pratt, 699. Medland Ry. Co. v. Flslier, 603. Medler v. Hiatt, 863. Medley iJ. Davis,292. Medmer v. Medmer, BOO. Medsker v. Swaney, 500. Medwin v. Sandham, 573. Meech v. Fowler, 813. Meek v. Breckenridge, 597. Me-eker v. Wright, 242, 245. Megargel v. Saul, 292a. Megro V. Dimock, 292. Meighen v. Strong, 816ffi. Meigs «. Dibble, 161. Meley v. Collins, 343. Melizet's Appeal, 140. Mellan v. Wbippie, 332. Mellichamp ii.Mellichamp, 777, 797. MeDing v. Leak, 215, 700. Mellls V. Lathrop, 192. Mellish V. Robertson, 334. Mellow V. Lemmou, 352, 304. Mellow V. Whepply, 332. Mellon's Appeal, 817a. Mellor's Appeal, 818. Melross v. Scott, 292, 293. Melvin v. Proprietors, 90, 694, 695, 697, 703, 714, 794, 797, 814,829, 830. Melvin v. Whiting, 599. Memmert v. McKeen, 855. Menage v. Burke, 798. Mende v. Decaire, 302. Mendenhall v. Hall, 859. Meudenhall v. Parish, 801. Meni v. Rath bone, 193. Menkens v. Lightner, 792. Meuley v. Zeigler, 809, 810. Menter v. Durham, 252. Meraman v. Caldwell, 110. Mercantile Bank v. Ballard, 401, 415. Mercantile Trust, etc., Co. D.Brown, 401. Mercer i;. Mercei,802. Mercer v. Seldon, 106, 715. Mercer II. Watson, 7, 14. Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 716. Merchant's Bank v. Calvin, 697. Merchant's Bank v. Thomson, 359. Mercery. Chase, 157. Mercer v. Hemme, 501. Meredith v. Andrew, 251, 254. Merifleldr. Cobleigh, 273. Merifleld«. City of Worcester, 614. Merriau v. Barton, 325, 332, 334. Merrick v. Wallace, 338. Merrifleld v, Lombard, 614. Merrill V. Allen, 293. Merrill v. Berkshire, 239, 240. Merrill v. Brown, 416. 462. Merrill v. Bullock, 265, 227, 323, 327. Merrill v. Emery, 148,274, 546. Merrill v. Frame, 859. Merrill v, Harris, 277. Merrill 1). Ireland, 818. Merrill v. Swift, 310, 814. Merriman v. Barton, 332, 334, 325. Merriman v. Hode, 818. Merriman v. Lanfleld, 159. Merritt v. Bartholic, 329. Merritt v. BrinkerliofE, 614. Merritt «. Brown, 501. Merritt v. Harris, 277. Merritt i>. Home, 106.< Merritt v. Hosmer, 373. Merritt v. Judd, 6. Merritt v. Morse, 860. Merritt V. Parker, 605. Merritt v. Wells, 292. Merritt v. Tales, 810, 127. Mershon v. Duer, 500. Merwin v. Camp, 809. Messelback v. Norman. 813, Messer v. Riginminster, 714. Messick v. Sunderland, 8176. Metcall V. Cook, 93, 469. Metcalfe. Hutcliinson,648. Metcalf V. Putnam, 755, 827. Methodist Church u. Jaques, 812, 813, 884. Mettler v. Miller, 105, 106. Metz V. State Bank of Brownville, 818. Meyer v. Campbell, 318. Meyer v. Fogg, 878. Meyer v, Schurbrnck, 262. Meyer's Guardian v. Meyer's Admrs., 169. Meyers v. Meyers, 402. Miami Kx. Co. v. U. S. Bank, 307, 308,310, 326, 376. Michal V. N. T. & Erie R. R., 277^ Michard v. Girod, 365. Mich., etc., R. K. v. Mellen, 501. xciii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Mich. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 310, 359. Mickeies v. Dillaye, 336, 355. Mickeies v. Townsenci,336, 337, 322, 728. Mickerson v. Buck, 877. Micklin V. Williams, 618. Middlebrooke v. Corwin, 276. Middlesex v. Thomas, 336. Middleton v. Flndla, 79S. Middleton v. Middletnn, 601. Middleton v. Perry, 831. Middleton v. Pritohard, 833, 834, 835. Middleton Sav. Bk. v. Bates, 322. Midlands). Fisher, 862. MHBtii's Appeal, 575. Mifflms I). M eal, 538. Mil aye v. Miley, 878. Milbaru Wagon Co. v. Kennedy, 164. Miles V. Disher, 237. Miles V. Gray, 330. Miles V. King, 339, 817a. Miles r. Milts, 77. Miles V. Smith, 359. Milham v. Sharp, 634, 837. Millay v. Wiley, 878. Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 808. Mill Kiyer Co. v. Smith, 2. Millard v. McMullin, 700. Milleage v. Lamar, 129. Miller v. A. & S. It. Co., 600. Miller v. Ansenig, 307. Miller 1). Aldrich,327. Miller v. Atkinson, 884. Miller u. Auburn, 652. Miller B.Baker, 6,70. Miller V. Bennett, 161. Miller v. Bentley, 830, 840. Miller v. Beverly, 140. Miller v. Bingham, 469, 700. Miller v. Bio's Exr., 500. Miller v. Birdsong, 500. Miller V. Board of Supervisors, 272, 280. Miller v. Bradford, 817, 8176, 818. Miller v. Carlisle, 883. Miller v. Cherry, 830, 839. Miller V. Chittenden, 466, 508, 541, , , 884. Miller V. Cressou, 818. Miller i>. Curry, 355. Miller 11. Dennett, 262. Miller ?;.Ei8ele, 370. Miller V. Ewing, 715. Miller v. Fasler, 370. Miller f. Foster, 715. Miller v. Garlock, 69n, 606. Miller v. Goodwin, 801. Miller v. Henderson, 332, 360. Millert'. Jones, 662, 563. Millerv. Lanbach, 615. Miller t). Laphain, 698. Miller i;. Levi, 281. Miller i>. Lincoln, 325. Miller V. Lingerman, 792. Miller V. LuUman, 813. Miller u.MoBrieu, 199. Miller V, Macomb, 542. Miller V. Mann, 2. Miller v. Miller, 110, 240, 241, 242, 251, 254, 265, 264, 387, 61« 664, 780. MillerD.MurHeld 812,814. Miller v. Myles, 697. Miller V. Noonan 862, Miller v. Pearce, '802. Miller v. Pence, 115, 696. Miller V. thillips, 888. Millers). E. and W. U. R., 330. xciv Miller v. Eidgely, 225. Miller?). Rouser,310. Miller v. Butherland, 330. Miller v. Shaw, 695. Mill cr«. Sharp, 36L Miller V. Snowmon, 90. Millcrj). Stump, 117, 124. Miller v. Teachant, 884. Miller t>. Texas, etc., E. E. Co., 715, 716, 727, 728. Miller I'. Tipton, 312. Millers). Topeka Land Co., 841. Miller v. Travers, 883. Wilier I'. Tipton, 312. Miller V. Wilson, 46a, 443. Miller's Admr. v. Potterfield, 398, 564. Miller's Ex. v. Simpson, 546. Millett V. Fowler, 697, 831. Millett V. Parker, 814, 815. Millicamp v. Millicamp, 402. Millican v. Millican, 875. Milliken v. Armstrong, 5a. Milliken v. Bailey, 325. Mills J). Allen, 801. Mills V. Catlin, 849(Z, 830, 861, 858. Mills V. County Commissioners, 634. Mills V. Darlev, 310, Mills V. Dennis, 358, 361. Mills V. Daw's Admr., 801. Mills V. Ewing, 728. Mills V. Goff, 218. Mills V. Gore, 812, 813, 814. Mills V. Gray, 330. M ills u. H aines, 508. Millsi;. Hobbs, 161. Mills V. Lockwood, 755, 827. Mills 7). Macon, etc., 1{. E.,292. Mills V. Merryman, 192, 193. Mills V. Mills, 309, 310. Mills V. Millward, 887. Mills V. Morris; .533. Mills ti.Ro. f, 26L Mills V. St. Clair Co., 636. Mills V. Van Voorhies, 124, 359. Millspanghs). McBride, 321,337. Milner v. Ilyland, 700. Milner v. Eamsey, 296a. Milray S). Stockwell, 360. Minns v. Ewing, 714. Minus V. Lackett, 294. Minis V. Macon & West. E. B., 294. Mlms V. Wims, 338, 3.59, 818 Miner v. Beekman, 355. Miners). Clark, 860. Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2,. Minor v. Hill, 360. Minor V. President of Natchey, Y57, Minors'. Eogcrs, 506. Minot s>. Brooks, 696. Mins V. Lockett, 292. Minshall s;. Lloyd, So. Minter v. Durham, 255. Mirick V. Hopkins, 324. Missouri Inst, for Blind v. How,BU. Mitchell V. Berry, 501. Mitchell s). Bartiett, 323, 324, S12. Mitchell V. Bogan, 3>2, sr.i, 363. Mitchell V. Burnham, 296, 340, 298, 310,311. 329, 360, 817. Mitchell V. Butt, 294. Mitchell s). Campbell, 700 Mitchell V. Clark, 8,36. Mitchell V. Denson, 573, 674. Mitchell s'. Fulllngtou, 307. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Mitchell V. Knapp, 398, 101. Mitchell V. Laden, 330. Mitchell V. Mayor, etc., 618, 620. Mitchell V. Mitchell, 129. Mitchell V. Kyan, 7ae, 797, 812, 8U. Mitchell V. Seipel, 601. Mitchell V. Sevier, 90. Mitchells. Shortt,812. Mitchell i;. Silnner, 500. Mitchell V. Starbilck»259. Mitchells. Simpson, 434. Mitchell V. Walker, 883. Mitchell ». Warner, 850, 852, 853. Mitchell i". Weaver, 358. Mitchell's Estate, 881. Mitchelson v. Smith, 376. Mix«. Cowlcs,310. Mix V. Hotohkiss, 327, 355. Mix);. Smith, 746. Mixer u. Heed, 2, 842. Mlxon V. Armstrong, 878. Mizell V. Burnett, 274. Moale V. Mayor of Baltimore, 763, 759. Mobile Branch Bank v. Hunt, 337. Mobile D. & I. Co. v. Kuder, 371. Moddox V. Bramlett, 333. Model Lodging House Assn. v. City of Boston, 321. Moffat V. Cook, 37. Moflatt V. Hardin, 332. Moffatt V. Smith, 192, 194. Moffatt V. Strong, 546. Mogg V. Mogg, 535, 539, 882. Mohawk Bridge v. Utica R. E., 636. Mohr V. Tulip, 791. Molineaux v. J?owell, 81. Money v. Dorsey, 817a. Monroe v. Bowen, 273. Montague v. Dawes, 363, 364, 365, 366. Montague v. Dent, 6. Montague f . Gay, 192. Montague v. Hayes, 506, 607. Montehori v. Browne, 566, 8176. Montello, The, 835. Montlord v. Cadogan, 510. Montgomery v. Agricultural Bank, 469. Montgomery v. Bruere, 117, 122. Montgomery v. Chadwick, 305, 326, 365. Montgomery v. Craig, 200. Montgomery v. Dorion, 805. Montgomery v, Middlemiss, 358, 359. Montgomery V. Montgomery, 433. Montgomery v. Sturdevant, 844. Montgomery w. Tutt, 361 . Monlpelier v. East Montpelier, 461. Monypenny V. Dering, 417, 418. Moody V. King, 101, li9. Mooersii. Wait, 81,82. Mooers v. White, 877, 890, 890a. Moon V. Jennings, 252. Mooney w. Brinkley, 351. Mooney v. Coolidge, 697. Mooney v.. Mass, 359, 361. Moon's Will, 881. Moore v. Abernathy, 671. Moore v. Beasley, 199. Moore v. Beasom, 321, 324, 334, 352. Moore v. Boyd, 213, 214, 217, 228. Moore v. Cible, 325, 326, 355. Moore v, CoUishaw, 714. Moore v, Cornell, 320. Moore v. Choat, 291, 292. Moore v. Darby, 101. Moore v. Dick, 135. Moore v. Dimond, 433, 667, 885. Moore v. Dunond, 433, 567. Moore v. Degraw, 325. Moore v. Dunning, 163, 164. Moore v. Esty, 117, 122. Moore v. Fletcher, 842. Moore v. Ernst, 115, 131. Moore V. Fuller, 310. Moore v. Hazleton, 813. Moore ».Howe, 542, 644. Moore v. Jourdin, 819. Moore v, Kent, 135. Moore z\ Lesseur, 808. Moore v. Lewis, 883. Moore v. Littel, 433, 533, 727. Moore v. Luce, 65, 717. Moore v. Lyons, 397, 401. Moore v. Maxwell, 746. Moore v. Mc Williams, 878. Moore v. Mandlebaum, 501. Moore v. Maxwell, 746. Moore v. Merrell, 850, 860. Moore v. Miller, 178. Moore v. Moore, 261, 507, 884. Moore v. New York, 115, 127, 132, 140. Moore v. Parker, 434, 530. Moore v. Pendleton, 805. Moore v. Pickett, 607. Moore v. Pitts, 183, 272, 863. Moore v. Rake, 542. Moore v. Rawson, 605, 612, 613. Moore v. Eavmand,'294, 295. Moore v. Rollins, 124. Moore v. Sohultz, 464, 494. Moore v. Shannon, 263. Moore v. Shui-tllfl, 370, 37L Moore v. Small, 714. Moore v. Smith, 5a. Moore v. Spruill, 201. Moore v. Starks, 359. Moore v. Thompson, 695, 697. Moore V. Thorp, 2.54. Moore v. Tisdale, 127,501. Moorev. TitmEin, 325. Moore v. Vail, 854, 855, 860. Moore v. Vinten, 90. Moore v. Wade, 307. Moore v. Ware, 329, 360. Moore v. Watson, 339. Moore v. Weaver, 402, 433, 412. Moore v. Webber, 187, 195. Moore v, Webster, 105. Moore v. Wilkinson, 746. Moore v. Williams, 600. Moore v. Worthy, 292, 293. Moorehouse v. Cotheal, 69, 73, 74, 538, 642. Morse v, Trimmier, 725. Mora V. Murphy, 725. Moran v Gardenmeyer, 308, 310. Moran v. Pellifant, 332. Moran v. Somes, 829. Moran v. Zezotte, 840. Mordauntw. Petersborough, 561. Mordecai v. Jones, 883. Mordecai v. Parker, 513. More V. Moore, 884. Moreau v, Detchemendy, 49. Moreau v. Safferans, 245, 263. Morehead v. Watkyns, 214, 218. Moorehouse v. Cotheal, 69, 73, 74, 538, 542, 544. Moreton v. Harrison, 292, 294, 295. Moreland v. Blatchley, 136. Morelock v. Barnard, 883. XCV TABLK OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Morey v. Lohier, 889. Morford v. Dieffenbacher, 564. Morgan v. Bissell, 379. Morp:an v. Elam, 469. [ Morgan v. Field, 312. Morgan ». Fisher's Admr., 50- Morgan v. Henderson, 854. Morgan v. Herricks, 252, 259. Morgan v. Kline, 330. Morgan v. Larned, 728. Morgan v. Moore, 504. Morgan v. Morgan, 105, 148, 326. Morgan v. Plumb, 362. Morgan v. Eeadint;, 832, 835. Morgan v. Smith, 117. Morgan v. Wright, 117. Morgan v. Woodward, 322. Morgan's E.state, 509. Morgenstern v. Klees, 358. Moriarta v. McRae, 129. Moriarty V. Ashwortb, 351. Moring v, Abies, 700. Morley v. Saunders, 66. Moron^y's Appeal, 342. Morrell v. Fisher, 829. Morrell v. Ingle, 697. Morrill V. Brown, 445. Morrill v. Morrill, 264. Morrill V. Noyes, 312. Morrill v. Swartz, 761. Morrill V. Titcomb, 700. Morris Admr. v. Davis, 37i Morris v. Apperson, 199. Morris v. Harris, 873. Morris t;. Henderson, 813. Morris V. Henflley, 398. Morris v. McOlarey, 696, 714. Morris v. Morris, 101. Morris v. Moulton, 163. Morris v. Mowatt, 817a. Morris v. Ni-ton, 302. Morris v. Oaktord, 332. Morris v. Oakman, 370. Morris v. Oxford, 332. Morris v. Pate, 293. i Morris v. Peck, 332. Morris v. Phelps, 850, 861. Morris v. Potter, 538. Morris v. Sargent, 127. Morris v, Stephens, 797. Morris v. Yandereu, 790. Morris v. Wadsworth, 8176. Morris v. Ward, 667. Morris?;. Way, 368. Morris v. Wheeler, 359. Morris Canal v. Lewis, 726. Morris Canal v. Eyerson, 801. Morrison v. Bean, 3H3. Morrison v, Bierer, 506. Morrison iJ. Bowman, 805. Morrison v, Buckner, 324, 361. Morrison v. Campbell, 873. Morrison u. Chad wick, 106, 196a. Morrison v. Chapin, 697. Morrison v. Funk, S17o. Morrison V. Hammond, 695. Morrison v. Hays, 695, 714. Morrison v. Keen, 832, 833. Morrison v. Kelly, 814, 819. Morrison v. King, 603. Morrison v. Klnstra, 506. Morrison v. MoArthur, 851. Morrison v. MoDaniel, 160. Morrison v. McLeod, 82S. xcvi Morrison v. Marqnardt, 602, 613. Morrison v. Morrison, 811. Morrison v. Eossignol, 175. Morrison v. Underwood, 861. Morrison v. Wilson, 731, 794, 827. Morrow v, Scott, 673. Morrow v. Willard, 829, 837. Morse v. Aldrich, 190, 862. Morse v. Benson, 609. Morse v, Byain, 364. Morse V. Carpenter, 798. Morse v. Church, 277. Morse v. Churchill, 699. Morse v. Cop eland, 605, 652, 653. Morse v. Goddard, 187, 199, 213, 324. Morse v. Hayden, 273, 667. Morse v. Martin, 573. Mbrse v. Merritt, 323, 324. Morse v. Morrell, 513. Morse v. Morse, 885. Morse v. Proper, 411. Morse v. Eoyal, 501. Morse v. Salisbury, 810. Morse i;. Scott, 881. Morse v. Shattuck. 443. Morse v. Stockman, 262. Morton v. Barrett, 462, 468, 504. Morton v. Blankenship. 746. Morton v, Bradhern, 160. Morton v. Folger, 832. Morton v. Noble, 127. Morton v. Onion, 888. Morton v. Eeeds, 760. Morton v. Eobards, 839, 817a. Morton v. Saunders, 728. Morton v. Scholeflcld, 615. Morton v. Southgate, 513. Morton v. Woods, 191, 213, 217. Mosby V. Mosby, 563. Mosely v. Hanklnson, 715. Mosely i;. Marshall, 6B, 374. Moses V, Johnson, 498, 513. Moses v. St. Louis Sectional Dock Co., 61X Moshier v. Meek, 292, 293, 294. Moshier v. Eeding, 178. Mosley v. Mosley, 559. Moss V. GlUamore, 324. Moss V. Mose, 500, 601. Moss i>.Eiddle, 815. Moss V. Scott, 696. 697. Moss V. Sheldon, 844. Mosseru. Mosser, 881. Mosser V. Mosser'sExrs., 881. Mosson V. Creditors, 810. Mott V. Clark, 332, 362, 818. Mott V. Palmer, 2, 799, 842, 850, 851, 855. Motteyr. Blake, 262. Moulton V. Eobinson, 76, 201. Moulton V. Trafton, 848. Moultrie u. Hunt, 873. Mounce v. Byers, 290, 292, 293. Mount i: Suydam, 380. Movan i: Hays, 507. Mowry v. Sheldon, 605. Mowry i: Wood, 290, 291, 312. Moyerr. Drummond, 160. Moyer v. Hinman, 817a. Moyor r. McCullough, 746. Moyle ;'. Movie, 75. Mudd r. Muliican, 63. Muir V. Cross, 292. MuKord V. Peterson, 329, 330. MuUanphyr. Simpson, aai. MuUauy v. Mullany, 495. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Mullen V. Strieker, 602, 613. Mullen V. Wadlington, 330. MuUer v. Boggs, 239, 240. MuUer v. Wliiitier, 365. Miillikln 11. MulUkln, 295as, 296. Mulry^;. Norton, 686. ) Mumford v. Brown, 242, 264. Mumlord v. Wliltney, 651, 653. Mummy v. Johnston, 758. Mumo V. Collins, 398. Munch V. Shabel, 500. Mundy v. Mundy, 887. Mundy v. Sawter, 562. Hunger v. Casey, 307. Municipality f. Orleans Cotton Press, 685. Munkwitz v. Uhlig, 183. Munu V. Burgess, 365. Munn V. Worrall, 842, 843. Munneslyn v. Munneslyn, HO. Munoz V. "Wilson, 814. Munroe v. Hall, 271, 275. Munroe v. Luke, 251, 254. Munroe v. Merchant, 696. Munroe v. "Ward, 698. MunseU v. Carew, 201. Munson v. Munson, 333. Murchie v. Black, 618. Murdock v. Chapman, 312, Murdock v. Clarke, 307, 325. ' Murdock v. Cox, 343. Murdock v. Gilford, ba. Murdock v. Gilchrist, 801. Murdock v. Hughes, 501, 507. Murphy v. Calley, 306, 307, 308, 310. Murphy v. Campbell, 839. Murphy i>. Murphy, 501 878 . Murphy v. Nathan, 600. Murphy v. Parifay. 305. Murphy v. Price, 853. Murphy v. Peabody, 600. Murphy v. Trigg, 307. Murphy v. Welch, 597. Murray v. Ballon, 501, 795, 817. Murray v, Gouverneur, 702. Murray v. Hall, 238, 251, 255. Murray v. Harkway, 191. Murray V. Lylburn, 501. Murray v. Murray, 498. Murray v. Murphy, 877. Murray K. Porter, 312. Murray v. Eiley, 323. Murray v. Stair, 815. Murray i;. Trigg, 307. Murray v. Walker, 307, 322. Murrell v. Jones, 328. Musgrove v. Bowser, 816, 816a. Musgrove v. Keunell, 332. Musham v. Musham, 498, 501. Mushaweri;. Patten, 694. Musick V. Barney, 695, 696, 697, 699. Muskettj;. Hill, 6B4. Muskingum Turnpike v. "Ward, 798. MuBsey v. Saodborn, 262. Mussey II. Scott, 228, 805. Mustard v. Wohllord, 7, 92. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brown, 805. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Drake, 8176. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carey, 810. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dean, 338. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Estelle, 324. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Everett, 573. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Shipman, 115, 401, 569. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Smith, 362. Muzzey v. Davis, 611. Myers v. Adler, 275. Myers v. Bentz, 275. Myers v. Croft, 747. Myers v. Estell, 324. Myers v. Gemmel, 613. Myers v, Hobbs, 618. Myers v. Kingston Coal Co., 173. Myers v. Meyers, 402. Mygrs V. Boss, 819. Myers v. Sanders, 793. Myers v. Snow, 415. Myers v. Vanderbilt, 875. Myers v. Wliite, 300, 301, 324. Myers v. "Wright, 360. Myers' Appeal, 128. Mylar v. Hughes, 696. Myriok v. Heard, 883. N. Naar v. Naar, 563. Nagle V. Macy, 322, 329. Nailer v. Stanley, 371. Nance v. Nance, 500. Nan Mlckel, In re, 889. Napier v. Bulwinkle, 613, 617, 618, 619, 620. Napier v. Howard, 533. Naples V. Millon, 6a. Napper v. Saunders, 397, 413. National Bank of Austr. v. Cherry, 289. National Bank v. Shelton, 159. National Exchange Bank v. Cunning- ham, 609. Nat. M. Co. V. Powers, 697. Naunbrof v. Schunbaun, 566. Nave V. Berry, 189, 194. Naylor v. Winch, 501. Nazareth Inst. v. Lowe, 120, 292. Neal V. Speigle, 292. Neale v. Hagthorp, 355. Neale v. Ried, 327. Nealson II. Blight, 330. Nearhoflfii. Adleman, 696. Needham v. Bronson, 242, 246. Needham v. Judson, 794, 841. Needles v. Martin, 884. Neel V. Neel, 75. Neely v, N eely, 700. Neely v. Butler, 106. Neidig v. Eiiler, 363. Neil V. Neil, 877. Neilsonii. Blight, 330. , Neilson v. Lagow, 604. Neimecewiczv. Gohn, 310. Neligh «. Mechenor, 312. Nelms V, Kennon, 361. K"elson V. Boyce, 342. Nelson v. Buttcrfleld, 836. Nelson v. Carrington, 563. Nelson v. Commercial Bank, 159. Nelson v. Eaton, 792. Nelson «. Gibel, 760. Nelson v. Hall, 831. Nelson v. Iowa, etc., E. E. 342. Nelson V. Hagerstown Bank, 818. Nelson v. McGiffert, 890. Nelson ii. Pinegar, 351. Nelson v. Sims, 746. Nelson v. Worrall, 501. Nepeon v. Doe, 226. Nerboth v. Althouse, 199. Nesbit V. Brown, 862. xcvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Eeferences are to Sections. Nettleton v. Sikee, 10, 652. Neustacher v. Schmidt, 133. Neamaier v. Vincent, 162. Nevea v. Scott, 495, 506, 674. Nevll V. Saunders, 468, 469. Nevil's Case, 45. Nevinsf. Peoria, 618. Nevitt V. Bacon, 810, 326, .WS. Newall V. Wright, 322, 326. Newbold v. Newbold, 322. Newcombu. Bonhara,308. Newcomb V. Ramer, 201. Newcomb v. Stebbins, 663. Newell V, Hill, 646. Newbold v. llidgway, 143. Newell V. Newell, 501. Newcomb v. Dewey, 358, 369. NewcU's Appeal, 882, 883. Newell «. Hill, 646. Neswell V. Wright, 331. Newell V. Wheeler, 37, 760. New Albany E. Co. v. Fields, 811. New England Jewelry Co. u. Merlam, 321. New England, etc., Co. ■;;. Ober, 810. New Hampshire Bank v. Willard, 310. N. J. Zinc andiron Co. v. Morris, 271. New Ipswich Factory v. Batchelder, 601, 602, 603. New Orleans v. United States, 686. Ne V Orleans, etc., E. E. v. Maye, 611. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Aitkin, 332. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Mayer, 117, 120. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Milnor, 603, 609. New York, etc., B. B. v. Boston, etc., E. E., 636. New York, etc., E. E. v. City of Provi- dence, 611. New York City v. Law, 843. New Vienna Bank v. Johnson, 798. Newhall v. Bart, 303, 304. Newhall v. Five Cents Saving's Bank, 120, 334, 337, 361. Newhall v. Ireson, 832, 833. Newhall v. Lvnn Savings Bank, 334, 361. Newhall ». Pierce, 303,306. Newhall v. Wheeler, 467, 468, 504, 699. Newhall u. Wright, 322, 336, 331. Newill V. Newlll, 533. Newkirk v. Newklrk, 37, 310. Newlandsv. Paynter, 817a. Newlin v. Freeman, 469. Newlin v. Osborne, 812. Newlin v. Eeynolds, 700. Newlands). Newland, 398. Newman v. Bank of California, 257. Newman I). Chapman, 326, 360. Newman v. Dreifurst, 254. Newman u. French, 194. Newman v. Jackson, 368. Newman v. Eutter, 200. Newmun v. Samnels, 303, 368. Newson v. Clark, 884. Newson v. Fryer, 831, 832. Newton v. Clark, 877. Newton V. Cool!, 66. Newlon v. Eddy, 833. Newton v. Griffith, 642. Newton v. Harland, 221. Newton v. Howe & Drury, 239, 829a. Newton v. Ma\ o, 700. Newton v, Manwaring, 321. Newton v. McKay, 322. Newton v. McLean, 292, 613, 818. Newton v. Porter. 601. xcviii Newton v. Taylor, 501, 607. Nice's Appeal, 339, 818. Nichols V. Dnpree, 671. Nicholas V. Purczell, 160,665. Nicholl V. N. Y. & Erie E. E., 190, 276, 277, 385. Nicholl V. Nicholl, 532, 537. Nlcholls V. Lee, 333. Nichollso. Williams, 883. Nichols V. Allen, 499. Nlchols». Baxter, 327, 355, 365 Nlcholsj). Cabe, 307. Nichols 1). Eaton, 502, 503. Nichols V. Denny, 237, 482. Nichols i: Glover, 293, 294, 295. Nichols V. Levy, 502,503. Nichols 1'. Lnce, 601. Nichols V. McCabe, 307. Nichols w. Otto, 365. Nichols V. Reynolds, 307, 326, 818. Nichols V. Saanders, 324. Nichols V. Smith, 260, 829a. Nichols V. Wentworth, 699. Nichols V. Williams, 216. Nicholson v. Halsey, 512, 790. Nickell V. Tomlinson, 127, 129. Nickerson v. Buck, 876. NiooU V. N. Y. & Erie E. E., 37, 190, 276, 277. Nicolson V. Wordsworth, 559. Nidelet v. Wales, 194. Nlel V. Kinney, 292. Niell V. Morley, 793. Nightingal V. Hidden, 105, 496, 497, 844. Nightingale v. Withington, 792. Nigro V. Hatch, 6. Nlles V. Davis, 700. Niles V. Patch, 833, 834. Nlles V. Eansdorf, 363. Nlms V. Armstrong, 878. Nims V. Bynum, 322. Nlms V. Palmer, 744. Nitingale v. Burrell, 398. Nixon V. Porter, 832. Nixon V. Walter, 834. Nixon's Appeal, 500. Noble V. Bosworth, 709, 842. Noble V. Burnett, 878. Noble V. Butterworth, 4. Noble V. 111. Cent. E. E. Co., 725, 843. Noble ». Sylvester, 5, 5a. Noble's Estate, 878. Nock V. Nock, 877. Noet). Kern, 606. Noel V. Ewing, 116. Noel V. Henry, 561. Noel's Admr. v. Noel's Admr., 672. Noff ts V. Eoss, 117. Nolan V. Chambers, 37. Holandv. Johnson, 667. Nolte's Appeal, 294. Noonan v. Isley, 730. Noonan v. Lee, 855. Nooster v. Hunt's Lyman Iron Co., 115. Norcrossii. Griffiths, 832, 833, 835. Nororofis v. James, 862. Norcum v. D'Oench, 662, 574. Norfleetu. Comwell, 863. Norfolk, Duke of, 544. Norman i>. Burnett, 606. Norman v. Wella, 190, 882. Norman v. Winch, 861. Norris v. Honslcy, Sns. N orris V. Johnson, 602, 503. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Norrrs «. Milner, 277. Noriis V. Moody, 713. Norris v Morrill, 219. Norrls ». Houlton, 161, 162, 334. Norrls v. Thompson, 661. Norria v. Wilkinson, 288, 289. Norria' App., 700. Northam v. Hurley, 608, 617. Nortliamp,^n Mills v. Aiues, 322, 332, 821. Nortliampton Bant v. Balliet, 329. North Carolina K. R. v. WUson, 609. Northcntt t , Northcutt, 876. Northcutti Whipp, 129. Northern I rans (Jo. of Ohio v. Chicago, 618. Norlhrnpv Brehner, 818. Nortliwestfcrn Mut. Tire Ina. Co. v. lilauliens^ip, 792. Northyt). Korthy, 330. Norton v. C joper, 356. Norton V. Griffltll, 642. Norton v. Jjcltson, 855. Norton v. I.jonard. 468, 635. Norton v. I.jwis, 371. Norton v. Norton, 462, 504. Norton v. S jolefleld , 615. Norton v. Webb, 323. Norton v. Yt hitehead, 805. Norton v. W niiams, 339, 817o. Norvell v. Jvyhneon, 292, 295. Norvell v. y( alijer, 808. Norwich, City o(, v. Hubbard, 819. Norwich Ins. Uo v. Brower, 327. Norwood V. Morrow, 115, 126, 140. Notte's AppeiJ, 294. Nottingham v. Jennings, 543, 544. Nourse v. Merrlam, 417, 418. Noyes v. Claris, 808, 309. Nowliu V. Eeynoljs, 700. Noyes v. Rich, 323, S26. Noyes V. Sawyer, 360, Noyes «. Southworth, 888. Noyes v. Stnrdevant, 326. Noyes v. White, 330. Nugent V. Eiley, 302, 303, 304, 305. Nnll V. Fries, 305, 307. Nnttall V. Uracewell, 617. Nutting V. Herbert, 819. Nye V. Hoyle, 603, 862, 883. o. O'Boyle v. Thomas, 398. O'Brien ». Krenz, 161. O'Brien v. Kusterer, 2, 6. O'Brien v. O'Leary, 538. O'Brien v. Perrv, 747. O'Brien v. Sheffield, 226. O'Connor v. Gourand, 189. O'Connor v. McMahon, 242. O'Connor v. Pittsburg, 618. O'Daniel v. Baker's Union, 699. O'Donnell v. Hitchcock, 5a, 6. O'Donnell v. Mclntyre, 199. O'FaJlon V. Daggett, 835. O'Ferral v. Simplot, 115. O'Hara v. Eichardson, 697, 703. O'Herrinu. Brooks, 841. O'Keefe v. Calthorpe, 509. O'Kelly r. O'Kelly, 814, 815. O'Leary v. Snediker, 362. O'Llnda V. Lathrop, 837. O'Neal V. Brown, 813. O'Neil V. Webster, 810. O'Neill V. Douthitt, 343. O'Neill V. Grab, 298. O'Neill V. Gray, 323. O'Neill )). Harkina, 618. O'Neill V. Kinker, 189. O'Rorke v. Smith, 601, 609. O'Rourke v. Beurd, 606. O'Rourke v. Brown, 182. O'Rourke v. O'Connor, 817a, 818. O'Rourke v. H. P. Cooper & Co., 182 O'SuUiyan v. Norwood, 189. Oakes v, Marcey, 728. Oakes v. Monroe, 218. Oaksmith v. Johnston, 715, 716. Oates V. Cooke, 504. Oberholtzer's Appeal, 816. Obett V. Obert 261. Ocean Grove, etc., Assn. v. Asbnry Park, 615. Odd Fellow's S. Bk. v. Banton, 818. Odell V. Buck, 792. Odell V. Odell, 884. Odlorne v. Lyford, 242. Odiornev. Mason, 810. Odlm V. Gove, 726. Odneal v. City of Sherman, 611. Odom V. Beverly, 104. Officer V. Board of Home Missions, 666. Offut V. Scott, 258. Ogburn v. Connor, 615. Ogden V. Gibbons, 636. Ogden V. Grant, 304, 305. Ogden V. Grove, 609. Ogden V. Haven, 817a. Ogden V. Jennings, 60S, 695. Ogden V. Porterfleld, 831. Ogden V. Stock, 2. Ogden V. Thornton, 292, 293. Ogden V. Walters, 361, 8176. Ogden's Appeal, 434. Ohio Cent. E. R. Co. u. Central Trust Co., 358. Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Ledyard, 339, 817o, 818. Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Winn, 372. Ohllng V. Lultjens, 359. Ohnsburg v. Turner, 363, 364. Okison V. Patterson, 801, 782. Olcott V. Wing, 246, 253. Olcut V. Bynum, 364. Oldenbaugh v. Bradford, 308. Oldham v. Henderson, 91. Olds V. Cummlngs, 332. Oliffe V. Wells, 499. Olinda v. Lathrop, 837. Oliver V. Decatur, 324 Oliver V. Dougherty, 500, Oliver V. Gray, 199. Oliver V. Hook, 597, 601, 603, 66L Oliver v. Houdlet, 792. Oliver V, Moore, 178. Oliver V. Piatt, 700. Oliver v. Piatt, 857. Oliver V. Stone, 813, 814. Olmstead v. Dunn, 401. Olmsteadii. Elder, 829. Olmstead v. Harvey, 875. Olmstead v. Nlles, 177. Olneyii. Hull, 411,412. Olney v. Howe, 506 , Omaha Grant, etc., Co, v. Tabor, 263, Ombony v. Jones, 6, 7, xcix TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. OpdyTse v. Stephens, 831. Ord V. Bartlett, 361. On! V. llcKee, 330. Ordwayj). Eemington, 193. Orford V. Benton, 107. Oriental Bank v. Hasting, 802. Orleans t;. Chatham, 502, 606, 507. Orman v. Day, 620. Orme v. Eoberts, 817a. Ormlstou v. Olcott, 613. Ormond v. Martin, 700. Onnsby v. Ihmsen, 725. Orrasby v. Tarascon, 364. Orndoft v. Hummer, 878. Orne'B Case, 464, Orr V. CI ark, 814. Orr V. Hadley, 728. Orr V. Kode, 326, 358. Orser v. Hoag, 675. Ortli V. Jennings, 339, 817a. Orton V. Knab, 499. Orvis V. Newell, 341, 817&. Osborn v. Carr, 341. Osborn v. Jefferson Bank, 888. Osborn v. Horine, 138. O-bornv. Osborn, 443. Osborne v. Ballew. 696. Osborne v. Cook, 877. Osborne v. Horine, 138. Osborne v. Mull, 262. Osborne ». Wi^ienhouse, 671. Osborne v. Tunis, 860, 361, 362. Osbourne v. Fallows, 252. Osgood V. Abbott, 277. Osgood V, Eaton, 600. Osgood V. Franklin, 566. Osgood V. Howard, 2. Osgood V. Thompson's Bank, 307 Osman v. Sheafe, 405. Osmond v. Fitzroy, 792. Osterhoutw. Shoemaker, 122. Osterman v. Baldwin, 507, 700. Ostrander u. Hart, 3, 69. Ostrander v. Spickard, 148, 149, Ostroom v. McCaun, 359. Oswald V. McCtiley, 161. Oswald V. Mollett, 182. Otis V. Beckwlth, 606. Otis 11. Conway, 182. Otis V. Moulton, 695. Otis J'. Smith, 10. Otis V. Warren, 140. Ottaquechee Sav. Bk. v. Holt, 311 . Ottawa Plank Road v. Murray, 308, 309. Ottman v. Moak, 872, 792. Ottamwa Lodge v. Lewis, 242, 254, 621. Oury V. Saunders, 700. Ousley V. Anetruther, 601. Outcalt V. Ludlow, 714. Outcalt V. Outcalt, 883. Outerbridge v. Phelps, 603, 603. Oiithank v. Lake Shore, etc., E. Co., 605. Outlandjj. Bowen, 398. Outon V. Weeks, 562. Outtum v. Dulin, 199. Overfleld v. Christy, 697, 701, 714. Overman v. Kerr, 812. Overmans. Sims, 401. Overseers, etc., v. Sears, 37. Overton v. Devvisson, 832. Overton v, Overton, 876. Overton v. AVllliston, 5a. Owen V. Baker, 810. Owen V. Ellis, 662. Owen V. Field, 281, 653, 842. Owen I! . Hyde, 69, 74, 76, llff. Owen V. Morton, 251, 254, 700. Owen v. Peacock, 131. Owen V. Perry, 789. Owen V. Slatte, 130. Owen V. Yale, 128. Owens V. Clayton, 647. Owens ii. Miller, 818. Owens V. Missionary Society, 882, 884. Owens V. Owen*, 506. Owings V. Emery, 75. Owings V. Tucker, 814. Oyster v. Knull, 37. Pace V. Chadderdon, 322. Pace V. Payne, 700. Packard v. Ames, 863. Packard v. Agawan Ins. Co., 327. Packard v. Johnson, 818. Packard v. Moss, 696. Packard v. Putnam, 507. Packer v. Rochester & Syr. E. E., 358, 361. Padelfordu. Padelford, 67,69,74. Padfield v. Padfleld, 876. Page V. Chum, 254. Page V. Foster, 305. Page V. Hayward, 49, 398, 537. Page V. Kinsman, 199. Paget?. Murray, 603. Page V. Page, 139. Page V. Palmer, 273. Page V. Robinson, 322,351. Page V. Roper, 564. Page V. Waring, 8176, 718, 817. Pagnew. Clark, 860. Paige V. Sherman, 801. Paiker v. Wasley, 877. Paine v. Benton, 310. Paine, v. Boston, 613. Paine v. French, 330. Pame lu Hutchens, 695. Paine v. Mooreland, 817a. Paine v. Skinner, 607. Paine v. Smith, 288, 291, 292. Paine v. Wood, 2, 834, 836. Palairit's Appeal, 7.54. Palethorp v. Bergner, 191. Palk V. Clinton, 352. Palmer v. Edwards, 182 . Palmer v. Fleshees, 618, 619. Palmer v. Foote,318. Palmer r. Fobes, 2. Palmer 1). Guthrie, 307. Palmer v. Mulligan, 835. Palmer r. Nelson, 199. Palmer r. Oakley, 501. Palmer v. Suell, 358, 369. Palmer v. Sterling. Palmer r. Stevens, 319. Palmer v. Whetmore, 195. Palmer v. AVright, 599. Palmer v. Yager, 361. Palmeter v. Carey, 333. Palmetto Lumber Co. v. Rialey,501. Palms V. Palms, 241,544. Pamperine v. Scanlon, 352, 351. Panton v, Holland, 61S. Panton v. Teflt, 883. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Paptist Asen. v. Hart, 884. Paris V. Hulett, 362. Parish V. Farris, 6i2. Parislii;. KaBpare,599. Parisli V. Ward, 675. Paristi V. Whitney, 853. Parish Will Case, 881. Park V. Baker, 5, 6a. Park V. Bates, 861. Park V. Cochran, 714. Park V. Pratt, 795, 839. Parke v. Chadwick 818. Parke v. Hush, 352, 361. Parke v. Hears, P09. Parker v. Anderson, 757. Parker v. Banks, 695. ParkeriJ. Bell, 318. Parker v. Boston & M. R. E., 615 Parker v. Brown, 850, 861. Parker v. Chambliss, 81. Parker v. Converse, 509. Parker v. Dacres, 361. Parker v. Dean, 163. Parker v. Duke, 808. Parker v. Foote, 599, 613. Parker v. Foy, 29i, 293, 801. Parker v. Framingham, 837. Parker v. Glover, 401. Parker v. Hill, 813. Parker v. Kane, 741. Parker v. Housefield, 2S9, 291, 292. Parker v. Kane, 831, 829, 741. Parker v. Kelley, 292. Parker v. Logan, 600. Parker v. Marks, 730. Parker D. McMillan, 499. Parker v. Metzger, 716, Parker v. Murphy, 139. Parker «. Nightingale, 603. Parker v. Nime, 666, 668. Parker v. Obear, 131. Parker v. Overman, 760. Parker v. Parker, 115, 135, 144, 168, 538, 670, 697, 814. Parker v. Props. Locks, etc., 693, 727, 796. Parker i). Raymond, 199. Parker V. Snyder, 600. Parker v. Southwick, 714. Parker v. Wallls, 696. Parker v. Wasley, 876. Parker v. Webb, 646. Parker v. White, 661. Parkham v. Suffolk Sav. Bk., 507. Parkhurst v. Cumniings, 335. Parkharst v. Northern, etc., E. R. Co., 312 Parkhurst v. Smith, 400, 401, Parkhurst ii. Van Goriland, 507. Parkins V. Coxe, 74. Parkins v. Dunham. 605. Parkist V. Alexander, 816a, 8176. Parkman v. Welch, 375, 802. Park's Admr. v. Am. Home Missionary Soc, 398. Parks V. Bishop, 308. Parks V. Boston, 195. Parks i>. Hall, 302. Parks V. Hewlett, 808. Parks iJ. Jackson, 817a. Parks II. Loomis, 829. Parksf . Newbnryport, 615. Parley v. Craig, 646. Parmelee v. Dawn, 330. Parmelee v. Simpson, 812, 813. Parmenter v. Webber, 182. Parmenter v. Walker, 365. Parmentier v, Gillespie, 342. Parr v. Nowby, 161. Parmer's Adra. v. Parmer, 307. Parramore v, Taylor, 877. Parrish v. Ferris, 542. Parrish v. Parrish's Trustees, 538. Parrington v. Pierce, 303. Parrish v. Stevens, 611. Parrott v. Baker, 307. Parahall v. Eggert, 363. Parsley's Appeal, 606. Parsons v. Boyd, 237. Parsons v. Camp, 2, 652. Parsons v, Copeland, 4. Parsons v. Hughes, 351. Parsons v. Johnson, 697, 698, 602. Parsons v. Miller, 863. Parsons v. Parsons, 881. Parsons v. Smith, 799. Parsons v. Wells, 329. Partch V. Spooner, 694. Partons v. VVinslow, 68. Partridge v. Bere, 326. Partridge v. Cavender, 603. Partridge v. Colegate, 240, 241. Partridge v. Dorsev, 46, 63. Partridge i;. Gilbert, 620. Partridge v. Messer, 601. Partridge v. Partridge, 330, 380. Partridge v. Scott, 618. Partridge v. Swazy, 310. Patch V. Wilde, 366. Pate V. French, 638, 728. Patcheu v. Patchen, 883. Patrick V. Sherwood, 66. Patridge v. Hatch, 8.W, 861. Patten v. Deshon, 180, 190, 192. Patten v. Moore, 818, 819. Patten «. Pearson, 829,862,365. Patten v. Tallman, 878. Patterson v. Arthur, 853. Patterson v. Blake, 246, 253. Patterson v. Boston, 195. Patterson v. Carneal, 803. Patterson v. Clark, 306. Patterson v. De la Ronde, 816. Patterson v. Banner, 818. Patterson v. Ellis, 643. Patterson v. Harlan, 842. Patterson v. Linder, 292, 817a. Patterson v. Martin, 260. Patterson v. Lytic, 725. Patterson v. Pease, 728, 809. Patterson v. Phlla., etc., K. R. Co., 604. Patterson v. Robinson, 469. Patterson v. Triumph Ins. Co., 827. Patterson v. Yeaton, 309, 741. Patterson ti. Wilson, 569. Pattison v. Horn, 501. Pattison's Appeal, 757, 799. Patton V. Axley, 214. Pattou V. Beecher, 507. Patton V. Holland, 618. Patton V. Chamberlain, 507. Patton V. Page, 374. Patton V. Crow, 663. Patty V. Goolsby, 664. Patty V. Pease, 371. Paul V. Campbell, 242, 245. Paul V. Carver, 837. Paul!;. Fulton, 501. Paul V. Witman, 860. ci TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Paulke V. Cooke, 802. Pauzel V. Brookinire, 330. Pawson V. Brown, d99. Paxon U.Paul, 333. Paxton V. Harrier, 37B, 294. Paxton V. Stuart, 501. Payaa v. Wllkins, 795. Paj-ne V. Attlebury, 292, 295. Payne v. Avery, 292. Payne v. Harrell, 29oa, 296, 362. Payne v, James, 190. Payne v. Parker, 794. Payne v. Patterson, 501. Payne v. Payne, 890. Pay's Case, 540. Payton v. Sherburne, 218. Payne v. Payne, 7B6, 890. Payor v. Hallinger, 352. Payson v. Burnham, 603. Payton v. Mayor of London, 618. Peabody ». Hewitt, 703, 714. Peabody v. Mlnot, 238, 239, 260, 829a. Peabody v. Tarbell, 443. Peake v. Jenkins, 875. Pearce v. Foreman, 292. Pearce v. Hall, 310. Pearce v. McClenaghan, 598, 605. Pearce v. Savage, 237, 238, 399, 401, 604. Pearce II. Wilson, 304. Pearsall v. Post, 599. Pearl v. Harvey, 292, 294. Pearl v. WcDowell, 792. Pearson v. Allen, 609. Pearson v. HelUwell, 647. Pearson v. Johnson, 597. Pearson v, Sanderson, 189. Pearson v. Scay, 305, 306. Pearson v. Spencer, 597. Peas V. Kelly, 292, 293. Pease v. Lawson, 700. Pease v. Pilot Knob Iron Co., 322, 363. Pease v. Stone, 670. Pease v. Warren, 329. Peasieeji. Gee, 839. Peaslee v. Tower, 617. Peavey v. Tllton, 796, 812, 814. Peb ing's Estate, 506. Pecare v. Chouteau, 851. Peck V. Batchelder 6, 5a, 6. Peck V. Carpenter, 242, 255. Peck V. Carey, 877. Pecki;. Henderson, 563. Peck V. Hensley, 854, &55. Peck V. Houston, 696. Peck V. Jones, 195. 855. Peck V, Lockridge. 251, 252. Peck II. Mallams, 338, 788, 816a, 817, 829. Peck V. Northrop, 192. Peck V. Ormsby, 163. Peck C.Smith, 842. Peck V. Ward, 700, 794. Peckham v. Haddock, 336. Peckhamr Lego, 89S, 402, 564. Pedericki;. Searle, 714, 717. Pegnes v. Pegnes, 500. Peeler v. Gailkey, 700. Peels V. Brown, 542. Pegnes v. Warley, 695. Pelter v. Draper, 201. Peltan v. Fannin, 361. Peltan v. Knapp, 336. Peltan v. Westchester, 498. Pemberton v. King, 5a. Pemberton v, Pemberton, 148. oil Pence v. Duval, 853, 864, 861. Penderson v. Brown, 318. PendlayjJ. Baton, 881. Pendleton v. Booth, 326. Pendleton v. Fay, 332. Penhey v. Hurrell, 419, 421, 422. Penhallow v. D wight, 71, 757. Penn v. Ott, 312. Penne v. Peacock, 661. Pennel ». Weyant, 812, 813. Pennington v. Hauley, 305. Pennington r. Ogden, 671. Pennington v. Pennington, 542, 644. Pennock's Estate, 506. Pennsylvania Co. v. Devoy, 813. Penton v. Eobart, 6, 70. Penton v. Teff t, 883. People V. Bostwlck, 812, 815. People V. Canal Appraisers, 832, 833, 834, 835. People V. Darling, 217. People V. Field, 228. Peoples. Gillis, 179. People V. Gilon, 853. People V. Henderson, 8.33. People V. Humphrey, 753. People V. Irwin, 675. People V. Law, 837. People V, Livingston, 745. People V, Lowndes, 699. People V. Mayor, 753, 795. People V. Miller, 728. People V. Norton, 609, 510. People V. Oregan, 789. People V. Piatt, 832, 833, 835. People II. Eiokhert, 177. People V. Salem, 25, 753. People II. Snyder, 812. People II. Stiner, 199. People II. t'turtevant, 636. People V. Supreme Court, 308, 309. People V. Tibbetts, 835. People V. Utlca Ins. Co., 633. People V. Ulster Com. Pleas., 367. People II. Van Kensselaer, 715, 716. People's Sav. Bk. i'. Denig, 434, 505. Pepper II. O'Dowd, 696, 699, 695, 698. Pepper's Appeal, 275. Pepper's Will, 573. Peralta v. Castro, 878. Percival v. Percival, 128. Perdue v. Aldridge, 810. Perez v. Eayband, 189. Perin v, Carey, 884. Perine n. Dunn, 361. Perine v. Teague, 225. Perkins v. Brierfleld & Co., 352. Perkins v. Emery, 647. Perkins v. Gibson, 292, 294. Perkins' Lessee v. Dibble, 303, 333. Perkins 1'. Nichols, 500. Perkins v, Nugent, 700. Perkins v. Perkins, 693. Perklas v. Presnell, 563. Perkins ». Steam, 336. Perkins v. Sterne, 326, 329, 338. Perkins v. Swank, 6. Perkins v. Woods, 359, 360. Permiateri). McDaniel, 789. Perrin i'. Blake, 433, 434. Perrin v. Calhoun, 199. Perrin ». N. Y. Cent. R. R,, 837. Perrin n. Head, 318, 8176. Perine v. Perine, 794. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Ferine v. Dunn, 361. Perry v. Aldrich, 67. Perry v. Barton, 697 . Perry v. Blnney, 841. Perry v. Oarr, 2, 352. Perry v. Grant, 292, 293. Perry ». Hale, 883. Perry v. Kearnes, 332. Perry i>. Kline, 52. Perry v. Logan, 542. Perry v. McHenry, 600. Perry v. Meddowcrof t, 305, 306. Perry v. Phillips, 662. Perry v. Price, 779, 801. Persiful V. Hind, 164. Person v. Chase, 792. Person V. Merrick, 859. Person v. Alsip, 359. Peter v. Beverly, 368, 468, 608, 611, 612, 663, 566. Peter v. Daniel, 617. Peter v. Kendal, 634. Peters v. Klklns, 324. Peters v. Florence, 336. Peters v. Goodrich, 8176. Peters v. Jamestown Bridge Co., 329. Peters v. Jones, 700, 715, 7i6. Peters v. Myers, 853. Peterson v. Clark, 81, 304, 351, 305. Peterson v. Edmonson, 194. Peterson v. Fowler, 262. Peterson v. Laik, 792. Peterson ti. McCuUough, 695,697,698. Petland v. Keep, 699, BUS. Petrle v. Folz, 855, 861. Pettee v. Case, 311, 312. Pettee v. Hawes, 843. Pettee v. Hawkes, 600. Fetters v. Fetters, 890. Pettibone v. Edwarns, 360. Pettigrew v. Bvansville, 615 Pettlgrew v. Shirley, 747. Petti]ohn v. Beasley, 148. PettinglU V. Porter, 609. Fettlt V. Fretz, 794. Pettitj;. Johnson, 368. Petty V. Malice, 671. Peyton v. Avres, 353. Peyton v. Mayor of London, 618, 619. Pf eitter v. McNatt, 161. Pharis V. Leachman, 133. Fhelan v. Brady, 819. Phelan v. San Francisco Co., 797. Phelps V. Chesson, 277. Phelps V. Harris, ,513. Phelps V. Conover, 294. Phelps V. Jackson, 601. Phelps V. Jepson, 237. Phelps V. Kellogg, 747. Phelps V. Phelps, 396, 812. Phelps V. Sage, 333. Phelps V. Sullivan, 789. Philadelphia v. Gerard, 644, 884. Philadelphia Ass'n v. Wood, 759. Philadelphia W. &B.E. E. Co. v. How- ard, 814, 815. Philadelphia W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Woelpper, 312. Phllbrlck V. Swing, 6, 842. Philbrlck !>. Spangler, 876. Philbrook v. Delano, 292, 443. Philips V. Crammond. 601. Phillips' Academy v. King, 445. Phillips i>. Allen, 69. Phillips V. Bank of Lonlstown, 329, i 818. Phillips V. Covert, 212. Phillips 17. Crammond, 601. Phillips u. Doe, 193. Phillips V. Drossier, 604. Phiilips V. Ferguson, 275. Phillips V. Green, 792, 793. Phillips V. Houston, 813, 814. Phillips V. Kent, 716. Phillips V. Overfleld, 501. Phillips V. Pearson, 339, 839. Phillips V. Phiilips, 401, 606, 60L Phillips V. Saunderson, 294. Phillips V. Sherman, 239,240, 746. Phillips V. Skinner, 292. Phillips «. Smith, 77. Phillips V. Stevens, 180, 194. Phillips V. Thompson, 498. Phillips V. Tudor, 260, 829a. PblUlps V. Winslow, 312. Phillips V. Wood, 401. Phillips' Academy v. King, 445, 461. Phinney v. Watts, 836. Philpot V. Hoare, 183. PhipardK. Phipard, 506. Phipps V. Hope, 875. Phipps V, Tarpley, 851. Phipps V. Lord Ennlsmore, 603. Phyf e V. Elley, 332. Phyfe V. Wardill, 501. Piatt v.Hubbell, 260. Piatt t>. McCullough, 673, 876. Piatt V. Oliver, 216, 255. PlDus V. Mitford, 434, 443. Pickard v, Klels, 191, Pickerings. Langdon, 890. Fickermg v. Pickering, 254, 882, 883. Pickerings. Shotweli, 884. Pickering v. Stapler, 842. Pickets. Brown, 611. Picket V. Buckner, 366. Pickets. Dowdall. 739. Picket s. Jones, 329, 363. Pickett s. Anderson, 194. Pickett s. Buckner, 367. Pickett V. Brown, 611. Pickett s, Ferguson, 199. Pickett s.Peay, 148. Flco s. Colombet, 242, 243, 265. Fleets. Page, 252, 269. Plele s. Judson, 8176. Pier s. Carr. 196, 196a. Fierce v. Brew, 801, 853. Pierce s. Brown, 199. Pierce s. Chase, 242, 246. Fierce v. Dyer, 619, 621. Pierce s. Emory, ."12. Pierce s. Farmer, 332. Pierce s. Kaunce, 332.- Picrce s. George, 4, 5. 5a. Pearce s. Grlmley, 364. Pierce s. Hakes, 805. Pierces. Hall, 310. Fierce s. Keator, 697. Fierce v. Mil E. Co., 312. Fierce s. Perrie, 299. Pierce s. Pierce, BOO. Fierce v. Potter, 318, 362. Pierce s. Robinson, 307, 308. Pierce s. Selllck, 609. Pierce s. Taylor, 817, 818. Fierce s. Trigg, 116. Fierce u. Warnett, 106. ciii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Fierce v. Williams, 135, 144. Pierre v. Fernald, 599, 613. Pierre v. Simmone, 37. Piercy In re, 877. Pierson v. Armstrong, 801, 803. 808 Picrson v, David, 292. Pierson v. Tamer, 699, Piesteru. Piester, 338. Pifer 1!. Ward, 120. Plggott V. Mason, 190. Piggott V. Stratton, 198. Pigot's Case, 811. Pike V. Collins, 310. Pike V. Brown, 185. Pike V. CalTln, 817, 731. Pike V. Evans, 696. Pike V. Galvin, 727, 728. Pike V. Goodnow, 332, 333, 336. Pike V. Lelter, 177. Pike V. Robertson, 697, 698. Pilloti'. Boosey, 191. Pillow V. Roberts, 696, 760, 808 Pilklngton V. Boughey, 499. Pill&bnry v. Mitcliell, 862. Pillsbury v. Smythe, 333. Pim V. Downing, 513. Pina V. Peck, 674. Pinchain v. CoUard, 292. Pinckney v. Barrage, 715. Pindall v. Trevor, 501. Pinere v^ Jndson, 216. Pingue V. McDuffle, 603. Pingreyii. Watkins, 182. Pinhoru r. Souster, 213. Plnkham v. Blair, 638. Pinney v. Fellows, 507. Plnson V. Ivy, 445. Pinson v, Williams, 127. Pintard v. Goodloe, 292. Piper V. Lodge, 695, 699. Piper V. Smitti, 246, 253. Piscataqua Bridge Co. v. N. H. Bridge Co., 636. Pitcher V. Laycock, 792. Pitcher r. Dove, 726. Pitl:int>. Leavitt, 860. Pitkin c. L. I. R. R. Co., 600. Pitman v. Collins, 855. Pitman v. Conner, 855, Pitman v. Thornton, 362, 357. Pitts V. Aldrlch, 337. Pitts V. Cable, 306. Pitts V. Parker, 292, 294. Pitts V. Pitts, 128. Pittsburgh, etc., E. E. Co. v. Eeno, 603, 862. Pivard V. Gisenhaf, 79S. Pixley V. Hnggins, 339, 817o. Plant V. James, 842. Plant V. Smythe, 817a. Planters' Bank v. Davis, 107. Planters* Bank v. Dickenson, 163. Planters' Bank v. Henderson, 163. Planters' Bank v. Johnson, 766. Planters' Bank v. Prater, 601. Plate V. Eoe, 303, 308. Piatt's Appeal, 185. Playter v. Cunningham, 186 Pledger v. Ellerbe, 122. Plenty v. West, 468. Pleydell r. Pleydell, 542. Plimpton V. Converse, 601, 609, 700. Plimpton V. Ins. Co., 327. Plum I'. Studebaker, 363. civ Plumb V. CattarangfUB Ins, Co., 725. Plumb V. Tabbs, 276. Plumer v. Plumer, 2, 76. Plumerv- Eobcrtson, 818. Plumleigb v. Cook, 190, 277. Plummer v. Eussell, 805, 807. Plunkett V. Holmes, 107, 421, 422. Plunkett V. Penson, 318. Plus)! V. Digges, 182. Plymouth v. Boston Dispensary, 66. Plymouth v. Carver, 853. Plymouth v. Converse, 730. Podmore v. Gunning, 501. Poe V. Domee, 7i9, 801. Poe V. Perryn, 4U3. Poedon v. Boston L. E., 597. Pogue V. Clark, 360. Poignardi;. Smith, 326, 694, 696,697, 715. Poindexter v. Henderson, 81. Poindexter v. McCannon, 305. Point Pleasant Land Co. v. Cranmer, 611. Poler V. Dubuque, 292. Polk V. Paris, 433. Polk V. Eose, 760. Pollack V. Stacy, 182. Pollard V. Barnes, 699. Pollard V. Cocke, 817a. Pollard V. Dwight, 850. Pollard V. Greenvil, 573. Pollard V. Hogan, 834. Pollard V. Maddox, 828. Pollard V. Pollard, 148. Pollard V. Shaffer, 78, 190. Pollard V. Slaughter, 129. Pollitt V. Long, 614. Pollock V. Kittrell, 212. Pollock V. Stacey, 182. Poison V. Ingram, 599, 605. Polyblankj;. Hawkins, 90. Pomeroy v. Bailey, 601, 802. Pomeroy v. Laytlng, 339. Pomeroy v. Mills, 697. Pomlort V. Eicord, 601, 609, 610 Pomroyu. Stevens, 818, 819. Ponce V. McElrov, 499. Pond V. Allen, 401, 883. Pond V. Bergh, 538. Pond V. ClaA, 335. Pond V. Johnson, 139. Ponder v. Eitziuger, 335. Pool V. Blalkie, 105. Pool V. Hathaway, 337. Pool V. Longuevllle, 90. Poole V. Bentley, 179. Poole V. Buffum, 876. Poole V. Gerrard, 163. Poole ». Jackson, 809. Poole V. Lewis, 614. Poole V. Morris, 60, 398, 421, 422, 538. Poole V, Poole, 434. Poor V. Oakman, 799. Pope V. Biggs, 324. Pope V. Devereux, 605. Pope V. Durant, 358. Pope V. Garrard, 194. Pope V. Haskins, 199. Pope V. Haumer, 697. Pope V. O'Hara, 605, 842. Pope V. Skinkle, 2. Pope V. Town of Union, 611. Pope Ex'or v. Elliott, 502, 503. Popham V. Bampfleld, 662 Porcheru. Daniels, 562. Port V. Jackson, 862. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Porter v. Bank of Eutland, 92, 506. Porter v. Bleiber, 192. Porter v. Bradley, 542, 853. Porter v. Buckingham, S13. Porter u. City of Dubuque, 292. Porter v. Clements, 359. Porter v. Cole, 813. Porter v. Doby, 495. Porter v. Hill, 260, 861. Porter v. King, 318. Porter v. Lafferty, 326. Porter v. Mayfleld, 199. Porter v. Nelson, 307. Porter v. Pijlsbury, 362. Porter v. Sovey, 818. Porter v. Turner, 573. Porter v. Woodhonse, 814. Porter In re, 891. Porter's Case, 533. Porteus V. Holm, 877. Portis V. Hill, 697. Portia V. Parker, 101. Posey 1). Cook, 468. Post V. Dorr, 324. Post V. Jackson, 186. Post V. Kearney, 182. Post V. Pearsall, 597, 651. Post V. Eiyers, 883. Post V. VanHouton, 415.- Post V. Vetter, 189. Poston V. Eubank, 369. Posten V. Posten, 802. Poth V. Anstatt, 818. Potior V. Barclay, 138. Potter V. Couch, 39, 563. Potter V. Cromwell, 4. Potter «. Everett, 115. Potter V, Gardner, 516. Potter V. McDowell, 817o. Potter V. Potter, 867. Potter V. Stevens, 330. Potter V. Stroms, 330. Potters. Taylor, 852. Potter V. Thornton, 884. Potter V. Titcomb, 664, 873. Potter V. Wheeler, 116, 259. Potts V. Coleman, 699, 700. Potts V. Gilbert, 703. Pouce V. McBlroy, 499. Pounds V. Dale, 888. Powcey V. Bowen, 570 Powell V. Bagg, 599. Powell V. Brandon, 433, 435. 542 Powell V. Clark, 830, 840. Powell V. Glenn, 546. Powell V. Glover, 501. Powell V. Gossom, 106. Powell V. Innes, 327. Powell V. M. & B. Mfg. Co., 702. Powell V. Morrison, 45a, 115, 118, 127, 135. Powell V. Murray, 469. . Powell V. Powell, 115. Powell V. Kioh, 799, 842. Powell V. Simmes,602, 613. Powell V. Sims, 602. Powell V. The Monson & B. Mfg. Co., 702, 794. Powell V. Williams, 318, 325. Power V Cassidy, 499. Power V. Daugherty, 667, 670. Power V. Doheney, 818. Power V. Lester, 812. Powers V. Bergen, 753. Powers V. Dennison, 851 Powers V. Martin, 311. Powers V. McPerran, 817. Powersliick v, Denlaon, 358. Powles V. lunes, 327. Powtucket V. Ballou, 877. Poyas V. Wilklns, 795. Prage v. Chinn, 251. Prather v. McClelland, 881. Pratt V. Ayer, 506, 507. Pratt V. Bank of Bennington, 321. Pratt V. B. C. E. Co., 609. Pratt V. Clemens, 808. Pratt V. Brown, 715. Pratt V. Clark, 292, 295o, 296. Pratt V. Colt, 692, 603. Pratt V. Farrar, 213. Pratt V. f elton, 143. Pratt V. Flamer, 883. Pratt V. Levan, 183. Pratt V. McCuUough, 878. Pratt M. Meyers, 802. Pratt V. Miller, 499. Pratt V. Ogden, 651, 652. Pratt V. Oliver, 501. Pratt V. Skolfleld, 329. Pratt V. Sweetser, 605. Pratt V. Vanwyck, 292, 295a, 296. Pray v. Pierce, 697, 777, 779, 782. Pray v. Price, 698. Preachers' Aid Soc. k. Eich, 884. Preble v. Hay, 214. Preiss V. Le Poidevln, 860. Prendergast v. Prendergast, 513. Prentice v. Northern Pac. E. E. Co., 746. Presbrey v. Preebrey, 251, 254, 827, 829. Presbyterian Church v. Kellar, 837. Preschbaker v. Feaman, 303, 304. Prescott V. Ellingwood, 329. Prescottw. Hawkins, 756, 827. Prescott V. Heard, 817a. Erescott v. Nevers, 696. Prescott V. Prescott, 161, 396. Prescott V. Trueman, 840, 852. Prescott V. Walker, 118. Prescott V. White, 605, 617, 842, 853. Prescott V. Williams, 605. Presley v. Strlbling, 513, 514. Prestmau v. Baker, 814. Preston v. Brant, 262, 412. Preston v. Briggs, 176. Preston v. Fnnnell, 542. Preston v. Hawley, 216. Preston v. Hodges, 330. Preston?;. Hull, 789. Preston v. Jiobinson, 242, 829a. Preston v. Truman, 850. Preston v. Wilcox, 509. Prettyman v. Watson, 68. Prettym^n v. Wllkey, 859. Prevost V. Gratz, 601, 700. Price V. Berrington, 601, 792. Price V. Brayton, 6. Price V. Brown, 697. Price V. Carver, 291, 296. Price V. Case, 652. Price V. Courtney, 567. Price V. Cutts, 302. 303. Price V. Purman, 793. Price V. Grover, 307. Price V. Jackson, 696, 697. Price V. .Johnston, 746. Price V. King, 781, 843. Price V. Methodist Episcopal Church, 818. Price V. Pickett, 67, 68, 70. CV TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Price V. Perrie, 299, 308, 309. Price V. Ey. Ft. W. & C. K. R., 815. Price V. Price, 116, 135, 143. Price V. Sisson, 397, 401, 434, 462, 464. Price V. Tally, 664. Price V. Taylor, 434. Price V. Norwood, 278. Prickett v. Parlier, 663. Pride v. Lunt, 831. Priest V. Cummintrs, 127. PriCBt V. Eice, SHa. Primm «. Walker, 238, 239, 260, 287, 687, 836, 829a. Prince v. Chase, 651. Prince v. Hake, 160. Princeton, etc., Co. v. Mtinson, 358. Prindle v. Anderson, 219. Pringle v. Dunn, 338, 816, 816a, 817. Pringle v. Written, 850. ' Prior V. Com stock, 686. Prior V. t'cott, 827. Pritctiard v. Brown, 303, 305, 780. Pritchard v. Walker, 238, 239. Probasco v. Johnson, 289, 290, 292. Probert v. Morgan, 569. Proby V. Landor, 573. Proctor V. Baker, 369. Proctor V. Hodgson, 601. Proctor V, Jennings, 614. Proctor V. Proctor, 883. Prodgers v. Langham, 802. Proilitt V. Henderson, 72, 74, 76. Proprietors Brattle Sq. Church v. Grant, 541, 532, 644. Proprietors v. Call, 697, 698. Proprietors v. McFarland, 698. Proprietors v. Grant, 281, 398, 418, 419, 423, 424, 530. 532, 640, 543. Proprietors, etc., v. Lowell, 10. Proprietors v. Prescott, 726. Propi'ietcrs v. Springer, 695. Pressor v. Hardesty, 538. Prout V. Wiley, 793. Prov. Bank v. Billings, 759. Prov. Tool Co. V. Corliss, 601. Prov. Gas. Co. v. Thurber, 6. Provost V. Provost, 875. Pruett V. Allen, 400. Pruitt V. Holly, 68. Pryor v. Castleman, 415. Pryor v. Coggen, 887. Pryce v. Pury, 2S9, 291. Pryor v. Holllngcr, 352, 353. Public Park DeiJt., 700. Puo V. Pue, 605. Pueblo, etc., Valley E. E. Co. v. Beshoar, 318. Pugh V. Arton, 7. Pnghi;. Holt, 304, 305. Push V. Pugh, 501, 883. Pugsley u. Aiken, 214, 217. Pulfordu. Morton, 500. PuUen V. Canfleld, 700. PuUcn V. H.ipkins, ti97. Pullen V. Eianhard, 468. Pnllan v. C. & C. Air Line E. E., 823, 324. Pulpress V. African Ch., 518. Pumplirey v. Pumphrey, 148. Purcell V. Goshorn, 794. PurceU V. Mather, 312. Pnrdy v. Huntington, 321 829. Pnrdy v. Purdy, 237, 288, 600. Pnrefoy v. Rogers, 636, 539, 640, 544, 116, 397, 398, 630, 648. cvi Pnrinton v. N. III. E. E., 831. Putington's (Mary) Case, 281. Pursley v. Hayo, 792. Purvis ». Wilson, 262. Putnam v. Bond, 827. Putnam's Free School v. Fisher, 510, 6 695, 699. Pntnam v. Putnam, 885. Putnam v. Eitchie, 335. Putnam v. Tnttle, 843. Putnam i>. Wise, 178, 251. Putney 11. Dresser, 227, 238. Pye V. Danbus, 289. Pyerw. Carter, 602. Pyland v. Eeeves, 292. Pynchon v. Stearns, 69, 73. Pyne®. Doe, 801. Q. QuackenlosB v. Clark, 182, 183, 186. Quarries v. Peabody Ins. Co., 327. Queen Ann Co. v. Pratt, 120. Quick V. Ladhorough, 561. QuinbyB. Boyd, 810. Quinby v. Hlggins, 666, 668. Qulnby v. Manhattan Olotb, etc., Co. ,4, 5 5a. Quincy I). Cheeseman, 324. Quincy v. Higgins, 666. Qumulan v. Boule, 177, 226. Quinn v. Anderson, 652. Quinn V. Britliadge, 325. Quinnu. Brittain, 326. Quinn v, Kinyon, 169. Quinn v. Perham, 189. Quinn «?. WindmiUer, 699. Quint V. Little, 326. Quirk V. Thomas, 8lS. E. Rabshul v. Lack, 801. Eackleff v. Norton, 818. Eackley v. Sprague, 842. Kaconillet v. Sansevain, 339. RadclifFe v. Bowley, 343. Eadcliffe v. Scrnggs, 715. Radclifl's Ex. u.Mayor, etc., of Brooklyn, Oj.Q| nlD« OlOa Raggen v. Avery, 810. Eagiaud v. The Justices, etc., 300, 301. Railroad v. Shurmeier. 833. Railsback v, Lovejoy, 262. Raines v. Corbin, 148. Raines v. Walker, 812. Eakestraw v. Brewer, 326 Bakestraw v. Hamilton, 29". Raleigh Bank v. Moore, 339 K^ley n. County of Umantilla (Oregon)^ Rails V. Hughes, 131. Ralph V. Bagley, 696. Ralston v. Moore, 810. Ralston v. Ralston, 116. Eamirez v. McCormick, 609. Eammelsburg v. Mitchell, 513. Eanisay v. Slarsh, 494. Ramsey v. Marsh, 494. Ramsey v. Merriam, 365. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Ramsey v. Ramsey, 670. Kamsdc]! v. Emory, 500. Ramsdell v. BamsdeU, 39S, 6S4. Eamsdell v. Wenworth, 888. Ramsdcu v. Dyson, 726. RamsdiU v. Wentworth, 888. Randalls), Elwell,2. Randall v. Hazelton, 364. Randall v- Josselyn, 638. Randall v. Keriger, 140. Randall v. McLaugnlln, 600, 602. Randall i;. Phillips, 501. Randall v. Randall, 506, 843. Randall?;. Rich, 198, Randall v. Sanderson, 613, Randall v. Schrader, 864. Randall v, Silverthorn, 818. Randebangh v. Shelly, 877. Randolphs. Kinney, 862. Randolph v, Middleton, 358. Randolph v. Randolph, 498, 883. Rands V. Kendall, 322. Rankin v. Barcrott, 609. Rankin v. Harper, 500. Rankin v. Major, 329, 830, 360. Rankin v. Mortimore, 308. Rankin v. Porter, 818. Rankin v. Shaw, 163. Raunello v. Isgripg, 116, 127. Rannels v. Gerner, 127. Ransome v. Frayser, 305. Rapalye v. Rapalye, 374. Rapp V. Rapp, 638. Rash v. Ellis, 662. Ratcllfl V. Belfort Iron Co., 199. Ratlitf V. Davis, 360. Ratliffi V. Ellis, 507. Ratliffe V. Marrs, 844. RauBChe v. Moore, 115. Bawley v. Holland, 443. Rawlings v. Adams, 106. Rawlins v. Buttel, 128, 135. Rawson v. Fox, 696. Rawson v. Uxbridge, 272, 863. Eawstron v. Taylor, 616. Ray V. Hallenbeck, 310, 389, 813, 814. Ray V. Bush, 818. Ray V. Copeland, 501. Ray V. Hill, 876. Ray V. Lynes, 611, 613. Ray V. Mardock, 760. Ray V. Pang, 129. Ray V, Simmons, 606. Ray V. Yarnell, 163. Bayall's Admr. v. MoKenzie, 613. Raybold v. Raybold, 606. Raymond v. Ilolborn, 352. Raymond v. Holden, 715, 728, 731, 794. Raymond v. Raymond, 728. Raynham v. Wilmarth, 138. Kaynor v. Lee, 714, Raynori). Timersen, 726. Raynor v. Wilson, 790. Razor v. Dowman,163, 810. Rea V. Central Kational Bank, 4 Rea V. Copelin, 601. Rea V. Rea, 126, 138. Read V. Allen, 697, 714. Read v. Gilliard, 305. Read v. Goodyear, 694. Read v. Huff, 500. Road V. Leeds, 837. Read v. Livingston, 802. Read v. Robinson, 812, 814. Read v. Steadman, 499. Read v. Williams, 506. Reading «. Weston, 305, 308. Reading Trnrt Co.'s Appeal, 434. Ready v. Kearsley, 606, 798. Reasoner v. Edmondson. 818, 851, 861. Reanme v. Chambers, 101, 106, 115, 794. Recketts v. Louisville, etc., Ry. Co., 275. Reckhow v. Schauck, 212, 226. Rector v. Waugh, 233, 253, 200. Redd D.Murry, 841. Reddall?). Bryan, 753. Roddick v. Grossman, 322. Redding v. Lamb, 855. Redfern v. Middleton, 64, 780. Redfleldu. Buck, 802. Redfleld ti. Gleason, 254. Bedford v. Gibson, 292, 294. Redin v Branhan, 332, 359. Reding v. Stone, 632. Redlor V. Barker, 5. Eedmagne v. Foerster, 291. Redman v. Sanders, 323. Redwine v. Brown, 850, 860. Reece v. Allen, 368. Reed v. Beck, 174. Reed v. Campbell, 175. Reed V, Crocker, 669. Reed v. Dickerman, 147,148. Reed v. Farr, 726. Reed «.Gaillard, 304. Reed V. Hemp, 810. Reedw. Kemp, 810. Reed v. Lamar, 469. Reed v. Marble, 329. Reed v. McOourt. 726. Reed V. Morrison, 115, 117, 124, 130. Reed v. Ownby, 818. Reed V. Reed, 213, 355, 356. Reed v. Reynolds, 166, 196a. Reed v. Underhlll,577. Reed v. Van Ostrand, 805. Reed v. Ward, 192, 193. Reed v. Whitney, 117. Reed's Appeal, 546. Reeder v. Barr, 746, 819. Reeder v. Carey, 330. Reeder v. Craig, 727, 730. Reed V. Lamar, 469. Reeder v. Pardy, 228. Rees ». Chicago, 611. Rees V. Smith, 780. Reese v. Wallace, 601. Reeve v. Long, 636. Reeve v. Scully, 332. Reeve v. Long, 397, 636. Reeves v. Slater, 798, Reeves v. Tappan, 566. Refold V. Terrell, 292. Refold V. Ferson, 292. Reformed Dutch Church «. Veeder, 466. Regina v. Charley, 605, 605. Regina?;. St. Paul, 8(i8. Rehoboth v. Hunt, 239, 240. Reichards Appeal, 501. Reichertw. McClure, 339, 817a. Reickhoff V. Brecht, 501. Reid V. Abernathy, 335, 813. Reid V. Kirk, 2. Reid V. Mullins, 366, 367. Reid V. Reid, 507. Reid V. Shergoid, 573. Reid V. Steven.=on, 122. Rein V. Rciff, 70. cvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. Beferences are to Sections. Eeiit'3 Appeal, 415. Kciflienstahl v. Osborne, 164. Ecillo V. Mayor, 715. Heimer v. Stcuber, 715. lleinders v, Koppleman, 564, 883, Reincrs v. Young, 602. Rcinicker v. Smith, 242, WSa. Reins V. Young, 603. EeinBehl v. Shirk, 538. Kcinstein v. Daniels, 164. Keise v. Enos, 608. Ecitonbaugh v. Ludwick, 303, 304, 325. Ecilzti.Eeitz, 500,601. Eeleyj). Griffln,699. Eelf V. Gist, 808. Reliable Steam Power Co. v. Solidarity Watch Co., 194. Remington v. Am. Bible Soc, 885. Itemington v. Lewis, 674. Eemington v. Millard, 611. Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougberty , 343. Eon V. Bucteley, 661. lieniston v. Adams, 883. Eennock v. Coo, 312. Renondv. Dasltam, 190. Eenziehausen v, Keyser, 462, 604. Repp V. Repp, 292. Requa V. City of Rochester, 611. Rerick V. Kern, 653. Renff V. Coleman's Heirs, 273, 275. Eevalk v. Krac-mcr, 359. Revard v. Walker, 813. Revere v. Leonard, 831. Rex V. Corlett, 216. Rex V. Longnor, 811. Rexford V. Marquis, 599. Eeyburn v. Wallace, 68. Keyerson v. Quackenbush, 645. Reynard v. Spencer, 116. Reynolds v. Canal Bk. Co., 323, 325. Reynolds v. Crispin, 276, 404. Reynolds v. Harris, 768. Reynolds v. Hennessey, 369. Reynolds v. Kingsbury, 816a. Reynolds v. Lawton, 182. Reynolds-!'. Pitt, 279. Eeynolds v. Reynolds, 128, 145, 201, 385, 396, 877. Reynolds v. Tenant, 161. Ehea v. Rhea, 128, 163. Rhett V. Jenkins, 251. Ehinnt). Ellen, 801. Rhinehart v. Stevenson, 361. Ehines v. Baird, 807. Rhoades v. Canfleld, 339. Rhoades v. Parker, 311, 312. Rhoades v. Rhoades, 647. Rhode V. Loutham, 805. Ehoderv. Brockhages, 163. Ehodes v. Buckland, 352. Rhodes v. Gardiner, 81.5. Ehodes v. McCormick, in, 161. Rhodes v. Otis, 653, 835, 887. Rhodes v. Shaw, 401. Ehyne v. Guevara, 161, 199. Eibletti;, Davis, 362. Rlbordy v. Pellachond, 615, 617. Richard v. Sannderson, 332. Rico V. Barnard, 253. Rice V. Barrett, 544. Rice V. Bird, 309. Elce V. Brown, 174, 177, 178. Rice V. McFarland, 340. eviii Eice V. Osgood, 411. Eice V. Parkman, 752. Rice V. Pennypacker, 500. Rice Reduction Co. v. Musgrave, 254. Rice V. Rice, 304, 805, 310, 311. Rice V. Sadderwhit, 542. Rice V. Sanders, 332. Rice ■;;. Satterwhit, 642. Rich V. Bolton, 214, 215, 217. Rich V. Bray, 262. Rich v. CockreU, 469. Rich V. Doane, 305, 306. 310. Rich V. Eichelberger, 371. Rich V. Johnson, 861. Richu. Teilsdor£,10. Richard v. Bent, 850, 852, 853, 861. Richard v. Talblrds, 335, 336. Richard v. Williams, 899. Richards ». Delbridge, 499. Richards v. Holmes, 358, 365, 368. Richards v. Learning, 294. Richards v. McClelland, 794. Richards v. McPhereon, 292, 293. Richards v. Miller, 873. Richards e. Queen's Proctor, 890. Richards v. Richards, 251, 252. Richards v. Rose, 619. Richards v. Thompson, 3.59. Richards v. Williams, 599. Richardson v. Baker, 295a, 296. i Richardson v. Bates, 809. Richardson v. Bigelow, 601, 842. Richardson v. Borden, 4. Richardson v. Borlght, 792, 793. Eichardsont'. Bowman, 292. Richardson v. Cambridge, S28, Richardson v. Clements, 600. Richardson v. Copeland. Richardson v. Dorr, 849, 850. Richardson v. Hiidretli, 319. Richardson v. Hunit, oG3. Richardson v. Inglesbv, 506. Richardson v. Landreri^e, 214, 21s. Richard-^on v. Koycs, 538. Richardson v. I'almcr, 82S, S43. Richardson v. Parroit, 361. Richardson v. Pond, 613. Richardson v. Richardson. 538, .564, 873. Richardson v. Itidgeley, 294. Riahardsont'. Slicars, 162. Richardson i). Skollleld, 117. Richardson i>. Spencer, 601. Richardson v. Tobey, 603, 620. Richardson v. Vt. Cent. i;. Co., 618. Eichardson v. Wallis, 325. Richardson v. Wheatland, 411, 412, 433. Richardson v. Wooilbnrv, 303, 307. Eichardson v. Wyatt, li(i. Richardson v. 'H'yman, 127. Richardsonv. York. 69, 82, 326. Richart v. Scoot, 618. Elchcson V. Richeson, S17rt. Ricliey v. Brown, 253. Eichman v. Lippincott, 49. Richmond v. Aiken, 800, 326. Richmond MIg. Co. v. Atlantic Delaine Co., 614. Richmond R. R. ti. Louisa R. R., 636. Richtur V. Ricliter, 277. Rlckart v. Scott, 618. Iticket V. Dickens, 859. Eicketson v . Richardson, 810. Rlcketts V. Louisville, etc., R. R. Co., 560. Ricketts r. Madeira, 333. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Elcks V. Pnlliam, 849a. Eicks V. Eeca, 810, 816. 14iddick V. Walsh, S59. Elddle V, Bowman, 355. Eiddle V. Cutter, 495. Eiddlei;. Littlofleld,176,842. ; Eider v. Kidder, BOO. Eider V. Marsh, 251, 254. Eiders. Smith, 610. Eider v. Tbompon, 828. Eidgeley v. Johnson, 513. Eldgeley v. Stillwell, 177, 214. Eidgcway v. Holliday, 700. Eidgway v. Masting, 127. Eidgway v. McAlpine, 131. Eiehl V. Evansville rounding Assn.- 601. Eiemer r. Stubor, 716. Eile V. Gever, 502, 603. Eife's Appeal, 887. Eifener v. Bowman, 790, Eigby V. Bennett, 618. Elgden v. Valuer, 237. Eigg V. Sally, 542. EigganiJ. Green, 792., Eiggin V. Love, 844. Elggs V. Fisk, 793. Elggs V. Fuller, 714. Elggs V. Girard, 714. Elggs V. Palmer, 882oi. Eiggs V. Sally, 642. v Eight i>. Darby, 214. Eighter v. Forrester, 817a. Elgler V. Cloud, 105. Eiguey v. Loyejoy, 330. Elgorti. Prye, 700. Eiley v. McCord, 360. Eiudge V. Baker, 620. Einehart v. Olwine, 201, 261. \ Eines v. Mansfield, 844. Eing V. Billings, 842. Eing V. Gray, 816. Elng V. McCown, 469, 470. Eing V. Eichardson, 817&. Eing D. State Ins. Co ., 326, 337. Kinggold V. Mallott, 714. Einggold V. Einggold, B13. Eingo V. Woodruff, 694, 695, 699, 714 Eipka V. Sargeant, 389. Eipley v. Bates, 700. Elpley V. Wighiman, 194. Eipley ». Tale, 700. Eisings). Stannard, 213, 214, 227. Eitoh V. Hawxhnret, 672. Eltger V. Parker, 697. Eitterw. Phillipps, 332. Eitter's Appeal, 891. Eitger v. Parker, 361. Eivard v. Walker, 796, 797, 813, 814. Elvers v. Elvers, 886, 886a. Eivin V, Watson, 645. Eoach V. Wadham, 659, 560. Eoarty v. Mitchell, 364, 806. Eoath V. DriscoU, 615, 618. Eoath V. Smith, 360. Eobb's Appeal, 192, 601. Bobbins v. Bellas, 812. Bobbins v. Eaton, 793. Bobbins v. Moore, 746. Roberts v. Bourne, 817, 818. Eoberts v. Cooper, 796. Eoberts v. Craft, 288, 289. Eoberts v. Dauphin Bank, 5, 5a. Eoberts' Estate, 672. Eoberts, Ex parte, 501. Eoberts v. Fleming, 355, 365. Eoberts i'. Jackson, 813, 813. Eoberts v, Kaas, 837. Eoberts v. Levy, 853. Eoberts v. Littlefleld, 326, 700. Eoberts v. Macord, 613. Eoberts v. McMayhan, 307. Eoberts v. Morgan, 251, 254, 569, 700. Eoberts v. Philllips, 877. Eoberts v. Eoberts, 605, K!8. Eoberts v. Eose, 292. Eoberts v. Salisbury, 292. Eoberts I'. Smltli, 700. Eoberts v. Stanton, 573. Eoberts «. Sutherlin, 322. Eoberts v. Ware, 500. Eoberts v. Welch, 326, 358, 877. Eoberts v. Whiting, bO, 108, 109. liobertson v. Campbell, 325, 326. Eobertson v. Movvell, 273. Eobertson v. Morris, 90, 364. Eobertson v. Stark, 310. Eobertson v. Stevens, 1G9. Eobertson v. Wilson, 411. Robertson v. Woodhouse, 814. Eoble V. Flanders, 115, 131, 731. Eobies v. Smith, 213. Eobinst). Coryell, 876. Robins V. Eaton, 793. Eobinson v. Bates, 127. Robinson v. Bishop, 883. Eobinson v. Codman, 105, 115, 116, 188, Eobinson v. Robinson v. Eoljinson v, Robinson v. Eobinson v. Robinson u. Robinson V. Robinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v, Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. EoljlDSon V. Robinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v, Robinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Robinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Robinson v. Eobinson u. Eobinson v. Eobinson v* Robinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Robinson v. Eobinson v. Eobinson v. Robinson v. Eobinson v. Coffin, 611. Cropsey, 305. CuUom, 365. Deering, 195. Douthit,728. Dusgale, 564. Eagle, 242, 245. Parrelly, 308. Female Orphan Asylum, 401. Gould, 814. Graves, 618. Gray, 494. Hall, 199. Hardcastle, 600, 570. Kinne, 690. Lake, 694, 695. Lakeman, 105. Leavitt, 321, 336. Litton, 351. Mauldin, 513. McDonald, 264. MoWhirter, 292. Miller, 117, 145, 385, 386, 396. Moore, 832. Perry, ]82. Pett, 517. PhiJbps, 695, 699. Pitt, 617. Preswick, 5, 5o. Eobinson, 434, 600. EusseJl, 351. Eyan, 355, 3C4. Sampson, 336. Schley, 875. Shuler, 6. Sweet, 697. Thrailkill, 600, 603. Urguhart, 290, 336. White, 833. Williams, 292, 342. Willoughby, 303, 304, 818. cix TABLE or CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Eobaon v. Pittenger, 613. Eookhill V. Spragg9, 801, 802. Kockingham v. Penrice, 69. Eockwelli). Baldwin, 831 Kockwell 47. Brown, 801. Kockwell V. Hobby, 290. Rockwell V. Rockwell, 130. Rockwell V. Servant, 326. Rockwell V. Swift, 404. Rodenfels v. Scbaman,398. Rodgers v. Gibson, 817a. Eodgera v. Eawlins, 747. Eodffers v. Rodgers, 81. Eodgers v. Wallace, 559. Eodriquezj). Hayes, 310, 322, 326, 329, 841. Rodwell V. Pbilllpa, 799. Roe V. Baldwere, 50, 898, 421, 422, 637. Roe V. Bedford, 433, 434. Koe V. Dawson, 411. Roe V. GalUers, 183. Eoe V. Griffiths, 411, 412. Roev. Jones, 411. Roe V. Lee, 217. t Roe V. Popham,443. Roe V. Prldeaux, 570. Roe V. Sales, 182. Eoe V. Strong, 2. Roe V. Trannarr, 782, 803. Eoe V. Vingut, 644, 545, 883. Roe V. Tork, 790. Eoebke v. Andrews, 700. Roebuck v. Dupuy, 859. Eoffey V. Henderson, 652. Eogan V. Walker, 273, 302, 303, 307, 308. Eoger V. Ake, 188, 192. Roger V, Carey, 812. Roger V. Diamond, 877. Roger V. Engle Fire Ins. Co., 776. Roger V. Grazebrook, 323. Roger V. Grider, 244,251. Eoger V. Hillhonse, 781, 801. Rogers. Humphries, 324. Eoger V. Jones, 816. Eoger V. McCauley, 500. Eoger V. Rogers, 512. Roger V. Sawin, 613. Rogers v. Ashland Savings Bank, 161. Rogers v. Benton, 714. Rogers v. Brokaw, 5a. Rogers v. Carey, 812, 613, 814. Rogers v. Crow, 6. Rogers v. Diamond, 877. Rogers t>. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 776, 77'r', 783,789. Rogers v. Hlllhouse, 731, 801. Rogers v. Hussey, 817a. Rogers v. Jones, 816. Rogers v. Ludlow, 93. Eogera v. Madden, 694. Rogers v. Mayes, 163. Rogers v. McCauley, 500. Rogers v. Myers, 334, Rogers v. Place, 811. Rogers v, PrattviUe Mfg. Co., 5a Rogers ». Eagland, 161. Eogers v. Eogers, 607, 512. Eogors V. Sawln, 613. Eogers v. Taylor, 618. Rogers v. Traders Ins. Co., 335. Rogers v. Walker, 791. Rogers V. Woodbury, 2. Eogers v. Woody, 127. Eogers Loo. Works v. Kelly, 494. Eogerson v. Shepherd, 599, 604, 609. CX Eogor V. Lomax, 326. Rohn V. Harris, 262, 264. Rohrer v. Stehraan, 875. Roland V. Coleman, 559. Roll V. Smalley, 359. Rollings V. Evans, 160. Eollins V. Forbes, 362. Eollins I'. O'Farrell, 164. Eollins V. Riley, 277. Rona V. Meier, 393, 664. Rood V. Ghapin, 818. Rood V. Watson, 564. Roof-!;. Stafford, 792. Roosevelt u. Fulton, 663. Roosevelt v. Gardiner, 798. Root V. Bancroft, 326, 372. Root V. Crocks, 727. Root II. Wheeler, 364. Eoperv. Halifax, 561. Eoper V. McOoak, 292, 295a, 296. Eopeson v. Pittinger, 613. Eoscarrick v. Barton, 299. Rose V. Bates, 501. Eose V. Bun, 600. Eosev. Drayton, 890. Eose V, Drayton, 890. Eose V. Hatch, 4Vn, 506, 667. Eose V. Hawiey, 603. Eose V. Hayden, 501. Rose V. Mannie, 817a. Eose V, Porter, 506. Eoseboom v. Van Vechten, 60. Eoseberg's Exrs. v. Sterling's Heirs, 791. Eosenblattt). Perkins, 177. Eoss V. Adams, 434, 533, 849o. Ross V. Barclay, 566. Eoss V. Bedell, 808. Eoss V. Campbell, 813. Ross V. Drake, 401. Ross V. Dysart, 187, 854. Rosaer v. Franklin. 876. Ross V. Garrison, 213. Eosa V, Heintzen, 294, 295. Eoss V, Hellyer, 164. Eoss V. Norwell, 307. Roaa V, Eoberta, 509. Eosa V. Swaringer, 201. Ross V. Tremaiu, 276. Eoaaji. Turner, 850. Roaa V. Whitsaw, 292. Ross V. Worthington, 809. Eosser v. Franklin, 876, 877. Rossetter v. Simmons, 811. Eothschi'd v. Hatch, 700. Itothwellv. Dewees. 252, 259. Eoulbae v. Jones, 325. Round tree v. Deniiard, 160. Roundtree v - Lane, 260, 727. Eoundtree v. Eoundtree, 401. Eoutledge v. Dorrill, 417, 576. Eowan v. Mercer, 359. Rowan v. Sharpe's Eifle M'l'g. Co., 34'' 312,365. '' ' ' Rowan's Creditor v. Eowan'a Heirs, 503. Rowbothaiii v. Wilson, 618. Eowe V. Beckett, 803. Rowe V. Granite Bridge Corp., 835 Eowe V. Hamilton, 137, 141, 142, 794. Eowe i\ Heath, 858. Rowe V. Johnson, 142. Eowe V. Wood, 325. Eowe V. M'illiams, 191. Eowell v. Klein, 71. Eowlaud i'. Anderson, 2. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to SectLons. Rowland v. Johnson, 141. Rowland v. Murphy, 241. Rowland v. Rowland, 275, 404, 782. Eowlette v. Daniel, 782. Rowley v. Brown, 364. Rowlsby V. Speer. 615. Rowton V, Rowton, 117. Roy V. Clark, 162. Roy?;. Giirnett, 433. Roy V. McPherson, 501. Royal V. Aultman-Taylor Co., 277. Royal V. Lisle, 696, 697, 6ft8. Royce v. triiggenhelm, 195, 198. Royston v. Royston, 264. Riibey v. Barnett, 546, 664. Rnbey v. Huntsman, 760. Ruby V. Barrett, 546, 664. Ruby's Appeal, 494. Ruoker v. Lamden, 638, 877, 878. Ructman v. Astor, 332, 353. Ruckman v. Outwater, 6. Ruckman v. Ruckman, 813. Rucks V. Taylor, 359. Rudd V. Van Der Hagan, 602. Kudlsiles v. Rhodes, 890. Euffln V. Overby, 696, 697, 714. Ruffing ». Tiltan, 802. Ruffler V. M" omack, 305. Rnggleg v. Barton, 329. Ruggles V. Clare, 272. Rnggles V. Lawson, 811, 815. Ruggles V, Lesure, 661. Ruggles V. Williams, 307. Rule V. Maupln, 881. Rumfolt V. Clements, 794. Rundell v. Lakey, 853. Rung V. Shoneberger, 699. Runke v. Hanna, 126. Runkle v. Gates, 887. Runnels v. Webster, 852. Runyan ». MoOlellan, 817a. Runyan v. Mersereau, 300, 301, 330, 333. Rnpp V. Eberly, 533. Rush V. Lewis. 669, 665. Rushin V. Shields, 818. Rusk V. Fentin, 792. Russ V. Mebins, 499, 600, 667. Buss V. Perry, 852. Russ V. Bass, 542. Russ V. Steele, 853, 854, 865. Russell V. Alard, 199. Russell j;. Allen, 324. Russell V. Austin, 143. Russell V. Blake, 356. Russell V. Branham, 811. Russell V. Clark's Exors., 601. Russell V. Coffin, 779, 782. Bassell v. Davis, 699. Russell V. Dodson, 292. Russell ». Erwin, 196n, 199. Russell V. Eubanks, 664. Enssell v. Eabyan, 195, 196, 196a, 200, 213, 225 Russell V. Falls, 877. Russell V. Gunn, 361. Russell V. Hartford, 697. Eussell V. Hubbard, 653. Eussell V. Irwin, 696. Russell V. Jackson, 608. Russell V. Lewis, 513. Russell V. Maloney, 698, 699, 726, 726 Russell V. McCartney, 173. Eussell V. Mixer, 336, 337. Eussell V. Peyton, 509. Russell V. Plstor, 336, 370. Russell V. Richards, 2. Russell V. Rumsey, 751. Russell D. Russell, 283, 289, .500, 883. Russell «. Shield, 288, 338. Russell V. Southard, 802, 307, 309, 310, 316, 327,806. Russell V. Sweesey, 819. Russell V. Switzer, 306, 507. Eussell V. Watt, 292. Russell V. Waite, 303, 305. Rust V. Eust, 700. Eutherford v. Greene, 37. Eutherford v. Eutherford, 877. Rutherford v. Taylor, 726. Rutherford v. Williams, 364, 365 Rutland v. Brister, 292, 294. Ruyteru. Reid, 359. Ryan v. Allen, 433, 883. Ryan v. Brown, 834. Ryan v. Dox, 498, 501. Ryan v, Dunlap, 333. Ryan v. McGehee, 326. Ryan v, ^ewcomb, 334. Ryan v. United States, 727. Ryder V. Innerarity, 756. Eyerss v. Fannell, 199. Ryeson v. Kldred, 199. Ryeson v. Quackenbush, 192, 645. Ryon'3 Appeal, 885 s. Saokettti. Saokett, 81. Sackvllle West v. Holmesdale, 495. Sacques v. Weeks, 818. Sadler v. Huffhlnes, 672. Sadler v. Pratt, 570. SaSord v. Safford, 145, 386, 396. Sailer v. Sailer, 255. Sailer u. Hertzog, 818. Saines v. Allen, 365. St. Amour V. Rivard, 544. St. Andrew's Church Appeal, 603. St. Andrews v. Lockwood, 818. St. Clair V. Williams, 134. St. Helen Smelting Co. v. Sipping, 622. St. John V, Benedict. 443. St. John V. Conger, 817, 8176. St. John V. Palmer, 196. St. Louis V. Bissell, 860, 861. St. Louis V. Coons, 760. St. Louis V. Gorman, 697, 714. St. Louis Hosp. Ass. V. Williams, 876, 883. St. Louis, I. M. & 0. R. R. Co. v. Ruddell, 814. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. «. Prather, 251, 25 J. St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. Wiggins' Eerry Co.,653. St. Louis Public Schools v. Eisley, 685. St. Louis University v. McCune, 699. St. Louis V. Morton, 199. St. Louis, etc., v. Ramsey, 828. St. Louis B. E. Co. v. Schneider, 614. St. Patrick's Catholic Charch v. Daly, 600. St. Paul V. Viscount Dudley & Ward, 321. St. Phillips Church v. Zion Prest. Church, 191. Sale V. Thornsberry, 506. Sales*). Cookrill,714. Salem v. Edgerly, 389. cxi TABLE OP CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Salisbury v. G. N. Railway Co., 837. Salisbury v. PlilUips, 310. Salisbury v. Shirley, 182, 186. Salla V. Waters, 160. Sallee v. Chandler, 501. Salman ». Clagett, 361. Salmon v. Bennett, 601, 802. Salmonev. Davis, 715. Salmon v. Hoffman, 293. Salmon v. Smith. Salmon v. Vallejo. 850. Paltmarsh v. Smith, 115. Samme's Case, 464. Sammesand Payne's Case, 129. Sample v. Sample, 262. Sampson v. Burneide, 651, 652, 653. Sampson v. Esterly 190. Sampson ?j. Grimes, 192. Sampson v. Hoddinott, 614, 617. Sampson 17. Schaeffer, 213. Sampson v. Williamson, 163. Samuel v. Barrowscale, 697, 698, 816, S16o. Sanbaek v. Quigley, 141. Sanborn r. Clough,827. Sanborn v. Hoyt, 843. Sanborn v. Magee, 307. Sanborn v, Sanborn, 564. Sanderlin v. Baxter, 603. Sanders v. Bolton, 794, 816o. Sanders V. Cassaday, 329. Sanders v. Logne, 699, 714. Sanders v. McAffee, 293. Sanders v. Partridge, 182. Sandersons. Price, 322. Sanders©. Eeed, 3.51. Sanders v. Vansickles, 324. Sanderson v. White, 884. Sandford v. Blake, 401. Sandford v. Harver, 218. Sandford v. McLean, 115, 129 . Sandfoss v. Jones, 501. Sands v. Beardsley, 816a. Sands v. Hughes, 182. Sands v. l*feiffer, 4. Sandwith v. De Silver, 862. Sandford v. Kane, 334, 363. Sandford v. Travers, 859. Sandford v. VanArsdall, 321. San Francisco v. Fulde, 714. Sanet;. Tyler, 246. Sappington v. Oesohlli, 817(i. Sargcantw. Steinberger, 261. Sargent v. Ballard, 699. Sargent i'. Parsons, 243, 265. Sargent v. Simpson, 745. Sargent v. Smith, 227. Sargent V. Stum, 817a!. Sarles v. Sarles, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77 Sarpentv. Howe, 368. ' Sartiil V. Kobinson, 105. Saterfleld v. Randall, 694. Sasser v. Sasscr, 500, Satterfleld v. John, 609. Satterwhite v. Rosser, 699, 714, 695 Saubets). Sheppard, 682, 685. Saunders v. Edwards, 495. Saunders v. Evans, 571. 572. Saunders v. Farmer, 700. Saunders v. Frost, 325, 334, 356, 360. Saunders v. Newman, 605, 616, 617. Saunders v. Schmaelzic, 611. Saunders v. Wilson, 326. Saunderson v. Broadwell, 506. Sauter v. MuUer, 539, cxii Savage v. Dooley, 117, 318. Savage v. Hall, 321, 329, 337. Savage v. Murphy, 802. Savery v. Browning, 812. Savile v. Blacket, 561. Saville v. Saville, 66. Sawyer's Appeal, 500. Sawyers v. Baker, 364. Sawyers v. Cater, 265. Sawyer v. Kendale,703, 714. Sawyer ». McGillicndd,189. Sawyer v. Peters, 741. Saxton V. Hunt, 698, 696. Sayers v. Hoskinson, 74, 75, 76 Sayer v. Hughes, 500. Sayre v. Townsend, 500. Scales V. Mande, 506. Scanlan v. Cobb, 792. Scanlan v. Tamer, 127, 129. Scanlan v. Wright, 816, 816a. Scarborough v. Borman, 93. Scatterfleld v. John, 509. Scatterwood v. Edge, 413, 414, 532. Schackleford v. Barley, 829a. Schackleford v. Hall, 275. Schade v. Bessinger, 307. Schaffer v. Kettell, 885. Schaffer v. State Bank, 605. Schall V. Williams Valley R. R., 717. Schallard v. Eel River, etc., Co., 358. Schawig V. Fleckenstein, 352. Schedder v. Sawyer, 746. Schedda v. Sawyer, 746. Schedel.Inre, 883. Scheetz v. Fitzwater, 714, Scheibe v. Kennedy, 358. Scheltete v. Schmltz, i. Schelly;. Simon, 201. Schell V. Stein, 816, 816a. Schermerhorn v. Mahaffle, 163. Schermerhorne v, Myers, 276. Scheuber v. Ballon, 164. Schencki). Ellenwood, 573. Schenck v. Evoy, 242, 829o. Schenk v. Conover, 358. Schenk v. Schenk, 513, 573. Schuppelman v. Fuerth, 332. Scherflin v. Carpenter, 198. Schettleri'. Smith, 544. Schiefelin v. Carpenter, 198. Schiefferstein v. Allison, 715. Schilling V. Holmes, 187, 195, 196, 196o, 218. Schinkel v. Henewinkle, 333. Schaefer v. Corson, 601. Schley v. Fryor, 332. Schley v. Lyon, 460, 468. Schleacker v. Moxsy, 859. Schlesseager v. Mallard, 499, 508, 708. Schmidt V. Gatewood, 601. Senmidt v. Hoyt, 839, 817a. Schmiler v. Ames, 19S. Schmltt V. Giovanari, 803. Schraittj'. Willis, 120. Schmitz V. Schmitz, 839. Schumoker r. Ueel, 884. Schneider v, Koester, 858. Schneider c. Lord, 177. Schneider r. Mo. Pac. R, R. Co., 615. Schncllv. Stein, 8176. Schuisler v. Ames, 198. Schofield V. Homestead Co., 850. Schoflcld i>. Lockwood, S29. Scholield V. Walker, 881. Scholl V. Olmstead, 666. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Scholl V. Williams Valley E. E., 717. SchoUe V. SchoUes, 601. School Committee of Prov., etc., v. ICes- ler, Sll. School District v. Benson, 717, 740. School Uist. V. Lynch, 697, 698, 7U. School Dist V. Taylor, 818. Schooley i>. Eomaln, 358. Schooniaker v. Taylor, 358. Sohrack v. Zoebler, 701, 714. Schreiner v. Smith, 275. Schrlber v. Piatt, 163. Schrymseri). Phelps, 602. Schuebly v. Eagan, 292. Schnlenberg v. Harriman, 277, 297 Schultz's Appeal, 884. Schnltz V. Lindell, 696. Schultz V. Meade, 362. Sohumaker v. Schmidt, 886, 886n. Schntt V. Large, 8176, 818. Schutt V, Meth. Epis. Missionary Soc, 893. Schuttw. Moll, 37. Schuyler v. Smith, 225. Schuylkill Co. v. McCreary, 697. Schuylkill E. E. v. Sohmoele, 187, 195. Schuylkill Co. v. Stoever, 699. Schuylkill Co. v. Thobnrn, 318. Schwartz's Appeal, 401, 645. Schwartz v. Euhn, 694. Schwartz v. Sears, 364. Scituate v. Hanover, 560. Scituate v. Hanover, 506. Soofleld V. Lockwood, 829. Scofleld V. Olcott, 401. Scales i>. Wilsej, 818. Scott V. Ashlin, 136. Scott V. Bental, 602. Scott «. Cheatham, 699. Scott u. Douglass, 728. Scott V. Klkins, 695. Scott V. Fields, 310. Scott V. Freeland, 365. Scott V. Frink, 333. Scott V. Guernsey, 110, 242, 243,254, 255. Scott V. Hancock, 134. Scott w, Henry, 304, 306, 3S4. Scott V. Lunt, 190, 192, 644. Scott V. McFarland, 304, 826. Scott V. McLaglaughlin, 332. Scott v.Orbisan, 292. Scott V. Perkins, 562. Scott V. Price, 538. Scott V. Furoell, 794. Scott V. Band, 509. Scott V. Eoach, 639. Scott V. Scarborough, 505. Scott V. Scott, 849. Scott V. Turner, 330. Scott V. Twiss, 850. Scott V. Umbarger, 501. Scott V. VV est, 633, 545. Scott V. Wharton, 351. Scott V. Willis, 218. Scott V. Toung Men's Soc, 760. Scratton v. Phillips, 618. Scratton v. Brown, 687. Screven v. Gregoin, 609. Scribner v. Lockwood, 817o. Scrivner v. Dietz, 321. Scrivnerv. Smith, 854. Scruggs V. Brackin, S08. Scruggs V, Scruggs, 697. Scrugham v. Wood, 813. Scull V. Prelden, 829. Scull V. Eeeves, 606, 510. Seaa;ram v. Knight, 82. Seals V. Pierce, 777, 875. Searing v. Benton, 332. Sears (;. Dillingham, 878. Sears u. Dixon, 305. Sears v. Hanks, 163. Sears v. Russell, 37, 398, 542, 5 Sears D. Smith, 293. Seat V. Knight, 295ra. Seaton v. Jamison, 143. Seaton v. Tivyford, 358. SeaverM. Duiant, 325, 357. Seaver v. Fitzgerald, 417. Seaver v. Phelps, 792. Seaward v. Willock, 404. Seawright v. Palmer, 326. Secor V. Pestana, 217, 218. Security Co. v. Hardenburgh, 401, 413. Seddam v. Cockrell, 37. Sedgwick v. Hallenback, 851. Sedgwick v. Lallin, 37, 363, 674. Sedman v. Sanders, 322. Second NaL'l Bank v. Merrill Co., 7 Seeger v. Pettit, 6. Seemuller v. Thornton, 696. Seers v. Huid, 184. Segond v. Gerland, 469. Sehorn v, McWhirter, 295a. Seiber's Appeal, 883. Seibert v. Butz,'642. Seibert v. Todd, 117. Seldensparger v. Spear, 651. Seigle V. Lauderbaugh, 696. Selby V. Alston, 512. Selby i>. Stanley, 292. Selden v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 651, 652, 653. Selden v. Vermilya, 604. Selden's Appeal, 506. Selleck v. Starr, 795. Sellers v. Staloup, 305. 308. Sellman v. Bowcn, 143. Seminary v. Kellogg, 542. Semmes v, Wheatley, 161. Semple v. Bard, 339. Semple v. Burd, 292. Senhouse v. Christian, 608. Seniors. South, 6a6. Senningv. Kane, 600. Sennett v. Bucher, 174. Senter v. Turner, 818. Sentner v. Tees. 615. Serbert v. Butz, 542. Sergent v. Steinberger, 244. Servin v. Grate, 828. Serry v. Curry, 115, 144. Servis v. Beatty, 292. Session's Estate, 883. Settembre ». Putnam, 601. Severance v. Grfflth, 329. Seville v. Blackett, 561. SewelU. Cargill,4fi6. Sewellu. Denny, 499. Sexton V. Chicago Storage Co., 182. Sexton D. Slade,308. Sexton i). Wheaton, 802. Seymour f. Carli, 695. Seymour v. Courtenay, 843. Seymour v. Davis, 334. Seymour v, Darron, 310. Seymour u. Lewis, 598. Seymour v. Treer, 700. cxiii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Seymoui*s Case, 44, 129, 898. Shacklelord v. Bailey, 694, 827, 829a. Shackelford v. Hall, 275. Shadden v. Hembree, 40 1 , 537. Shades v. MoCormlck, 10. Shades I'. Vin-on, 887. Shaefleri;. Chambers, 325, 356. Shaeffer v. Corbett, 878. Shacffer v. Ward, 128. Shafem. Witson,6l8. Shaffer t;. Corbett, 878. Shatter tJ. Hahn, 162. Shaffer v. State Bank, 605. Shall V. Biscoe, 292, 294, 295. Shall V. Stagg, 294 Shamp V. Meyer, 332. Shanahan v. Shanahan, 227. Shane v. McNeill, 147. Shankland'8 Appeal, 502, 514. Shanks v. Lucas, 663, 746. Shanks v. Mills, 401. Shannon v. Bradstreet, 573 . Shannon v. Burr, 182. Shannon v. Hay, 364. Shannon v. Marsella, 371. Shaph'igh V Pllsbary, 411, 466, 483, 777. Sharkey v. Sharkey, 3ii3. Sharon Iron Co. v. City ol Brie, 278, 86 Sharp V. Brandon, 695, 696. Sharp V. Johnson, 714. Sharp V. Kelly, 199, 213. Sharp V. Petit, 142, 143. Sharp V. Wallace, 890a. Sharpe v. Goodwin, 501. Sharpe v. Scarborough, 359. Sharpleyv. Jones, 115. Sharpsieifl «;. Tillon, 563. ShattuCK V. Bascom, 307. Shaumberg v. Wright, 790. Shaver v. McCarthy, 881. Shaw V. Barksdale, 312. Snawt>. Beebe, 731. Shawr. Boyd, 147. Shaw Ji. Breeze, 685. Shaw V. Cunllff, 533. Shaw V. Farnsworth, 179. Shaw V. Galbraith, S49a. Shaw V. Hayward , 814, 815. Shaw V. Hersey, 242, 245. Shawn. Hill, 172. Shaw V. Hoadley, 322, 352, 359, 366. Shaw V. Loud, 798. Shaw V. Neale, 342. Snawv. Nicolay, 714. Soawi;. Norfolk Co. K. R., 358. Shaw V. Partridge, 90. Snaw V. Poor, 816, 816a, 817. Snaw V. Read, 500. ■Snaw t>. Russ, 127, 794. Shaw V. Shaw, 500, 883. -Shaw V. Spencer, 499, 501. Shaw V. Weight, 434, 467, 504. -Shaw «. While, 136. Shaw's Trusts, 613. Shea V. Ottumwa, 611. Shea V. Tucker, 600. Sheafe v. Gerry, 310,326. Sheafe v. O'Neil, 138, 116. Shearer v. Ranger, 853. Shearer v. Shearer, 253. .Shearer v. Winston, 261. ■Shearer v. Woodburn, 760. Sheckell v. Hopkins, 308, 309, 310. Sheddy v. Geryan, 336. cxiv Sheer v. Fisher, 189. Sheeburn v. Jones, 71. Sheets v. Grubb, 885. Sheets v. Selden, 186, 187, 194. Sheffield v. Lovenng, 671. Sheffield v. Orrery, 418, 419, 423, 424. ShefHeton v. Nelson, 714. Shehan v. Barnett, 754. Shelby i). Shelby, 663, 700. Shelden v. ISrskine, 812. Sheldon v. Hofnagle, 124. Sheldon v. Peterson, .359. Sheldon v. Wright, 756. Shell V. Stein, 338. Shelley v. Shelley, 495. Shelley v. Wright, 728. Shelley's Leases, 433, 434, 447, 449, 505. Shelton v. Arraon , 308. Shelton V. Aultmai, & Taylor Co., 16*. 810. Shelton v. CarroD, 133. Shelton v. Codman, 190. Shelton v. Lewis, 601. Shelton v. Maupin, 831, 832. Shelton v. Shelton, 507. Shelton's Case, 812. Shepard v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 115. Shepard v. Spaulding, 198. Shepard's Heirs v. Shepard's Estate, 883. Sheperd v. Adams, 371. Shephard v. Little, 443. Shephard v. Pepper, 362. hhephard v. Shephard, 544. Shepherd v. Howard, 794. Shepherd V. Ingram, 53.i. Shepherd v. Jernigan, 829a. Shepherd v. Little, 443. Shepherd i;. May, S;;2, 362, 367. Shepherd v. McEyers, 506, 50S, 509, 510. Shepherd v. Ross Co., 609. Shepherd v. White, 600. Sheppard v. Comm'rs Boss Co., 758. Sheppard v. Pratt, 326. Sheppard v. Taylor, 670. Shepperdi). Mnrdock, 326. Sheratz v. Nicodemns, 294, 295. Sherburne v. Jones, 71. Sheridan v. Welch, 326. Sherman v. Abbott, 321. Sherman i). Champlain Trans. Co., 200. Sherman v. Dodge, 469, 494, 515. Sherman v. Kane, 699, 700, 714. Sherman v. McKeon, 837. Sherman v. Williams, 187, 196. Sherred v. Cisco, 620. Sherrer v. Harris, 305, 307. Sherwood «. Barlow, 781. Sherwood v. Burr, 699. Sherwood v. Saxton, 368. Shields v. Batts, 115. Shields v. Lozier, 199, 322, 333 Shields v. Mitchell, S18. Shields V. Riopelle, 362. Shiell V. Sloan, 115. Shiels V. Roberts, 699. Shiels V. Stark, 242, 254. Shin V. Fredericks, 337, S21. Shinnw. Shlnn,242, Shin V. Wilcox, 74. Shinner v. Crawford, 699. Shippen's Heirs i\ Clapp, 663. Shipley V. Fox, 321, 336. Shlpman v. Beers, 613. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Shipman v. Horton, 792, 793. Shipman v. Mltcbell, 214. Shirkey v. Hanua, 360. Shirley v. Ayres, 814, 815 . Shirley v. Congress Sugar Refinery, 292. Shirley v. Fearne, 809. Shirley v. Shirley, 92, 135, 294, 295, 296,469. Shlrraa v. Craig, 310,841. Shirtz V. Dlettenbaok, 290, 292. Shirtzt). Shirtz, 142. Shively v. Jones, 359. Shivers V. Simmons, 127. Shoenberger i;. Hackman, 815. Shoenberger v. Zook, 812. Shoemaker v. Smith, 310, 500, 819. Shoemaker?;. Shoemaker, 603. Shoemaker v. Walker, 116,117, 388. Shoot V. Galbreath, 130, 149. Shooter v. Frazer, 292, 293. Shore v. Wilson, 827. Shores v. Charley, 107. Shores v. Doherty, 310. Short V. Currier, 725. Short V. Fogle, 339. Shortall v. Hinckley, 795. Shortridge v. Catlett, 808. Shotwell V. Harrison, 816, 817. Shotwell V. Smith, 324. Shove V. Pinoke, 803. Shrack v. Zubler, 714. Shrewsbury's (Countess of) Case, 789. Shrieve v. Stokes, 618. Shrieve v. Wilson, 618. Shrunk v. Schuylkill Co., 835. Shryock v. Waggoner, 501, 602, 817a. Shubert v. Standley, 309. Shnffletontj. Nelson, 714. Shuler v. Bonander, 811, 363. Shnlts V. Moore, 8t6a. Shumate v. Eeavis, 819. Shumway v. Collins, 191, 196, 196o. Shurtz V. Thomas. 130. Shute V. Grimes, 322. Sibley V. Holden, 837. Siber v. McClanachan, 341. Sibley I). Smith, 760. Sicard v. Davis, 695, 807, 616. SIceioff V. Redman, 433. Siddons v. Cookrell, 275, 401. Sidmouth v. Sidmouth, 500. Sldway v. Sidway, 135. Sldwell V. Wheaton. 332. Siemon v. Schurck, 600, 501, 817o. Sigaurney v. Eaton, 241, 340. Sillers V. Lester, 312. Sillibridge v. Adies, 542. SlDowav V. Brovrn, 251, 255. Silsby V. Allen, 216. Silsby j;. Bullock, 881. Silsby V. Sawyer, 883. Silsby i>. Smith, 352. Silvav. Winipenny, 700. Silvers v. Canary, 401. Silvester 11. Wilson. 434. Simers v. Salters, 199. Sinkiu v. A&hurst, 225. Simme's Heirs v. Simmes, 262. Simms v. Harvey, 789. Simms v. Harvey, 789. Simmons v. Havens, 810. Simmons v. Johnson, 841. Simmons v. Norton, 69. Simiiionds v. Simmonda, 542. Simmonds v. Simmons, 813. Simmons v. Sines, 609. Simmons v. Syncs, 609. Simmon's Will, 877. SimondSD. Simonds, 542. Simons v. Seward, 189, 194. Simon's Will, 883. Simontron v. Gray, 117, 146, 321, 326. Simonton's Estate, 815. Simpson V. Ammons, 238, 253, 260. Simpson's Appeal, 130. Simpson V. Bowdea, 389. Simpson v. Cherry, 404. Simpson u. Downing, 714. Simpson v. Downing, 696. Simpson v. French, 898. Simpson v. McAllister, 292, 293. Simpson v. Mundee,292, 801, 808, 810,816a, 818. Simpson v. Simpson, 672, 876. Simpson v. Strangler, 262. Sims V. Bardoner, 793. Sims V. Conger, 413. Sims V. Cooper, 200. Sims «. Everhardt, 798. Sims V. Hammond, 817&. Sims V. Hundley, 363. Sims V. Irvine, 746. Sims V. Smith, 793. Sinclair v. Armitage, 312. Sinclair v. Jackson, 513, 724. Sine V. Fox, 856. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Book, 127, 810. Singleton «. Huit, 159. Singleton v. Lowndes, 517. Singleton v. Singleton, 134. Sintan v. Boyd, 434. Sire jj.Wightman, 358. Siron V. Ruleman's Exr., 647. Slsk V. Smith, 115. Skaggs V. Nelson, 294. Skeel V. Spraker, 337. Skerrett's Estate, 879. Skillman v. Tuple, 337. Skinner v. Buck, 369. Skinner v. Chadwell, 163. Skinner V. Chapman, 337. Skinner v. Crawford, 699. Skinner v. Dayton, 279, 805. Skinner v. Fulton, 6B6, 668. Sklnnert;. Miller, 307. Skinner v. Wilder, 79. Skinner v. Williams, 716. Skipper v. Stokes, 312. Skipwith's Exrs. v. Cunningham, 506. Slate V. Laval, 318. Slate i>. Schwln,S41. Slater v. Dangerfleld, 434. Mater v. Jepherson, 697. Slater v. Rawson, 693, 691, 698, 699, 701, 849, 860, 860. Slater v. Trimble, 792. Slatten v. Schwannecke, 819. Slattery B. Schwannecke, 819. Slaughter ti. Cunningham, 792. Slaughters. Detinev, 163. Slaughter v. Faust, 359, 362. Slayton v. Mclniyre, 333. Slee V. Manhattan Co., 312, 355, 363. Sleeper v. Baker, 697. Slice V. Derrick, 260, 695, 697. Sloan?). Martin, 697. Sloan V. McCanahy, 461. Sloan V. Whitman, 139. Sloat V. McDougall, 602. cxv TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. SlocTim V. Marshall, 506. Slocum V. Seymour, 799. Slowey V. McMurray, 305, 306, 307. Small V. Field, 606. Small V. Proctor, 121. Small 11. Stagg, •29'2. Smalley II. Isaacson, 262. Smallman v. Powell, 669, 667. Smart v. Morton, 61S. Smiley I). SambiU,887. Smiley v. Van Winkle, 182, 197. Smiley V. Wright, 117, 130. Smith V. Adams, 616. Smith V. Addleman, 135. Smith V. Allen, 24f., 25:), 801, 802. Smith V. Ankrim, 194. Smith V. Baker, 500, 803. Smiths;. Baldwin, 148. Smith!'. Barrie, 275. Smith 21. Bell, 898,646,562. Smith V. Bennett, 599. Smith V. Black, 368. Smith V. Blanpied, 602. Smith V. Bowen, 506. Smith V. Bowes, 573. Smith V. Bradley, 603. Smith V. Brannan, 277. Smith V. Branch Bk., 818. Smith 2?. Brinker, 182. Smith V. Brown, 262, 263, 280, 672, 872. Smith u. Burnham, 501. Smith V. Burtis, 694, 698, 699, 693, 697, 701. Smith V. Bynnm, 335. Smith ■!). Chapin, 714. Smith II. Chapin, 714. Smith V. Chapman, 433, 760. Smith V. Clyfford, 422, 424. Smith V. Codron, 877. Smitli V. Cole, 260. Smith V. Columbia Ins. Co., 327. Smith V. Compton, 868. Smith V. Dall, 808. Smith V. Davis, 359, 861. Smith V. Death, 661. Smith V. Dickinson, 805. Smith V. Doe, 363. Smith v. Dolby, 876. Smith V. Dyer, 319, 329, 360. Smith «. E9tell,]59. Smith II. Eustis, 117. Smith V. Evans, 792, 793. Smith V. Exchange Bank, 715. Smith II. Floyd, 693. Smith V. Follansbee, 81. Smith ti. Ford, 608. Smith V. Fox's Admr.,833. Smith r. Frederick, 782. Smith V. Frost, 601. Smith V. Gibson, 818, 819. Smith V. Goodwin, 351. Smith V. Gore, 163. Smith ji. Gouldlng, 662. Smith V. Green, ti^7. Smith I'. Greer, 37,52. Smith II. Greaves, 827. Smith V. Griffin, 609. Smith V. Hamilton, 830, 831. Smith V. Hardesty, 618. Smith V. Harrington, 494, 615. Smythe v. Henry, 731. Smith V. Holloway, 604. Smith V. Hosmer, 696, 697, 699. Smith V. Howdon, 837. Smith II. Howell, 127. cxvi Smith u. Hoyt, 361. Smithi;. Hunt, 810. Smith V. Hunter, 538, 541. Smith II. Hutton, 163. Smith II. Ingram, 696. Smith V. Jackaon, 116, 128, 245, 253, 697. Smith II. Jewett, 69. Smithii. Joims, 322. Smith ti. .Johnston, 799. Smith II. Jordan, 339, 817o. Smith V. Kellpy, 664. Smith V. Kelley, 3.33, 334, 664 Smith V. Keadick, 613, 614. Smith V. Kimball, 883. Smith II. King, 700. Smith ti. Knight, 260, 829a. Smith V. Ladd, 843. Smith r. Langewald, 617. Smith V. Levinus, 835. Smith II. Lewis, 324, 326. Smith II. Littlefleld, 225, 227. Smith II. Manning, 332, 334. Smith V. Mapleback, 182. Smith f. Matthews, 507. Smith V. JNIattingiy, 164. Smith 11. McChesney, 890. Smith V. McKay, 696, 699. Smith II. McLean, 194. Smith II. Metcalf, 462. Smith II. Mitchell, 697. Smith II. Monies, 727. Smith II. Moodns Water Co., 727. Smith V. Morrow, 695. Smith II. Murphy, 831. Smith II. Newton, 366. Smith V. Niver, 198. Smith II. City of Osage, 699. Smith f. Packard, 362. Smith V. Parks, 7, 322, 323. Smith I'. Parsons, 861. Smith!'. Patton,f)00. Smith II. Paysenge, 130. Smith u. Peoples' Bank, 810, 311. Smith t'. Porter, 812. Smith II. Poyas, 74. Smith t'. Prewitt, 832. Smith V. Price, 5. Smith II. Provin, 363, 364. Smith V. Putnam, 183, 699. Smith II. Quiggans, 161. Smith II. Rice, 310. Smith I'. Richards, 162. Smith V. Roberts, 697. Smith V. Rowland, 292. Smith V. Shackelford, 832. Smith I'. Shattuck, 696. Smith I'. Shaw, 715. Smith 11. Shepard, 324, 855, 854. Smith I'. Slocomb, S37. Smith II. Smith, 125, 135, 147, 148,292, 295, 329, 336, 366, 367, 500, 882. 818, 883, 843, 602. Smith V. So. RoyaltonBank, 815. Smith t'. Sprague, S.iS, 860. Smith I'. Stephenson, 501. Smith I'. Stevenson, 507, 700. Smith i'. Stewart, 216. Smith !'. Stigleman, 196a. Smith ti. Strahan, 500. Smith II. Strong, S29, 861, 850. Smith V. Surman, 799. Smith I'. Sweetsor, 318. Smith II. Thackerah, 618. Sniter i'. Turner, 601, TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Smith V. Upton, 264. Smiths. Vincent, 333. Smith V. Wait, 887. Smith «. Wells, 161. Smith V. Westall, 827. Smith V. Whitney, 6. Smith V. Woolf oik, 358. Smith D, Yale, 819. Smith 1). Yule, 818. Smith V. Wait, 887. Smith V. Wiggin, 605. Smither i\ Willock, 401. Smith's Appeal, 148. Smithwick v. Ellison, 6. Smitbwick v. Jordan, 468. Smock V. Smock, 887. Smoilyi). Uliich,307. Smyles v. Hastings, 602, 603, 605, 609. Smyth V. Stnrges, 4. Smythe v. Brown, 360. Smythe v. Henry, 200, 696. Smythe v. Tankersley, 201. Smythe v. North, 183. Soape V. Tarton, 561. Snead v. Tieger, 177. Snedeker v. Warring, 4, 5, 6. , Sneed v. Osborn, 726. Sneed v. Sneed, 573. Snell V. Leavitt, 605. Snider v. Snider, 818. Snively'a Appeal, 264. Snoddy v. Krentch, 694, 699. Snoddy v. LeavitL, 731. Snodgrass v. Eicketts, 726, 818. Snow V. Chapman, 830, 840. Snow V. Cutter, 532, Snow V. Orleans, 795, 813. Snow V. Piessey, 305, 338. Snow V. Stevens, 318. Snow «. Warwick Institution of Savings, 356, 358. Snowdau v. Wilas, 651, 653. Snowden v. Rush, 697. Suowden v. Wilas, 651. Snowe V. Cutter, 533. Snowhill V. Snowhill, 563. Snowman V. Harford, 359, Snydam v. Bartle, 362. Snyder v. Gordon, 189. Snyder v. Griswold, 305. Snyder v. Lane, 853. Snyder v. Miller, 148. Snyder v. Eiley, 192. Snyder v. Snyder, 66, 321, 767, 893. Soe V. Atuater, 461. •Soe V. Audley, 51. Sohier». Coffin, 795. Sohier v. Eldridge, 68. Sohier v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 752. Sohier v. Trinity Church, 756. Solberg v. Wright, 363 Solomon v. Lawrence, 506. Solomon v. Vintner's Co., 619. Solomon v. Wilson, 312.j Somers v. Brewer, 802. Somers v. Overhulser, 600. Somers v. Pumphrey, 812, 813, 814. Somers v. Schmidt, 860. Somers v. Skinner, 360, 727, 730. Somerset, etc., Assn. v. Camman,361. Somersworth Sav. Rank v. Hoberts, 310. Somes 1}. Brewer, 802, 812. Somes V. Skinner, 727, 728, 730, 781, 817. Songston v. Love, 330. Soper V. Guernsey, 311, 312. Sorsby v. Vance, 875. Souder v. Morrow, 8176, 818. Soule V. Albee, 359. Soule V. Barlow, 696, 697, 698, 699, 714. Southard v. Central E. E. Co., 277, 880. South Branch E. E. Co. v. Parker, 611. South Cong. Meeting House v. Hilton, 178. Southbrldge Sav. Bank v. Mason, 5a Souther i>. Miller, 368. Souther v. Porter, 260, 829a. Souther v. Stowell, 482. Southerln v. Mendum, 830. Southerland v. Stout, 855, Southern v. Mendum, 330,333. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Henshaw, 251. Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Cole, 813. Souverly v. Orden, 811. Souverbye v. Arden, 811, 812, 813, 814,816. Sowles Trustees v. Buck, 360. Soward v. Sovyard, 877. Spader v. Lawler, 3t2, 818. Spader v. Powers, 433. Spalding v. Bemls, 604. Spalding v. Olaghorn, 500. Spalding V. Munford, 194. Spalding V. Shalmer, 516. Spangler v. Spangler, 116. Sparhawk v. Bogg, 318, 795. Sparhawkt). Broome, 183. Sparhawk v. Bullard, 696. Sparhawk v. Sparhawk, 509. Sparhawk J). Wills, 325, 355. Sparks v. Hess, 292. Sparks v. State Bank, 4, 339. Sparrv. Andrews, 833. Sparrow v. Hoey, 695, 699, 714. Spaulding v, Chicago R. E., 79. Spauldingf. Hallenheck, 3:J2. Spaulding v. Warren, 695, 696. Spaulding V. Warren, 696 Spaulding ji. Woodward, 259. Spear v. Fuller, 191. Spears;. Evens, 816, 8176, 818. Speeri). Speer, 741. Speider v, Parker, 2, 4. Spellman v. Curtenius, 761. Spencer v. Aldrich, 371. Spencer v. Carr, 797, 814. Spencer's Case, 190, 796. Spencer v. Dougherty, 278. Spencer V. Hartford, 362. Spencer v. Higgins, 883. Spencer v. Lewis, 71. Spencer v. Newbold's Appeal, 501. Spencer v. O'Neill, 699. Spencer v. Eobbins, 803. Spencer v. Spencer, 613. Spencer v. Steadman. 307. Spencer v. Strait, 398. Spencer D. Waterman, 337. Spencer v. Weaver, 605. Spencer v. Weston, 131. Sperry v. Sperry, 198, 277. Spiller V. Scrlbner, 829, 831, 841. Spinker v. Haagsma, 798. Spies V. Voss, 173, 198. Splits V. Wells, 261. Spofford V. Weston, 818. Spooner v. Lovejoy, 506. Sprague v. Baker, 852, 866. Spragne v, Barnard, 808. Sprague v. Duel, 792. cxvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Spragne v. Graham, 332. Spi-agae v. Luther, 876, 877. Sprague v. Snow, 843. Sprague v. Woods, 4-13, 7S2. Sprague v. Zinn, 213. Sprigg V. Uk. of M. Pleasant, 307. Sprisner v. Walters, 292. Spring V. Russell, 835. Springer v. Berry, 445, 500. Springer v. Congleton, 835. Springer v. Springer, 500. Springer's Appeals, 197. Springflel'd v. Harris, 614. Springfield Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 327. Spurgen v. Collier, 309. Spurr V. Andrews, .332, 853. Spyve V. Lonluun, 844. Squier v. Rlorris, 805. Squier v. Harder, 443, 500. Squire V. Harvey, 275. Squire v. Morris, 805. Squire v. Mudgetb, 161. Squires v. Clark, 700. Squires r. Hufe, 214. Staais V. Ten Eyck, 861. Stack V. Sea ton, 199. Stafford v. Giles, 827. Staiforil v. Jones, 310. Stafford v. Van Eensselaer, 292, 339. StaffordviUe Gravel Co. v. Newell, 731. Stahter v. Cowan, 808. Stahlii. i)ehn,305. Stahl V. Stahl, 128, 145. Stainback v, Geddy, 334. Stall V. Cincinnati, 516. Stambaugh v. Smith. 861. Stamper v. Griffln, 700. Stanards v. Eldridge, 850. Stanard v. Eldridge, 851. Stanberry i;. Slllon, 760. Stanbrough v. Daniels, 359. Stancel v. Kenan, 881. Stanhope v. Manners, 358. Stanltord v. FuUerton, 260, 829o. Stauish V. Dow, 369. Stanley v. Bealty, 330. Stanleys. Colt, 280, 503, 604, 513. Stanley I). Green, 827, 828,830, 840. Stanleys. Kempton,329. Stanley v. Shoolbred, 695, 696. Stanley v. Stanley, 633. Stanley v. Stocks, 371. Stanley v. Valentine, 33S. Stansbury v. Huber, 275. Slannard v. Sperrv, 261. Stanslleld v. Haberghara, 487, 499 Stansfield v. Hobson, 3-26. Stansfleldii. Portsmouth,?. Stansell v. Roberts, 294, 818. Stanton v. Allen, 182, 273. Stanton v. MulUus, 6%. Stanton v. Thompson, 321, S27. Staples w. Way, 828. Stark V. Brown, 322, 359. St.ark V. Carroll, 202. Stark V. Coffin, 837. Stark V. Hopson, 122, 240. Stark V. Hunton, 148. Stark V. McGowcn, 633. Stark V. Mercer, 362. Starkweather v. Am. Bible Soc, 885. Starling v. Price, 885. Starri;. lii'nuclt, 811. Starr v. Ellis, 336. cxviii Starr );. Monlton,513. Starr v. Starr, 148, 878. State V. Atlierton, 611. State V. Balcnelder, 747. State V. Bonhain, 5, 5«. State V. Brawn, 385. State Bank v. Campbell, 339. State V. earner, 611. State V. Chrisman, 815. State V. Crutchlield, 744. State V. Gilmanton, 832, 833, 835. State V. Griffith, 513, 884. States. Guilford, 513. State V. Horn, 611. State V. :Matthew8, 789. State V. Matthew C. K. E. Co., 2. State V. Paciflc Guano Co., 8i55. State V. Pattmeyer, 2. State V. Peck, 808, 815. State V. Pinckney, 835. State V. Schwin, i;il. State D. Sluder, 796. State Bank v. S. 0. Man. Co., 818. State V. Trask, 482. States. Troop, 375. State r. VanDervcer, 661. State V. AA'arren, 882. States. Whitbank, 885. Stater. AVllsnn, 843. State V. Slaiger, 172. Statesbnry v. Vails, 198. Staton V. Mullis, 696, 826. Steacyr. Kice,4(ii, 494, 504. Stead V. Nelson, 46:i. Stead's Exrs. v. Pourse, 760. Stearns r. Godfrey, 2(t0, 281. Stearns r. Harri.^, 277. Stearnss. Hendersa.«s, 727. Stearns v. Jones, 599. Stearns v. Quiiicy Mutual Ins. Co., 327. Stearns v, Sampson, 228. Stearns r. Swift, 794. Stears v. Hollenbeck, 326. Stebbens v. Hall, 855. Stedinan v. Gassett, 199, 213. Stedman v. Priest, 885. Stedinan v. Smilh, 697. Steedmau v. HiUiard, 695. Steels. Cook, 880. Steel l: Friek, 201. Steel V. Johnson, 717. Steel s. Steel, 92, 302. Steel s. Taylor, 832. Steele r. Boone, 339. Steele v. Magie, 126. Steele s. Mansell, SIS. Steele v. Taylor, 832. Sioene v. Steele's Admr., 647. Steeple s. Downing, 714, 795. Steer s. Sieer. 607. Steers. Tiffanv,605. Steers s. Brooklyn, 6S6. Steffens v. Earl, 218. Stegall V. Slc.ijall, 128. Stehman r. ."^lehman, 53S. Stein s. Ilauck, 613. Steiners, Co|n's, 746. Sterner s, Ellis, 343. Stein hurger i\ Greenwood, 161. Steinhardt s. Cunningham, 361. Stello r. Carroll, 117. Stelzich r. \Veidel,337. Stephen's Appeal, 292. Stephens s. Bridges, 197. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Stephen's Exrs. Appeal, 292. Stephens v. Hume, 106. .Stephens u. Hu^a, 814. (^icpheiia V. McCormlok, 700. Stepliensv. Miller, 885. Sieplu'iisv. Milner, 885. Siephens V. Morse, S16. Step lions t'. Wutu.il Ins. Co., 327. Stephens v. lihlnehiirt. 811. Stephens v. Sherrod, 124, 310. Stephens r. M'alker, 883 Stephenson v. Cotter, 255. StC|)lien6on v. Doe, 663. Stephenson v. Haines, 646. Stephenson's Heirs v. Snllivan, 674. Stephenson v. Sullivan, 674. Stephenson v. Thompson, 254, 500 Sterger v. Van Siclen, 189. Sternberg?;. Dominick, 364. Sterling v. Baldwin, 799. Sterling V. Feet, 8.14. Sterling v. Sterling, 879, 881. Sterling v. Worden, 653, 654. Sterry v. Arden, 802. Stetson V. Daw, 841, 843. Stetson V. Gulliver, 818. Stetson V. Patten, 805. Stettnlsche v. Lamh, 714, Stevens v. Brown, 8176. Stevens v. Campbell, 359. Stevens v. Caatoll, 813 Stevens v. Cooper, 369, 371, 375. Stevens J). Eiiders, 263. Steven's Estate, 888. Stevens v. Fowler, 398. Stevens v. Hampton, 810, S16a. Stevens v. Hallister, 693, 696, 697,698. Stevens w. Leach, 698. Stevens v. McNamara, 760. Stevens v. Mor.se, 816, 816a. Stevens v. Nashua, 611. Stevens v. Pierce, 177, 189. Stevens v. Rainwater, 293, 293. Stevens v. Reed, 139. Stevens w. Eose, 6. Stevensv. Smith, 124. Stevens v. Stevens, 135, 500, 651, 652, 653, 812. Stevens v. Taft, 697, 699. Stevens v. Thompson, 242. Stevens v. Van Cleve, 876. Stevens v. Walt, 700, 829. Stevens v. Watson, 817a. StevensoQ v. An'lerson, 251. Stevenson v. Black, 330. Stevenson v. Brasher, 127, 145, 810. Stevenson v. Chattanoosra, 599. Stevenson v. Orapnell, 815. Stevenson v. Huddlestine, 875. Stevenson v. Jacobs, 542. Stevenson v. Lombard, 182. Stevenson v. Leslej', 514. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 500. Stevenson v. Stewart, 605. Stevenson v. Wallace, 699, 600, 618 Stewart v. Jiarrow, 322, 323. Stewarts. Brady, 38, 39, 275. Stewart v. Calweil, 295a, 296. Stewartji. Ch idwiok.llS, 501, 514, 515. Stewart v. Clark, 64, 818. Stewart v. Collier, 666. Stewart v. Crosby, 333. Stewart v. Doughty, 70, 71, 799. Stewart v. Drake, 852 Stewart v. Duffy, 501, 714. Stewart v. Flteh, 833, 834. Stewart v. Freeman, 817a, 818. Stewart v. Harriinan, 878. Htewartj). Huff, 818. Stewart!!. Hutohins, 301, 305. Stewart v. Ives, 293. Stewarts. Lispenard, 881. Stewart v. Mackey, 163, 164. Stewarts. Matheny, 6», 400. Stewarts. McMartln, 115. Stewart s. McSweeney, 795, 810o, 8176, 818. It- Stewarts. Neely, 411, 421.'^ Stewarts. Pettus,611. Stewart v. ll.:ddett, 813. Stewart v. Roderick, 199. Stewart s. Rogers, 601, 802. Stewart s. Smith, 124, 339. Stewart s. Sprague, 183. Siewart s. Stewart, 875. Stewart s. Stokes, 673. Stewart s. Weed, 813, 814. Stewart s. Wood, 2114, 295, 296. Stewart s. Long I.sland R. R. Co., 182. Stewart's Eslate, 883. Sticklebone s. Hatchman, 77. Sticklers. Todd, 6UL Stickney s. Stlcknev. 201. Stigers. Bent, 331, 336, 337, 343, 360 Stiles s. Brown, 812, Si.5. Stiles V. Hooker, 699, 605. Still s. Mayor, etc., 292. ,Stillmans. Stillman, 336. Stilloway s. Brown, 160. Stillwells. Hubbard, 613,814. StiUwell s. Knapiter, 275. Stillwell s. MoUonald, 817a. Stillwell s. St. L., etc , Ry. Co.. 280, 843. Stlmpson s. Butterman. 237, 238. Stimpson s. Thoraastown Bank, 122. Stinebaugh s. Wisdom. 106. Stinson v. Ross, 318, 7.17. Stinson s. Sumner, 115, 127. Stobie s. Dills, 198. Stockbridge Iron Co. u. Hudsonlron Co., 837, 843. Stockbridge s. Stockbridge, 883. Stockbridge s. Stockbridge, 402. Stockport Waterworks s. Potter, 613, 617. Stockton's Appeal, 227. Stockton s. Dundee Mfg- Co., 361. Stockton V. Geissler, 697. Stockton s. Williams, 745, 746, 795. Stockwell s. CJampbell, 4. Stockwells. Hunter. 10. Stoddard s. Gibbs, 107. Stoddard s. Hart, 290, 310, 311, 333. Stoddard s. Nelson, 177. Stoddard u. Kotton, 336. Stoddard s. Weston, 251. Stoever s. Stoever, 302,303, 367 Stokes s. Appomatox Co., 599. Stoken s. McKibbin, 105. Stokes s. Hewsingers, 605. Stokes s. O' Fallon, 888. Stokes s. Tilly, 875. Stoken s. Van Wick, 538. Stokely s. Gordon, 883. Stone s. Ashley, 809. Stone s. Bishop, 613. Stone V. Clark, 831. Stones. Ellis, 279. cxix TABLE OF CASES CITED. Eeferences are to Sections. stone V. Griffin, 508, 884. Stone V. Hackett, 506. Stone V. Harrison, 633. Stone V. Hooker, 855. Stone V. Lane, 341. Stone V. Lewis' Admr, 401, Stone V. Llttlefleld, 398. Stone V. Locke, 360. Stone V. McEckrow, 434. Stone I'. Meyers, 802. Stone V. Montgomery, 794, Stone V, Patterson, 324. Stone V. Seymour, 356. Stone V. Spragae, 213. Stoner v. Hansicker, 5. Stoner v. Shultz, 325, 371. Stooltoos V, Jenkins, 106. Stoops V. Ulackford, 794. Stoppelbem v. Sbultz, 117. Storer v. Freeman, 834. Storm Lake Bank v. Mo. Val. Ins. Co., 601. Storms V. Storms, 310. Storn V. Blann, 81, Story j;. Odin, 619. Story V. Saunders, 251, 264. Stoughton V. Leigh, 10, 75, 116, 135, 137, 144. Stout V. Merrill, 199, 792. Stout V. Stout, 544. Stover V. Boswell, 674. Stoyer v. Eyclesliimer, 530, 800. Stover V. Freeman, 834. Stover V. Jack, 8i3, 834, 835. Stover t". Kendall, 890. Stover V. Wood, 336. Stowu. Russell, 194. Slowti.Tiflt, 171,124. StowD. Wyse, 728. Stovve V. Steele, 127. Stowell V. Lincoln, 617. Stowell V. Pike, 323, 35L Straat v. Uhrlg, 481), 499. Strabala v. Lewis, 715. Strafford 11. Wentworth, 67. Strahan v. Knowles, 618. Straiget v. Harris, 817. Strain v. Wright, 792. Stranford v. Broadway Sav. & Loan Co., 727. Strang v. Allen, 325, 332, 353. Strang v. Clem, 115. Strasburger's Estate, 182. Stratton v. Gold, 294, 295. Strauss's Appeal, 290, 292. Strauss v. Roost, 401. Strayer v. Long, 146, 147. Streaper v. Fisher, 190, Streeter v. Shultz, 261. Strickland v. Bartlett, 794. Strickland v. Suramerville, 700. Stringer v. Northwestern JJIut. Life Ins. Co., 793. Stringer v. Young, 746. Strobe v. Downer, 361. Strode v. Russell, 320. Stroganv. Knowles, 618. Strohmeyer v. Zeppenfeld, 185. Strokes v. Hodges, 818. Strong V. Allen, 325. Strong V. Blanohard, 326. Strong V. Bragg, 115. Strong V. Olem, 116. Strong V. Converse, 124, 332, 336. Strong V. Gregory, 676. cxx strong V. Ins. Co., 827. Strong V. Makeever, 611. Strong V. Smith, 816a. Strong V. Stewart, 307, 308. Strong V. Strong, 307. Strother v. Law, 354, 863, 364. Strother v, Lucas, 745. Stroud V. Casey, 359, 869. Stroud V. Pace, 292. Stroud i". Springfield, 832. Strough V. Wilder, 813. Struthers v, Pearce, 501. Strutt's Trusts, 513. Stuart V. Baker, 793. Stuart V. Diplock, 603. Stuart V. Frink, 611. Stuart V. HaiTison, 292, 293. Stuart V. Eissam, d2. Stuart 11. Lovvry, 725. Stubblefleld v. Boggs, 746. Stubbs V. Sargen, 499. Stucker v. Stacker, 360. Stueblen v. Granger, 198. Stump£ V. Osterhage, 696. Stumpf V. Osterhagre, 697. Stump V. Findlay, 64. Stumper v. Roberta, 600. Stunz V. Stunz, 148. Sturgis V, Corp., 469. Sturgis V, Ewiug, 115. Sturgis V. Paine, 506. Sturgis V. Work, 833, 890. Sturtevant v. Jaques, 499. Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, 507, 813. Stuyvesant v. Hall, 840, 876. Stnyvesant v. Hall, 817. Stuyvesant v. Mayor of New York, 272, 276, 277. Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 597, 601, 603. Suavez v. Pumpelly, 506, 509. Suflernii. Butler, 811. Suffleldw. Brown, 601. Suffolk Ins. Co. V. Boyden, 327. Sugden v. Power, 55S, 559. Sulany v. Middleton, 644. Sullivan V. Enders, 214, 215, Sullivan v. McLenans, 500. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 878. Sulp V. Campbell, 794. Sutton V. Cole, 797. Summers v. Babb, 115. Summers v. Bromley, 359. Summer v. Hampson, 116. Summers v. Pumphrey, 792. Summers v. Smith, 638. Summer v. Conant, 794, 606. Summer t;. Darnell, 272. Summer v. Rabb, 115, 136. Summer v. Rhodes, 816a, 818. Sumner v. Seaton, 726. Summer v. Stevens, 739. Summers. Waugh, 332. Summers. Williams. 844, 858. Summer v. Wilson, 844. Summit v. Yount, 275. Sumrall v. Cliafflu, 864. Sumwaltt'. Tucker, 822. Sunderland v. Hood, 881. Sunderland v. Sunderland, 500. Supervisors v. Patterson, 272, 863. Supple t'. Timothy, 219. Surdam v. Cornell, 402. Susquehanna, etc., R. Co. v. Qmok, 714. Susse.\: Ins. Co. v. Woodruff, 327. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Sutherland v. Cox, 538. SuUiffo V. Atwood, 188. Sntpliin V. Oushman, 307. Sutphlnw. Sebas, 196. Sutterwliito v. Rosser, 698. Sutton V. Aiken, 494, 469, 494. Sutton V, Burrows, 115. Sutton V. Cole, 445, 461, 496, 882, 883 Sutton V. Hiram Lodge, 173, 225. Sutton V. Mason, 322. Sutton V. Stone, 358. Sutton V, Sutton, 877. Suydam v. Jones, 860. Suydam v. Thayer, 532. Swaine v. Ferine, 66, 126, 147, 337, 373. Swan V. Beneon, 292. Swan V. Hodges, 812. Swan V. Japple, 329. Swandale v. Swandale, 161, 163. Swanson v. Calhoun, 262. Swartz V. Swarts, 842. Swasey v. Little, 641. Swazey v. Brooks, 844. Swazey v. Jaques, 668. Swearinger v. Morris, 873. Sweattv. Corcoran, 746. Sweet V. Brown, 855, 868. Sweet V. Cults, 615. Sweet V. Parker, 307. Sweet V. Sherman, 370. Sweet V, Sweet, 887. Sweet f. Ward. 343. Sweetapple v. Bindon, 105. Sweetlaud v. Sweetland, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307. 310. Sweetserv. Jones, 4, 332. Sweetser v. Lowell, 812. Sweezy v. Thayer, 367. ■Swett V, Boardman, 877. Swett V. Cults, 615. Swett «. Horan,333. Swett V. Thompson, 399. Swift V. Ooker, 604. Swift V. Edson, 359, 361. Swift V. Gage, 696. Swift V. Kraemer, 336. Swift V. Mulkey, 696. Swift V. Thompson, 5, 5o, 6. Swlgert V. Bank of Ky., 376. Swinburne In re, 883. Swinburne «. Swinburne, 501. Swmton V. Legare, 402, 411, 412 Sword V. Low, 4, 5a. Sylrester v. Balston, 216. Sylvester v. Wilson, 434. Symmes v. Arnold, 875. Syracuse City Bank v. Tallman, 324. T. Tabb ». Baird, 779, 795. Tabler v. Wiseman, 261, 262 Tabor v. Bradley, 597. Tactw. Crawford, 818. Tadlock v. Eccles, 359. Taffe V. Harteau, 190. Taflfe V. Warmick, 5a, 6. Taf t V. Kessel, 294, 296. Taf t V. Pike, 792. Tafti). Stevens, 319, 329. Taf t V. Taft, 506. Tainter v. Clark, 508, 510, 511,561, Talamo v. Spltzmiller, 177. Talbot V. Brodhlll, 308, 309. Talbot V. Talbot, 671. Talbot V. Whipple, 198. Tallmadge v. East Elver Bank, 603. Tallmadge v. Gill, 576. Tallmadge v. Sill, 576. Tallman v. Coffin, 190. Tallman u. Ely, 361. Tallman v. Murphy, 196. Tallman v. Snow, 277. Tallman v. Wood, 434,495. Taltarum's Case, 49,433. Tamm v. Kellogg, 698, 699. Tancred v. Christy, 216. Tane v. Campbell, 242. Taney v. Fahnley, 433. Tanner v. Hicks, 292, 294, 295. Tanner v. Hills, 201. Tanner v. Skinner, 506. Tanton v. Van Alstine, 177. Tapley v. Smith, 2. Tapley v. Tapley, 797. Tapp V. White, 498. Tappan v. Davidson, 877. Tappan v. Dibbois, 875, 884 Tappan v. Evans, 362. Tappan v. Eedfleld, 805. Tarrant v. Ware, 877. Tarver v. Tarver, 891. Taskerti. Bartlett, 808. Tate V. Carney, 747. Tate r.iCrnwson, 193. Tate V. Fosbee, 260. Tate V. Gray, 832. Tatro V. Tatro, 128. Tattle V. Wilson, 131. Taylor v. Baldwin, 242, 292. Tavlorv. Beahan,613. Taylor v. Blake. 262. Taylor v. Boulware, 161. Taylor v. Boyd, 509, 757. Taylor r. Braderick, 135. Taylor v. Bray, 667. Taylor v. Burnside, 694, 697, 714. Taylor v. Caldwell, 175. Taylor v. Dawson, 700. Taylor v. Denning, 876. Taylor v. Dickinson, 513. Taylor v. Dodd, 647. Taylor v. Dugger, 700. Taylor v. Eastman, 569. Taylor v. Fowler, 117. Taylor v. Gardiner, 879. Taylor v. Glaser, 808, Taylor v. Gould, 106. Taylor v. Hampton, 605. Taylor v. Harwell, 647. Taylor v. Haygarth, 499. Taylor v. Henry, 606. Taylor v. Highberger, 115. Taylor v. Horde, 698. Taylor v. Hotohkin, 338. Taylor v. Hunter, 292. Taylor v. Kelly, 876. Tavlor v. King, 801 , 811. Taylor v. Luther, 307. Taylor v. Maris' Exrs., 817. Taylor «. Martin, 506. Taylor v. McCrackin, 117. Taylor «. McKlnney, 292. Taylor v. Mason, 273, 274. Taylor v. Millard, 600. Taylor v. Morton, 786, 807. 808. cxxi TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. Taylor v. Mosely, 501. Taylor v. Page, 310, 332. Taylor v. Porter, 2.5, 318, 751. Taylor V. Short, 375. Taylor v. Stewart, 411. Taylor v. Saltan, 271, 274, 275. Taylor v. Taylor, i9, 128, 415, 417, 434, 537, 538, 64S, 890. Taylor v. Thomas, 339. Taylor u. Waters, 651. Taylor 4'. Wheeler, 573. Taylor's Case, 122. Ten bout V. Daniels, 696. Teal V. Terrell, 700. Teed V Caruthers, 294. Teed v. Halstead, 697. Teetsi;. Weise,401. Telford v. Garnell, 368. Telt V. Munson, 326, 731, 817. Tellairj). Roe, 666. Templet). Jlead, 875. Templemanji. Blddle, 70, 71. Ten Byck v. Craig. 325. Tenlou v. Curtis, 326. Tenants. Stoney, 130. Tenuessee, etc.,R. R. Co. v. Mabry, 715. Terhaw v. Buberson, 799, 842. Terrell v. Andrew County, 338, 8176. Terrell v. Martin, 262. Terrett v. Taylor, 682, 730, 744, 857. Terrill v. Murray, 70ii. Terry v. Brigg, 6.i6, 643, 644. Terry 1). Chandler, 726, 831. Terry r. Diabenstadt, 861. Terry v. Eureka College, 858. Terry v. Ferguson, 199. Terry v, Keaton, 292. Terry v, Robins, 5a. Terry v. Smith, 617. Territory v. Klee, 805. Tescbemacher v. Thompson, 834. Tewf. Jones, 216. Tewksbury v. O'Connell. 812. Tewksbury v. Magraff, 199. Texas Land, etc., Co. v. Blalock, 163. Texira v. Evans, 789. Tbachert'. Phinney, 77, 802. Thacker v. Guardenier, (ivIT. Thackston v, Watson, 415. Thames v. Caldwell, 292, 293, 392 Tharp V. Peitz, 325, 355. Tharpe v. Dunlap, 294. Thatcher v. Omans, 463, 782. Thatcher v. Piunney. 77, 809. Thatcher v. Powell, 701. Thatcher v. St. Andrew's Church, 813. Thayer v. Bacon, 726. Thayer v. Campbell, 329, 360. Thayer v. Clemence, 862. Thayer v. Cramer, 322. Thayer v. Mann, 310. Thayer u. Payne, 601. Tliayer v. Richards, 311, 312. Thayor v. Society, etc., 199. Thayer v. Spear, 271. Thellusont). Woodtord, 532,645. Thistle V. Baford, 731. Theol. Seminary v. Kellogg, 542. Thleband v. Sebastian, 873. Thomas v, Bertram, 609. Thomas v. Black, 199, 225. Thomas v. Blackmnre, 81& Thomas v. Boernor, 746. Thomas v. Cook, 198. cxxii Thomas v. Falwell, 469. Thomas v. Gammel, 137. Thomas v. Grand Gulf Bank, 816o. Thomas v. Hatch, 251, 254, 792. Thomas v. James, 700. Thomas v. Kolsey 817n. Thomas v, Kingsland, 189. Thomas v. Marstfleld, 693, 694, 697, 698, 714. Thomas v. Patten, 841. Thomas v. Perry, 860, 861. Thomas v. Pickering, 251, 564. Thomas u. Poole, 862. Thomas v. Pullens, 793. Thomas V. Simmons, 321. Thomas v. Standiford, 600, 501. Thomas v. Stickle, 863, 854. Thomas v. Thomas, 121, 634. Thomas v. Turney, 788. Thomas r. Van Kapft, 327, 862. Thomas v. Walker, 501. Thomas r. Wolford,89S. Thomas v. Wyatt, 716. Thomas' Appeal, 333, 336, 341. Thomas Ex parte, 794. Thompson v. Adv. Gen., 873. Thompson v. Banks, 305, 306, 842. Thomnson v. Bertram, 332. Thompsons;. Bostick, 243. 255. Thompson v. Boyd, 117, 122. Thompson v. Burhans, 696, 697, 714. Thompson v. Chandler, 321, 334, 341. Thompson v. Cochran, 120, 124. Thompson v. Colier. 142, 143. Thompson v. Cragg, 696. Thompson v. Davenport, 308. Thompson r. Duvitt, 877. Thompson v. Egbert, 148. Thompson's Estate, 663. Thompson v. Field, 330. Thompson i\ Gregory, 600, 653. Thompson v. Hammond, 813. Thompson v. Hoop, 533, 639. Thompson v. Kauffelt, 699, 714. Thompson v, Kyner, 881. Thompson v. Kenyon, 329. Thompson v. Lawley. Thompson v. Leach, 396, 422, 424. Thompson v. Lloyd, 814. Thompson v. McGill, 293. Thompson i\ McLaughlin, 714. Thompson v. Miner, 601. Thompson v. Morrow, 135. Thompson r. Peake,49B, 497. Thompson v. Perkins, 501. Thompson v. Phila., etc.. Coal & Iron Co., 699. Thompson r. Pioche, 697, 698, 818. Thompsons. Sanders, 860. Thompson v, Shattnck, 860. Thompson v, Sheppard, 163. Thompson v. S. Cal. M. R. Co., 827, 828. Thompson v. Stacy, 116. Thompson r. Thompson, 70, 117, 121, 122, 700,741,801, 812. Thompson v. Uglow, 605. Thompson v. Waterlow, 597, 698. Thompson v. AVheatley, 501. Thompson's Estate, 117. Thompson f.Peake, 496, 497. Thompson v. Wilcox, 8176. Thorn v, Sutherland, 6. Thorn v. Thorn, 264, 318. Thorndell v. Morrison, 794. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Thorndike v. Bnrrage, 189. Thome v. Thome, 318. Thornton v. Boyd, 368. Thornton v. Boyden, 368. Thornton v. Gailleard, 563. Thornton I'. ]rwin, 865. Thornton v. Knox, 292, 293. Thornton v. I'ayne, 179. Thornton v. Plgg, 318, 359, 361, 362. Thoroughgood's Case, 811, 812, Thorp V. Fcltz, 825. Thorp V. Goodall, 576. Thorp V. McCuUum, 573, 674. Thorp V. Kaymond, 715. Thorp V. Yiirbrough, 79S. Thorpe V. Dunlap, 2112, 293, 294, 295. Thorpe v. Philbin, 225. Thorpe V. Raymond, 716. Thrall v. Omaha Hotel Co., 199. Thrasher v. Pinckard, 188. Thra.shert) Tyack, 143. Threadgillv. Ingram, 542. Throckmorton t;. Price, 838,8176. Thunder v. Belcher, 226. Thurbers;. Townshend, 101, 110. Thurman v. Cameron, 795,805, 810. Thurman v. Stoddard, 392. Thursbyi). Plant, 186. Thurston v. Bickerson, 400. Thurston v. Hancock, 618. Thurston u. Prentiss, 365. Tibbals V. Jacobs, 814. \ Tice V. Annin, 318, 839. Tichenor v. Dodd, 332. Ticknor, Estate of, 882. Tidd V. Lister, 92. Tieman v. Tieman,159. Tiernnn v. Bean, 292. Tiernan v. Hinman, 308. 309. Tieman v. Thurman, 292, 29S. Tierncyu. Spiva, 359. Tifft V. Horton, 4, 5, 5a, 6, 400, 851. Tilden®. Fiske, 510. Tilden v. Green, 532. 882,884. Tilden v. Greenwood, 318. Tilden jj. Tilden, 877. Tilfordw. Torrey, 500. 501. Tilghman v. Little, 199. Tillefc j>. Aydlett, 38. Tillinghast v. Champlln, 246, 253. Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 105, 433,484, 496, 605. Tillinghast r. Holbrook, 792. Tillman v. Brown, 160. Tillman v. Spawn, 700. Tillotson V. Boyd, 332. Tillotson V. Preston, 652. Tillotson V. Smith, 605. Tilotson V. Mitchell, 725. Tilsonv. Thompson, 144. Tiltonc. Emery, 727. Tilton V. Hunter, 817. Tilton V. Nelson, 726. Tilton V. Vail, 262. Timberlake v. Graves, 542. Timlin v. Standard Oil Co., 189. Timms v. Shannon, 300. Tinkham v. Arnold, 599. Tinnlcum Fishing Co, v. Carter, 834. Tinsley v. Jones, 542 Tinsley v. Tinsley, 292, 293. Tippett V. Eyres, 561. Tipping V. Cozzens, 443. Tipping V. Bobbins, 253. Tipton V. Martin, 164. Tison V, Yawn, 199. Tissen v. Tissen, 546. Titchenell ?;, Jackson, 506, 507. Titcomb v. Morrill, 443. Titcomb v. Vantyle, 792. Titley v. Wolstenholme, 509. Titman v. Moore, 163, 164. Titsell V. Cochran, 638. Titus V. Haynes, 340, 817. Titus J). NeilBon, 120, 318. Toan V. Pline, 177, 192, 644. Tobey v. Secor, 699. Tobias V. Ketchum, 506. Tobin?), Bass, 813. Tobin V. Jenkins, S81. Tobin V. Young, 200. Toby V. McAllister, 292, 294. Tobyu. Eeed,71. Tooker v. Conrad, 611. Todd V. liaylor, 1:«, 143. Todd V. Hardle, 305, 306. Todd V. Jackson, 228. Todd V. Kerr, 731. Todd V. Lunt, 262. Todd V. Itennick, 887. Todd V. Sawyer, 567. Todd V. Stokes, 2. Todd V. Tott, 885. Todd V. Union Dime Sav. Bank, 8176. Todd's Will, 87.5. Toderv. Herring, 566. Toland B. Corey, 819. Tole V. Hardy, 882. Toller V. Atwood, 434. Toilet V. Toilet, 678, 574. Tolman v. Sparhawk, 739 Tolson V. Tolson, 506. Tome V. Loan Co., 359. Tomle V, Hampton, 189. Tomlin v. Luce, 364. Tomlinsou v. Dighton, 401. Tomllnson v. Monmouth Ins. Co., 303, 305. Tomlinson v. Swinney, 161, 164. Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 888. TomlinsQn's Appe^il, 8[)7o. Tompkins v. Fonda, 115. Tompkins v. Mitchell, 292. Tompkins i>. Wheeler, 812, 8U. Toms V. Williams, 506. Tone V. Bruce, 186. Toner v. Collins, 533. Tong V. Marvin, 101. Tongue v. Nutwel, 542. Tonf V. Decatur, 611. Tooke V. Hardeman, 148. Toole V. Perry, 402. Took'y V. Dibble, 815. Tooleyc. Kane, 758. Tooms V. Conset, 308. Toomy v. McLean, 117. Topley V. Topley, 796. Torey v, Bigelow, 697. Torop V. Johnson, 277. Torrance v. Torrance, 542. Torrane v. Torrance, 64. Torrence v. Carbry, 122. Torrenoe v. Shredd, 728. Torrey v. Burnett, 6. Torrey v. Cook, 363. Torrey v. Minor, 115, 857. Torrey v. Torrey, 242, 245. Torriano v. Young, 77. cxxiii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Torroms ». Hicljs, 361. Torr's Estate, 374. ToBten V. Panght, 798. Totel V. Bonnefoy, 652. Totten V. Stuyresant, 116. Totter V. Erwin, 292. Touceard v . Crow, 781 . Toughre v. Nutshell, 542. Toulminw. Anstln, 801, 816a. Toulmin v. Heidelburg, 806. Tousley V. Tousley, 388. Tousvllle V. Pierson, 161. Tower V. Ohadwiok, 618. Tower v. Petz, 307. Tower D. Hale, 798. Town V. Hazen, 652. Towne v. Ammidown, 513. Towne v. Butterfleld, 199, 213 Towner v. Wells, 341. Townsend v. Corning, 805. Townsend v. Downer, 599. Townsend v. Hubbard, 808. Townsend v. Jennison, 717. Townsend v. Morris, 856, 857. Townsend v. McDonald, 599. Townsend v. Peterson, 307. Townahend, Matter of, 753. Townsbend v. Brown, 744. Townsbend v. Corning, 803. Townshend v. Frommer, 359. Townsbend V. Townsbend, 881. Townsbend v. Wilson, 513. Townsbend v. Windbam, 576. Townson v. Tlckell, 561, 814. Tracy v. AUherton, 599, 715, 716. Tracy v. Colby, 501. Tracy v. Craig, 501. Tracy v. Kelley, 501. Tracy v. Newton, 699. Tracy v. Tracy, 81. Tracy v. Norwicb, etc., R. E. Co., 695, 698. Trafford v. Boebm, 542. Tralton v. Hauss, 777, 776, 782, 80], S02. Trammell v. Trammell, 600, 651, 663. Transue v. Brown, 877. Trapbagen v. Burt, 500. Trapbagen v. Irwin, 817. Trapbagen v. Levy, 37, 275, 563 Trapnall v. Brown, 199, 507. Trasher v. Everhart, 808. Traak V. Patterson, 90. Trask y. Wheeler, 277. TrasLer v. Nelson, 851. Traute v. White, 620. Trayser v. Trustees of Indiana, etc., Univ., 368. Treadwell v. Cordis, 566. Trcadwell v. McICeon, 601. Treadwell v. Inslee, 599, 602. Treadwell v. Reynolds, 812. Treat's Appeals, 884. Treat v. Pierce, 322. Tremaine v. AVcatberty, 696. Trench v. Harrison, 501. Trent v. Hannmg, 504. Trenton Bank v. Woodruff, 92. Trentman v. Nefl, 829. Treon's Lessee v. Emerick, 242, 829a. Trexler v. Holler, S38. TriBble v. Frame, 228. Trickey v. Schlader, 611. Trimble v. Boothby, 246. Trimm v. Cramer, 322. Trimm v. Marsh, 318, 322, 694. cxxiv Trimmer v. Heagy, 794. Tripe v. Marcy, 322, 326, 339, 358, 8176. Tripp V. Hasceig, 842. Trist V. Newell, 881. Trittu. OolweU, 93. Troth V. Hunt, 359. Troll V. Carter, 501. Troost V. Davis, 355. Trotter v. Hughes, 332, 338, 855. Trouadall v. Darnell, 218. Truck V. Llndeey, 305, 306. Trutt V. Adams, 843. Truebody v. Jacobson, 292. Truescott v. King, 342. Truesdalei'. rord,819. Truesdale v. Lehman, 37, 62. TruU V. Bigelow, 816, 817, 8176. Trull V. Eastman, 728, 800, 858. Trull V. Puller, 799. Trull V. Skinner, 305, 309, 741. Trulock V. Donahue, 192, 644. Trulock V. Robey, 325. Truman v. Lore, 807, 811. Trumbull v. Trumbull, 116. Truscott V. King, 342, 818. Trustees Catholic Church v. Manning, 810. Trustees v. Dickinson, 322, 686, 687. Trustees v. Uickson, 322,374. Trustees of Donations v. Streeter, 318. Trustees, etc., v. Hart, 883. Trustees, etc., v. Kirk, 697. Trustees v. Louder, 837. Trustees, etc., v. Peaslee,461. Trustees v. Spencer, 646. Trustees v. Stewart, 513. Trustees, etc.. v. King, 461. Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 332 Trustees v. Wright, 292. Trustees, etc., Watertown v. Cower, 599, 862. Trustees, etc., v. Zauesville C. & M. Co., 8S4. Tryon v. Mnnson, 322. Tryon v Hernton, 500, 827. Tuck V. Pitls, 142. Tuck V. Hartford Ins. Co., 327. Tucker v. Burrow, 500. Tucker v. Clark, 730, 861. Tucker v. Hadley, 292. Tucker v. Moreland, 792. Tucker v. Oxner, 877. Tucker v. Palmer, 613. Tucker v. Phipps, 601. Tuckley v. Thompson, 29, 202. Tudor V. Anson, 673. Tufts r. Adams, 861, 855. Tulter. Miller, 861. Tullett V. Armstrong, 93, 469. TuUey v. Davis, 710, 810. Tulleyti. Tulley, 700. Tanstall r. Christian, 018. Tupplo V. Vius, 292. Turk V. Punk, 339. Turn )'. Russ, 561. TurnbuU v. Rivers, 609. Turner v. Cameron 324. Turner v. Carpenter, SIS. Turner v. Coffin, 725. Turner v. Cook, 877. Turner v. Connelly, 810. Turner v. Doe, 212, 213. Turner v. Field, 808. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Turner v. GoO(3rlch, 860. Turner v. Hall, 697. Turner v. Horner, 292, 294, 295. Turner v. Johnson, 363. Turner v. Kerr, 305, 306. Turner v. Petigrew, 501. Turner v. Quincy Ins. Co., 327. Turner v. Beynolds, 799, 842. Turner v. Scott, 875, 891. Turner v. Timber, 562. Turner v. Thompson, 603, 613, 602, 700. Turner v. Tlmberlake, 562. Turner v. Turner, 161. Turner v. Watklns, 368. Turner v. Whidden, 813, 814. Turner's Guardians v. Turner's Heirs and Creditors, 163. Turney v. Chamberlain, 694, 695, 697, 698. Turney v. Saunders, 698, 699. Turney v. Smith, 141, 142. Turnipseed v. Cunningham, 305, 306. Turrerv. Montonya, 194. Tusker v. Bartlett. 808. Tnstin v. Fought, 798. Tuthill V. Scott, 614. Tuthill V. Morris, 843. Tuttlejj. Bean, 219. Tuttleu. Keynolds, 199, 213. TutUe V. Wilson, 181. Twambley v. Henley, 850. Tueddell v. Tueddell, 372, 374. Twitchell v. McMurtie, 329 332 Twisdon v. Lock, 404. Twort V. Twort, 242, 254. Tyler v. Cooper, 604, 605. Tyler v. Gardner, 879. Tyler v. Hammond, 698. Tyler v. Herring, 364, 368. Tyler v. Jewell, 264. Tyler v. Moore, 434, 844. Tyler v. Tyler, 888. Tyler v. Wilkinson, 599, Tyrell v. Baldwin, 159. Tyrell v. Marsh, 561. Tyrell's Cases, 463, Tyson v. Bradshaw, 814. u. Uerplanck v. Sterry, 813. Uflford V. Wilkins, 830. Uhlin V. Hutchinson, 339, 817o. Ulp V. Campbell, 127. Ulster Co . Saving Inst, v, Leak, 327. Underbill v. Saratoga & Washington E, E., 271, 273, 863. Underwood v. Campbell, 808. Underwood v. Collins, 808. Underwood v. Eobbins, 542. Underwood v. Sutlifle, 600. Unger v. Mooney, 694, 695, 697, 698, 699, 700, 714. Unglish V. Marvin, 177. Union Bank v, Emerson, 4, 5, 5a. Union Canal Co. v. Young, 818. Union Mat. Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 607. Union Mut. Insurance Co. v. Hanford, 332. Union, etc., M. Co. v. Taylor, 700. Union Mut., etc., Ins. Co. v. Union Mills, etc., 351. Union Nat. Bank v. International Bank, 810. Union Nat. Bk. ». Bank of Kansas City, 368. Union Pac. E. E. Co. v. Kindred, 700. Unitarian Soo. v. Woodbury, 507. United States v, Araody, 461. United States v. Appletou, 603, 619. United States Bank v. Covert, 330. United States Bank v. Houseman, 443 United States v. Crosby, 744, 873. United States v. Denseth, 143. United States v. Fitzgerald, 747. United States v. Hove, 310. United States v. Huokabee, 796. United States v. Linn, 790. United States Life Ins. Co . v. PolUow, 362. United States v. Stephenson, 808. United States v. Sturgess, 310, 316. United States Trust Oo. v. Eoache, 359. University of Vermont v. Josslyn, 182, 795. Upchurch v. Upohurch, 876, 877. Upham V. Emerson, 885. Upham V, Varney, 494, 535. Upshaw V. Hargrave, 292. Upton V. Archer, 789. Upton V. Grantees, 196, 196a Upwell V. Halsey, B46. Urann v. Ooates, 506. Urban v. Grimes, 793. Uroh V. Walker, 510. Urich's Appeals, 37, 564. Uridras v. Morrell, 225. Urmey v. Wooden, 884. Usher v. Richardson, 130. Uspdeu V. Austin, 186. Utah Loan & Trust Co. v. Garbut, 177. Utz, Estate of, 888. Uvedall v. Uvedall, 412, 413. Uzzelli). Mack, 292. Y. Vaca V. Long Island R. K. Co., 277, 837. Vaca Val., etc., E. E. Co. v. Mansfleld, 789. Vail V. Foster, 29.3. Vail V. Jacobs, 364. Vail V. Vail, 264. Vail V. Weaver, 4. Valentine v. Uarner, 818. Valentine v. English, 817a. Valentine v. Havener, 359, 817a Valentine v. Piper, 834. Valentine v. Wyson, 567. Valle V. Clemens, 730, 859. Vallette v. Bennett, 513. Valley Fall Co. v. Dolan, 601. Van Alstyne v. Van Slyck, 808. Van Arsdall v. Fanntieroy, 106. Van Axter v. Fisher, 398. Van Bibber v. Frazier, 700. Van Bibler v. Williamson, 68. Van Brunt v. Mismer, 310. Van Brunt v. Van Brunt, 544. Van Bramer v. Cooper, 792. Van Buren v. D ash, 885. Van Buren v. Olmstead, 325, 334. Van Camp v. Fowler. 399. Van Courtland v. Kip, 877, 685. CXXV TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Van Cleaf v. Barns, 127. Van Cott V. Heath, 310. Van Court v. Moore, 860. Vandekar v. Reeves, 198. Vanderhuvel v. Storre, 216. Van Deusen v. Sweet, 792, 791. Van Deusen v. Young, 400. Van Doren v. V veritt, 70. Vani)oren v. Todd, 292. Van Duyne v. Van Duyne, 506. Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 108, 109. Van Dyne v. Shaun, 335, 359. Van Dyne v. Ihayre, 117, 318. Van Etta V. Evanson, 789. Van Gieson's Will, 817. Van Gorden v. Jackson, 831. Van Gelder v. Post, 135. Van Horn v. Fonda, 252, 269, 501. Van Hanswyck v. Wiese, 876. Van (John) Rpirge Co. v. Allen, 4. Van Kleek v. Dutcti Church, 866. Van Meter v. MoFaddin, 290. Van Mickel v. In re, 889. Van Ness v. Hyatt, 318. Van Ness v. Packard, 8, 77. Van Orden v. Van Orden, 148. Van Orden v. Johnson, 817. Van Olinda v. Carpenter, 433. Van Peet v. McGraw, 351. Van RatoUff v. Call, 162. Van Rensselaer v. Albany, etc., R. Co., 600. Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 273, 277. Van Rensselaer v, Bonesteel, 646. Van Rensselaer v. Chadwick, 613, 645. Van Rensselaer v. Clark, 816, 8176. Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 862. Van Rensselaer v. Freeman, 198, 250, 312, 646. Van Rensselaer v. Galleys, 192. Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 193, 193, 643, 644. Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 858, 739, 730. Van Rensselaer V. Penniman, 7, 198. Van Rensselaer v. Platner, 644. Van Rensselaer v. Ratcliff, 593. Van Rensselaer v. Read, 192, 644, 643, 646. Van Rensselaer v. SUngerland, 646. Van Rensselaer v. Smith, 25, 192, 188, 190. Van Sickle v. Cortlett, 696. Van Stantwood v. Sanford, 786, 807. Van Throuiley, v. Peters, 471, 8176, 817a. Van Vechten v. Keator, 890. Van Vronker v. Eastman, 120, 356. Van Wagner v. Brown, 321. Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand, 849, 851. Van West v. Benedict, 881. Van Wick's Petition Bll. Van Wycke v . Seward, 802. Vanblancum v. Yeo, 808. Vance v. Fore, 827, 831. Vance v. Funk, 808. Vance v. Johnson, 322. Vance v. McNairy, 818. Vance v. Vance, 127, 147. Vandall v. Martin, 699 Vandegraaf v. Medlock, 327. Vanderheuvel v. Storrs, 216. Vanderhaise v. Hughes, 302, 308, 8B5. Vanderkemp v. Sheldon, 321, 839, 35 9. Vander Volgen v. Yates, 496. Vanderpoel v. Loew, 544. Vandowalker v. Rollins, 413. Vander's Estate, 272. Vandoren v. Todd, 292, 293. cxxvi Vane v. Barnard, 80. Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 271, 274. Vanmeter v. McFadden, 292. Vanmeter ». Vanmeter, Assignee, 161, 310. Vannioe v. Bergen, 321, 336. Vansant v. Boileau, 878. Vansant v. Roberts, 882, 883. Vansyckle v. Richardson, 663. Varick v. Smith, 751, 883. Varn v. Varn, 237. Varner v. Bevil, 873. Varney v. Stevens, 65, 68. Varnum v. Meserve, 366, 367. Vason V. Ball, 322. Vason V. Estes, 401. Vassault v. Austin, 818. Vaughan v. Thompson, 163. Vaughen v. Haldeman, 6. Vaughn v. Goaman, 813. Vaughn V. Stuzaker, 851. Vaughn v. Parr, 792. Vaughn v. Tate, 832. Vaux V. Parke, 515. Vawter v. Cral^s, 335. Veal V. Forbson, 792. Veal V, Robinson, 696. Veazie v. Parker, 817, 818. Vedder v. Evertsan,538. Veghtej;.The Raritan Water, etc., Co., 600,605,651,662,653. Veiie V. Blodgett, 601. Venable v. Beanchamp, 252, 259, 265. Vennum v. Babcock, 309, 310. Verdler v. Verdier, 877. Verges v, Prejean, 8176. Vernon v, Caville, 566. Vernon v. Kirk, 876. Vernon v. Smith, 190, 199, 327. Vernon v. Vernon, 573. Vernon's Case, 136, 147. Verplank v. Sterry, 802. Very v. Watklns, 362. Vetz V. Beard, 164. Viall V. Carpenter, 603, 609. Vickers v. Cawell, 360. Vickers v. Leigh, 37. Vickery v, Benson, 716, 740. Vldal V. Girard, 445. 461, 884. Vldeau v. Griffln, 805, 807. Viele V. Judson, 343, 8176. Viele V. Van Steenburg, 727. Villa V. Rodriquez, 309. Village of Delphi v. Youmau, 615. VlUiers V. Villlers, 467, 604. Villlnes v. Norfleet, 501. Vincent v. Bishop, 667. Vincent v. Walker, 305. Vlner v. Francis, 402. Vlneru. Vaughn, 75. Virgin V. Land, 697, 698, 714. Vlser V. Rice, 789. Vlialt). Carpenter, 609. Vogle V. Ripper, 335. Vogle V. ShnrtUfl, 371. Volgen V. Yates, 443. Vorebeek v. Roe, 799 . Vorheos v. MoGlnnis, 4, 6, .5a. Voorhies v. Bnrshard, 603, 842, Voorhles v. Freeman, 4, 5. Voorhls In re, 881. Vorhis V. Forsythe, 851. Voris V. Renshaw, 273. Voris V. Sloan, 542. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. VosbnrgB. Teator, 726. Vo3eu.I)olan,789. Vosei). Handy, 330. Voss V. King, 199, 282a. Tower's Will, 149. Voyler v. Geiss, 605. Vreeland v. Ry. Co., 881. Vroom V. Ditmas, 364. Vrooman v. Shepherd, 700. Vrooman v. Tnrner, 332. Vyryan v. Aithar, 180, 190, 646. w. Wabash E. E. Oo. v. MoDongal, 827. Waddington v. Bristaw, 799. Wade V. Am. Col. Sec, 461, 884. Wade V. Comstook, 861. Wade V. Greenwood, 292. Wade V. Baldinler, 335, 336, 337. Wade V. HalUgan, 186, 187. Wade V. Howard, 321, 333, 337. Wade V. Johnson, 5, 5a. Wade V. Jones, 160. Wade V. Lindsey, 714, 795. Wade V. Paget, .'512. Walleigh v. Jauvrin, 5. Wade's Case, 299. Wadsworth v. Loranger, 307. Wadsworth v. Sherman, 791. Wadsworth v. Wendell, 808. Wadsworth v. Williams, 336, 337, 802. WadaworthvlUe School v. Meetz, 200. Water v. Mocato, 279. Waffle V. N. T. Cent. R. E., 615. Wagner v. Breed, 310. Wagner v. Chaney,616. Wagner v. McDonald, 875, 891, Wagner v. Van Nostrand, 851. Wagner SJ. White, 195. Wagoner v, Hastings, 696. Wagstatf «. Lawene, 517. Wagstaif v. Smith, 469, 494. Wahl's Estate, 273. Waid V, Amory, 564. Wainwright v. Law, 813. Walnwright v. McOullongh, 834, 836. Wainwright v. Sawyer, 505. Wait V. Belding, 37. Walt V. Gove, 697, 699. Wait V. Maxwell, 792, 850. Waiter v. Hutchinson, 604. Wake V. Halligan, 186. Walbrun v. Ballen, 699. Walcap V. McKinney, 322. Walcott V. Hamilton, 225. Walcott V. Sullivan, 340,817. Walden v. Bodley,213. Waldo D. Hall, 186. Waldo V. Elce. 326. Waldo V. Russell, 817a. Waldron v. Tuttle, 696. Waldron v. Zacharie, 292, 293. Wales V. Melen, 311, 323. Wales V. Miller, 311, 322. Walker v. Bank of Mobile, 332, 360. Walker v. Baxter, 321. Walker v. Carrington, 501. Walker v. Carroll, 292, 293. Walker v. Crawford, 700. Walker v. Demente, 330. y Walker v. Ellis, 214. Walker v. Pitts, 178, 201. Walker v. Forbush, 214. Walker v. Grand Rapids, etc., Co., 5o. Walker)). Hall. 8S8. Walker v. Hill's Exrs., 501. Walker v. Jarvis, 359, 361. Walker v. Jones, 875. Walker V. Johnson, 322. Walker v. Kelle,808. Walker v. King, 323, 337. Walker v. Locke, 607. Walker v. Paine, 310. Walker v. Physlok, 186. , Walker v. Pritchard, 398, 401, 546, 664. Walker v. Public Works, 835. Walker v. Quigg, 563. Walker v. Band, lis, 310, 812. Walker v. Kichardson, 198. Walker v. Schuyler, 135. Walker t). Sedgwick, 292. Walker v. Sharpe, 218. Walker v. Snediker, 336. Walker v. Vincent, 276. Walker v. Walker, 443, 813, 877, 8S4. Walker v. Whiting, 498. Walker v. Williams, 294, 295. Walker D. Wilson, 861. Walkerley's Estate, 161. Wall V. Goodenough, 199. Wall V. Hinds, 6, 77, 186, 192. Wall V. Maguire, 538. Wall V. McGuyer, 638. Wall V. Shindler, 698, 699, 714. Wall V. Trumbull, 761. Wall II. Wall, 875. Wallace v. Bowens, 500. Wallace v. Blair, 321. Wallace v. Brown, 760. Wallace v. Cherry, 71. Wallace v. Coston, 469. Wallace v. Crow, 826. Wallace v. Duffleld, 500, 501, 694. Wallace v. Fee, 837. Wallace v. Goodall, 329. Wallace v. Harmstad, 642, 643, 790. Wallace v. Johnstone, 305. Wallace v. Kennerlly, 198. Wallace v. Latham, 793. Wallace v. Lewis, 792, 793. Wallace v. Minor, 412. Wallace v. United Presb. Church, 5i 644, 715. Wallace v. Wainwright, 506, 60/ . Wallace v. Wilson, 509. Waller v. Tate, 318. Waller v. Van Phul, 746. Waller v. Waller, 877. Walley v. Small, 338. Walley's Estate, 160. Walling V. Aiken, 341. Wallis V. Rhea, 817a, 818. Walls«. Hinds, 77. Walls V. Preston, 201. Walmsley v. Jewett, 561. Walsh V. Barton, 862. Walsh V. Boyle, 813. Walsh V. Hill, 697. Walsh V. Mathews, 275. Walsh V. McBride, 600. Walsh V. Eies, 159. Walsh V. Rutgers Ins. Co., 325. Walsh V, Vanhorn, 369. Walsh V. Young, 90, 792. Waltermire v. Westover, 310. cxxvii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Walters v. Bredin, 272, 788, 827, 829, 814, 863. TValteraeyer v. Baughman, 897. Walters v. Jordan, 128. Walters v. People, 164. Walters v. Pfeil, 618, 619. Walters v. Walters, 117. Walthall's Exrs. v. Eives, 326, 363. Walton V. Amljler, 260. Walton V. Crowley, 182, 303, 305. Walton V. Fill, 228. Walton V. rollanshee, 111. Walton V. Hargrove, 292, 293. Walton V. Walton, 889. Walton V. Waterhonse, 189, 199. Walton V. Wittington, 325. Walworth v. Jeuness,201. Wamplcr V. Wampler, 877. Warbass v. Armstrong, 517. Warburton v. Sands, 511. Ward V. Armory, 434, 462, 604, 564. Ward V. Armstrong, 496, 500. Ward V. Bartholomew, 714, 715, 716, 795. Ward*. Bull, 194. Ward V. Carter, 326. Ward V. Cook, 234, 342. Ward ii. Crotty, 326, 840. Ward V. Bearing, 305, 306. Ward V. Drouhltt, 698. Ward V. Farmer. 251. Ward V. Fagan, 189. Ward V. Fuller, 122. Ward V. Hnlln, 161. Ward V. Lewis, 506, 513, 813, 815. Ward V. Lumley, 198. Ward V. Neal, 613. Ward V. Eapps, 653. Ward II. Ross, 81 3. Wardu. Sharp, 360. Ward V. Small's Adm., 814. Ward V. Ward, 544, 605. Ward's Exr. v. Hague, 817. Warden v. Adams, 329, 330. Warden v. Richards, 509. Ware r. Bradford, 757. Ware v. Johnson, 696. Warei). Polhill,575. Ware v. Richardson, 469, 494. Ware v. Ware, 81. Ware v, Washington, 116. Warfield v. English, 563. WarfieW «. Lindell, 700. Waring^. T.oder, 327. Waring v. 'vV'aring,515. Wark V. Willard, 730, 731. Warley r. Warley, 66. Warneford v. Thompson, 674. Warner v. Beach, 888. Warner v. Bennett, 272, 279. Warner v. Blakeman, 366. Warner v. Brooks, 310. Warner v. Bull, 795. Warner v. Cushman, 617. ^ Warner v. Hitchius, 189. Warner v. Howell, 570. Warner v. Lynch, 788, 808. Warner t>. Southworth, 838. Warner v. Steer, 500. Warner v. Van Alystyne, 124, 292. Warner v. Whlttaker, 818. Warner t>. Willard, 38. Warner's Appeal, 885. Wannock v. Wightman, 818. Warrall v. Meunn, 814. cxxviii Warren v. Blake, 598, 601, 602. Warren v. Coggswell, 829. Warren v. Fenn, 292, 293. Warren v. Fredericks, 714. Warren i\ Homestead, 329. Warren v. Jacksonville, 599. Warren v. Leland, 10. Warren v. Louis, 306. Warren v. Ijouls, 303, 305. Warren v. Lynch, 808. AVarren v. Meyer, 863. Warren v. Sweet, 813. Warren v. Syme, 605. Warren v. Twiley, 116. Warren v. Warren, 321, 376. Warriner v. Rogers, 506. Wartenby v. Moran, 644. Warwick v. Bruce, 799. Warwick v. Warwick, 876. Washabaugh v. Entricken, 727. Washband v. Washband, 802. Washburn v. Cutter, 694, 695, 699. Washburn i\ Giiman, 614. Washburn v. Goodwin, 31S. Washburn v. Hammond, 352. Washburn v. Merrills, 307. Washburn v. Sproat, 77. Washington Nat. Gas Co. v. Johnson, 182. Wass V. Bucknam, 106. Wasson v. Davis, 202, 293. Wasson v. Pettis, l&y Water v. Margerson, 666. Waterfall r. Peniston, 5a. Waterman v. Curtis, 355. Waterman v. Hawkins, 8S8. Waterman v. Johnson, 836. Waterman v. Mattlson, 351, 322. Waterman v. Smith, 74h. Waters v. Breden, 272, 273.- Waters r. Orabtree, 303. Waters v. Gooch, 142, 143. Waters v. Groom, 365. Waters r. Randall, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310. Waters v. Stewart, 318. W aters v. Tazewell, 469. Waters v. Young, 218. Waters* Appeal, 724. Watkins v. Dean, 875. Watkins v. Edwards, 817. Watkins v. Gregory, 304, 305. Watkins v. Holman, 39, 756. Watkins v. Hopkins, 663. Watkins v. Lynch, 697. Watkins v. Peck, 699, 617. Watkins v. Vrooman, 302, 362. Watkins v. Wassell, 817a. Watrousj'. Blair, 819. Watson V. Bartlett, 617. Watson V. Cressy, 777. Watson V, Dickens, 322. Watson V. Dundee Mortgage, etc., Co., 321,340. Watson 1'. Foxon, 404. Watson V. Hayes, 499. Watson V. Hunter, 81 . Watson V. Mancll, 697. Watson v. Mayrant, 498. Watson V. Mercer, 755. Watson i\ O'Hern, 178. Watson V. Peters, 833. Watson V. Pipes, 877. Watson V. Pugh, 216. AVatson i\ Spencer, 322. Watson II. Sutro, 202, 562, 700. TABLE or CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Watson V. Thompson, 501. Wat&on V. Watson, 108, 109, 139, 388. Watson V. Wells, 292, 818. Watson's Appeal, 494. Watt V. Alford, 3,59. Watt V. Ganahl, 699. Watt V. Watt, 573. Watt ». White, 294. Watterson v. Ury, 280. Watts V. Ball, 105, 514. Watts V, Bonner, 334. Watts V. Bnllas, 573. Watts V. Ooffln, 324. Watts V. Julian, 359, 361. Watts V. Owens, 697. Watts V. Parker, 850. Wauzer v. Barker, 808. Way V. Arnold, 730, 731, 795. Way V. Heed, 186, 191. Way V. AVay, 5a. Wayman v. Jones, 513. Wead V. Larkin, 860. Weale v. Lower, 397. Weare v. Linnell, 500. Weare v. Tan Meter, 252. Weart v. Crusor, 47, 62. Weatherbee v. Ellison, 842. Weatherby v. Smith, 355. Weatherhead v. Stoddard, 401. Weathersley v. Belcher, 324. Wealhersley v. Weathersley, 305. Weaver v. Belcher, 324. Weaver v. Gregg, 116. Weaver v. Emigrant, etc., Sav. Bank, 507. Weaver v. Leiman, 700. Web V. Paternoster, 651. Webb V. Fleming, 877. Webb V. Haleston, 332, 322, 368. Webb V. Maxam, 359. Webb V. Mullins, 790, 803, 810. Webb V. Paternoster, 651. Webb V. Portland Co., 614. Webb V. Eichard.son, 694, 714. Webb V. Hobbins, 603. Webb V. Eobinson, 292, 294, 295. Webb V. Shaftesbury, 561. Webb V. Thompson, 795. Webb V. Trustees Baptist Church, 104. Webb V. Webb, 801, 829. Webb's Estate, 506. Webber u. Eastern R. E , 842. Webber «. Shearman, 214. Weber v. Anderson, 695. Weber v. Harbor Commissioners, 834. Weber v. Weber, 494. Webster 1). Bodrtington, 644. Webster i'. Calef, 242, 265. Webster v. Calden, 319. Webster v. Chicago, 760. Webster v. Conley, 187. Webster v. Cooper, 277, 434,494. Webster v. Ellsworth, 107, 415. Websterii. Gilman, 882. Webster v. King, 501. Webster v. Potter, 2, 842. Webster v. Stevens, 619. Webster v. Vandeventer, 238, 359, 360, 509. Webster v. Webster, 69, 73, 76, 77. AVebster v. Welton, 533. Weddell v. Hapner, 616. Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, 501. Wedekind v. Hallenberg, 401, 433. Wedge V. Moore, 117, 122. 336. Weed Sewing Machine Co. ii. Emerson, 332, 336. Weed V. Beebe, 369. Weed V. Coville, 310. Weed V. Crocker, 179. Weeker v. Eaton, 329. Weeker v. Thomas, 325. Weekland o. Cunningham, 843. Weeks u. Cornwell, 883. Weeks v. Baton, 329, Weeks v. Martin, 696, 829. Weeks u, Ostrander, 321. Weeks v. Thomas, 325. Weems v. McCaughan, 859. Weers v. Kademacher, 500. Wegge V. Villiers, 686. \ W^eickelsbaum v. Carlett, 199. ' Weide v. Gehl, 303, 307. Weidekin v. Snelson, 615, Weidner v. Foster. 324. Weill). Uzzett, 361. Welnreich v. Weinreich, 773. Weinstein v. Harrison, 189, 194. Weir V. Field, 359, 362. Weir V. Fitzgerald, 897. Weir V. Mosher, 336. Weir V. Tate, 116, 129, 144. Weir's Will, 881. Weisbrod v. C. & N. w. R. R., 806, 837. Weiser v. Weiser, 265. Weishaupt v. Brehman, 885. Weisinger i). 'Cocke, 812. Weisinger v. Murphy, 251, 254. AVelborn v. Anderson, 696. Welborn v. Williams, 294,295. AVelborue v. Downing, 164. Welch V. Adams, 199, 324, 877. Welch V. Agar, 262. Welch V. Allen, 494, 504. Welch V, Anderson, 148. Welch V. Chandler, 103. Welch V. Foster, 776, 783. Welch V. Gould, 818. Welch V. Phillips, 329, 839. Welch V. Priest, 329. Welch V. Sackett, 814. Welch II. Welch, 92. Welch's Appeal, 262. Weld V. Bradbury, 533. Weld V. Traip, 853. Weldorn v. Rogers, 792. Welland Canal v. Hathaway, 724. Welles V. Castle, 194, 195, 496, 515. Wells V. Janvrin, 275. Wells V. Beall, 138. Wells V. Castles, 189, 194. 195, 515. Wells V. Chapman, 252, 259. Wells V. Company, 839. Wells V. Harter, 292, 293. , Wells !;. Heath, 504. Wells V. Jackson Mfg. Co., 695, 831. WellS);. Leeley, 398. Wells V. Lewis, 511. Wells V. Morrow, 294, 295, 816. Wells V. Preston, 201. Wells ■0. Prince, 695. Wells V. Robinson, 501. Wells «. Seely,663, 881. Wells V. Sheerer, 178, 199. Wells V. Thompson, 106. Wells w. Wells, 889. Welsh V. Beers, 375. Welsh V. Bucking, 126. Welsh D. Chandler, 103. cxxix TABLE OF CASES CITED. % References are to Sections. Welsh V. Phillips, 329. Welsh V. Priest, 329. Welsh V. Sackett, 812, 814. Welsh V. Solenberger, 109. Welsh!). Usher, 290. Welsh V. Woodbury, 401. Welton V. Divine, 500. Welton V. Fizzard, 817a. Wendell v. Crandall, 403. Wendell v. North, 860. Wentworth v. Philpot, 601. Werner J). Tuch, 335. Wertz's Appeal, 339. Wescott V. Delano, 2. Wesson v. Stevens, 814. West V. Barney, 561. Westt;. Barnly, 561. West V. Hayes, 355. West V. Hendrix, 305, 306. West V. Hughes, 746. West V. Lanier, 697. West V. Handle, 883. West V. Reynolds, 415. West I'. Skip, 498. West V. Stewart, 2, 702, 851, 856. West V. West, 262. West Branch Bank v. Chester, 858. Westbrook v. Gleason, 818. Westbury v. Lord, 501. Westcott V. Delano, 2, 10, 652. Westerly Sav. Bank v. StiUmanMfg. Co., 302. Western N. Y. etc., E. E. Co. v. Eichards, 725 Western E. E. v. Babcock, 813. Westervoelt v. People, 1. Westfall V. Preston, 760. Westminster v. Whyte, 302. Westmoreland v. Carson, 837. Westmoreland, etc., Nat. Gas Co. v. De Witt, 813. Weston V. Alden, 614. Weston V. Weston, 6. Weston V. Woodcock, 7. West Point Iron Co. v. Eeymert, 843. West River Bridge Co. v. Dlx, 636. West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 836. West Transp. Co. v. Landing, 190. West Transp. Co. v. Lansing, 173. W eatherell v. Ex parte, 289. Wetmore v. Fiske, 843. Weyand v. Tipton, 757. Whalen v. Cadman, 160. Wtialey v, Jacobson, 201. Whaley v. Whaley, 200. Whaliu V. White, 199, 361. Whaling Co. v. Borden, 246, 253 Whalley v. Tompson, 842. Wharf V. Howell, 310, 311. Wharton v. Wharton, 46. Whatley v. Small, 817, 8176. Whatman v. Gibson, 603. Wheatley v. Baker, 52. Wheatley v. Baugh, 615, 618. Wheatley v. Calhoun, 116, 124. Wheaton v. Dyer, 818. Wheaton v. Bast, 793, 850. Wheeler v. Brown, 843. Wheeler v. Dascombe, 191. Wheeler D. Durant, 875. Wheeler v. Early, 191. Wheeler v. Gage, 163. Wheeler v. Gilsey, 597, 603. Wheeler v. Hatch, 850, 851. exxx Wheeler v. Klrtland, 817a. Wheeler v. Kirkendall, 71. Wheeler v. Love, 293. Wheeler v. Monteflore, 174, 194. Wheeler v. Moody, 714. V Wheeler v. Reynolds, 501. Wheeler v. Smith, 129, 506, 507, 741, 884. Wheeler v. Sohier, 860. Wheeler v. Spinola, 834, 714, 833, 836. Wheeler v. Thayer, 851. Wheeler v. Walker, 272, 273, 277. 281. Wheeler v. Wayne Co., 855, 856. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 888. Wheeler & Wilson, etc., Co. v. Howard, 358. Wheelock v. Warschaner, 199. Wheelockv. Freeman, 360. Wheelwright v. Freeman, 361. Whelom v. Eeilly, 366. Whelpdale's Case, 797. Whetstone v. Bury, 464. Whetstone v. McCartney, 186. Whetstone v. Wilson, 893. Whltsel V. Robert, 292. Whilden v. Whllden, 148. Whilton V. WhUton, 238, 239, 260, 261, 829a. Whlpley V. Dewey, 7. Whipple V. Foot, 10, 757, 799. Whipple V. Whipple, 700. Whitatem. Brown, 843. Whitaker v. Sumner, 757. Whitaker v. Williams, 726. Whitback v. Cook, 851, 853. Whitebread v. Jordan, 289. Whitebread, Ex parte, 288. Whitby V. Duffy, 844. Whitcomb v. Cardell, 606. Whitcomb's Estate, 506. Whitcomb v. Simpson, 333. White V. Albertson, 513. Whiten. Bailey, 815. White V. Brocaw, 728, 855, 858. Whltei). Barlow, 842. Whiten. Brown, 327. White V. Burnley, 646. Whiten. Carpenter, 600,817a. White V. Casenare's Heirs, 292. White V. Connelly, 810. While V. Crawford, 600, 605. White V, Denman, 339, 816a, 817a White v. Downs, 292, 294. White V. Dresser, 618. White V, Drew, 505. White V. Dougherty, 294. White V. Elwell, 652. White V. Fitzgerald, 506. White V. Flannlgan , 837. White V. Foster, 799, 8176, 743. White V. Foster, 799. White V. Fuller, 795. Whiten. Godfrev, 837. White n. Graves", 115, 127, 810. Whiten. Hale, 882. White V. Hampton, 321, 508, 610. White V. Hicks, 569, 883. White n. Hopeman, 699. White n. Hopkins, 875. White n. Howard, 882. White n. Hulme, 93, 94. Whiten. Hunt, 183. White n. Livingston, 178, 216 White n. Molyneaux, 194. White n. Moses, 756. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. "White V. Moore, 672. White V. Patten, 727, 730, 731, 817, 857. White V. Palmer, 791. White V. Polleys, 376. White V. Elttenmeyer, 318, 319,329, 331. White V. Rukes, 798. White V. Sayre, 238, 239, 242, 829o. White V. Sheldon, 616, 617. Whiter. Stan Held, 546. White V. Story, 135. White V. Sutherland, 332. White V. Turber, 187. White V, Wagner, 78. White V. Watts, 359. White V. Weeks, 801. White V. White, 148, 827. White V. Whitney, 318, 331, 860, 860. White V. Williams, 292, 293, 294, 839, 860. White V. Woodbarr, 37, 39. White Bank v. Nichols, 603, 605. White's Trustees v. White, 401. White's Will, 881. Whitehead v. ClifEord, 198. Whitehead v. Foley, 696. Whiteheads. Hellen, 365. Whitehead v. Mlddleton, 117. Whitehead v. Wooten, 324. Whlteley v. Davis Lessee, 808. White Eiyer Turnpike Co. v. Vt. Cent. E. E., 636. Whitesides v. Cannon, 93, 489. Whltesides v. Jackson, 700. Whitesides v. Whitesides, 883. Whltenack v. Stryker, 877. Whitmire v. Wright, 116. White Water Canal v. Comegys, 81. Whiting V. Beebe, 336. Whiting V. Dewey, 829, 861. Whiting V. Gould, 600, 601. Whiting V. Stevens, 794. Whiting V. Whiting, 532, 700. Whitman v. Buckman, 310. Whitmavsh v. Cutting, 71. Whltmarsh v. Walker, 670, 653, 799. Whitmore v. Learned, 500, 610, Whitney v. Allen, 361. Whitney v. Allaire, 174, 175, 179. Whitney v. Batchelder, 307. Whitney v. Buckman, 311, 312. Whitney v. Dewey, 7, 841. Whitney v. Dinsmore, 862, 863. Whitney v. Dutch, 792. Whitney v. French, 301, 303. Whitney v. Kindall, 362. Whitney v. Marshall, 760. Whitney v. McKmney, 332, 360. Whitney v. Meyers, 198. Whitney v. Olney, 2, 842. Whoonu. Cain, 700. Wickersham v. Chicago, etc., Co., 818. Wickersham v. Hawker, 661. Wickersham v. Orr, 653. Wickerson v. Buck, 870. Wickman v. Eobinson, 294, 296. Widows' Dower, Appeal of Black, 262. Wler's Appeal, 618. Wlenbrenner v. Weisinger, 163. Wiggin V. Heyward, 318. Wiggins V. HoUey, 694, 699. Wiggv. Davis, 352, Wiggins V. Perkins, 883. Wikoff's Appeal, 877, 890«. Wihoit u. Tubbs, 715. "Wilbraham v. Snow, 242, 254. Wllberi). Almy, 513, Wilber v. Larken, 805. Wilbur V. Wilbur, 881. Wilcox V. Bates, 802. Wilcox V. Hill, 818. Wilcox V. Jackson, 744. Whitney v. Parker, 264. Whitney v. Perry, 228. Whitney v. Paynor, 325. Whitney v. Slater, 401. Whitney v. Traynor, 332. Whitney v. Wheeler Cotton Mills, 606, 614, 617. Whity V. Mnmford, 810. Whlttaker v. Hanley, 194. Whittaker v. Miller, 813. Whlttemore v. Eussell, 646. Whittier v. Cochers Mfg. Co., 605. Whlttler V. Dow, 361. Whittier v. Winklev, 609. Whlttington v. Wright, 693, 695, 698, 817. Whittington et al. v. Clark, 808. Whittlesey v. Fuller, 244, 251. Whittlesey v. Hughes, 368. Whltwell V. Warner, 601. Whitworth V. Gangain, 289, 290. Wholeyw. Cavanaugh, 781. Wilcox V. Wheeler, 37. Wilcox Appeal, 883. WUcoxon V. McGee, 842. Wilcoxon V. Miller, 817a, 818. Wilcoxsen v. Sprague, 803. Wild V. Traip, 175. Wild V. Deig, 763. Wilde V. Armsby, 790. Wild's Lessees v. Sperell, 199, 200. Wilder V. Butterfleld, 817a. Wilder V. Davenport, 830, 862. Wilder V. Ewing, 334. Wilder V. Houghton, 323, 324, 338. Wilder ti. Haughley, 368. Wilder v. Ireland, 851. Wilder v. Thayer, 888. Wilder J). St, Paul, 606. Wilder V. Wheeler, 37. Wilder v. Whlttemore, 311. Wildey v. Barney's Lessees, 260. Wiley V. Moor, 789, Wiley V. fierson, 360. Wiley V. Warmock, 696. Wiiford V. McKlnna, 829a. Wilhelm v. Fimple, 861. Wilhelmi v. Leonard, 321. Wilkes V. Back, 805. Wilkes V. Holme, 573. Wilkes V. Lion, 396, 398, 638. Wilkerson v. Clark, 37, 433. Wilkersonv. Thompson, 700. Wilkesbarre t!. Wyoming, etc., Soo.,272. Wilkins v. French, 318, 319, 320, 324. Wllkins V. May, 816. Wilkins v. Wells, 309. Wilkins v. Wilkins, 359. Wilkinson v. Flowers, 326. Wilkinson v. Getty, 574, 805, 806. Wilkinson v. Leland, 745, 882, 751. Wilkinson v. Malln, 513. Wilkinson v. Parry, 510. Wilkinson v. Parish, 116. Wilkinson v. Scott, 443, 801. Wilkinson v. Sherman, 411. Wlllavd V. Eastham, 794. Willard, Ex parte, 334. Willard v, Finnegan, 334, 361, 364. cxxxi TABLE OF CASES CITED Eeferences are to Sections. Willard v. Harvey, 333. "Willard v. Henry, 277. Wlllard V. Kramer, 813. Willard v. Eeas, 292, Willard v. Twitchel), 850. Willard •;;. Willard, 262. Willard v Woods, 332. Willettr. Beatty, 120. Willett V. Blanford, 501. Willett V. Burger, 308. Willett V. Johnson, 330. Willett V. Sanford, 463. Willettjj. Winnell, 299, 308, 309. Willett Adrar. v. Entters Admr., 401. Williams v. Adams, 818. Williams v. Angell, 276, 279, 423, 424, 483. Williams' Appeal, 494. 613, 515, 644. Williams V. Baker, 731, 795, 810. Williams v. Beard, 818. Williams v. Beeman, 861. Williams v. Bolten, 81, 82, 400. Williams v. Bosanquet, 182. Williams v. Browulee, 321. Williams v. Bryant, 798. Williams v. Burnett, 876. Williams v. Burrell, 190. Williams «. Cash, 700. Williams v. Caston,65. Williams v. Christian, 294. Williams v. Ooade, 499. Williams v. Cowden, 275. Williams v. Cratcher, 789. Williams v. Datin, 278. Williams v. Davie, 302. Williams v. Deriar, 214, 217. Williams v. Dwinelle, 513. \ Williams v. First Pres. Sec, 700. Williams v. Flood, 652. Williams v. Garrison, 199. Williams v. Hilton, 310, 355, 360. Williams v. Holmes, 469, 494. Williams v. Hollingsworth, 600, 520. Williams v. Ins Co., 327. Williams v. James, 608. Williams v, Kershaw, 499. Williams v. Lewis, 538. Williams v. Logan, 818. Williams w, Mabee, 793. Williams 1). McKinney, 883. Williams v. Movascy, 330. Williams v. Moreliirid, 614. Williams v. Netf, 885. Williams v. Nelson, 605. Williams v. Nolen, 201. Williams v. Norris, 792. Williams v. Owen, 305, 306. Williams v. Pearson, 884. Williams v. Peyton, 760. Williams v. Roberts, 292, 294. Williams v. Kobinson, 324. Williams v, Robsin, 127. Williams v. Silliman, 310. Williams v. Sorrell, 329. Williams v. Saunders, 873. Williams v. Starr, 335, 808. Williams v. Stratton, 290. Williams v, Sullivan, 813. Williams V. Sweetlanrt, 183, 164. Williams v. Tatnall, 339. Williams v. Thurlow, 333. Williams v. Townsend, 368, 388. Williams v. Turner, 501, 542. Williams v. Vreeland, 501. Williams v. Wallace, 714. cxxxii Williams u. Wescott, 116. Williams v. Wetherbee, 856, 856. Williams v. Williams, 116, 131, 401, 500. Williams v. Woods, 120, 292. Williams v. Worthingtoo. 506. Williams v. Young, 292, 294, 295a, 296, 80i Williams' Appeal, 644. Williams' Oases, 368. Williams' Exr. t>. William, 881. Williamson v. Beekham, 93. Williamson v. Buckham, 469. Williamson v. Carlton, 779. Williamson v. Champlin, 362. Williamson v Daniels, 532, 542. Williamson v. Dickerson, 361. Williamson v. Field, 359, 377, 401. Williamson v. New Albany R. E., 324 Williamson v. Stone, 364. Williamson v. Test, 868. Williamson v. Wilkins, 514. Williamson v. Williamson, 433. Williamston, etc., E. R. v. Battle, 653. Willington v. Gale, 318. Willink V. Morris Canal, 312. Willion V. Berkley, 398. Willis V. Farley, 330. Willis V. Hiscox, 275. Willis V. Jenkins, 883. Willis V. Mike, 163. Willis V. Vallette, 329. Willisi). Watson, 663. Willis D.Willis, 500. Willison V. Watkins, 1S>9, 200, 251, 254. Willot V. Sanford, 746. Willoughby v. Horridge, 635. Willouffhby v. Motley, 674. Wills' Appeal, 191. Wills V. Wills, 401. Wllmartb v. Bancroft, 351. Wilms V. Jess, 618. Wilsey V. Dennis, 812. Wilson M.Albert, 326, 781, 803. Wilsons. Beddard,876. Wilson V. Bell, 760. Wilson V. City of Bedford, 615. Wilson V. Cochran, 850. Wilson V. Daniels, 164. Wilson ». Davlsson, 29oa, 296. Wilson V. Delaplaine, 192. Wilson V. Drumrite, 302, 303. Wilson V. Edmonds, 77. Wilson V. Fleming, 244, 251. Wilson V. Forbes, 835, 850, 861. Wilson V, Fosket, 888. Wilson V. Gadlent, 326. Wilson V. Gains, 564. Wilson V. Graham, '294. Wilson t'. Hayward, 330, 360 Wilson M, Henry, 697. Wilson V. Hill, 327, 741. Wilson V. Hooper, 322. Wilson V. Hunter, 842. Wilson V. Kelly, 672. Wilson V. King, 332. .Wilson ». Lyon, 292, 293. Wilson V. McLenaghan, 131. Wilson V. Malthy, 351. Wilson V. Martin, 178. Wilson V. McEwan, 695. Wilson V. Nance, 795. Wilson V. Odoll, 885. Wilson V. Patrick, 305, 306. Wilson V. Piggott, 573. Wilson V. Piper, 647. TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Wilson V. Eodeman, 218. Wilson V. Bussell, 310, 342. Wilson V. Schoenlamb, 336. Wilson V. Shoenberger, 303, 304, 817a. Wilson V. Smith, 196, 196a, 199, 731, 817. Wilson V. Towle, 508. Wilson V. Traer, 810. Wilson V. Tread well, 189. , Wilson V. Troup, 329, 830, 363, 560, 561, 666, 805. Wilson V. Watkins, 199. Wilson V. Weathersby,199. Wilson i». Welch, 835. Wilson V. White, 537, 798. Wilson V. Widenham, 850, 862. Wilson V. Williams, 696, 697, 698. Wilson V. Wilson, 312, 542, 563, 663. Wilt V. Franklin, 443. Wilthaus V. Schack, 143. Wilton V. Mayberry. 343. Wilton V. Sidford, 620. Wiltshire v. Sidford, 620. Wlmberly v. Collier, 860. Wimple V. Fonda, 398. Winans v. Peebles, 801. Winant v. Hines, 198. Winborne v. Downing, 37, 849a. Winchelsea iJ. Wentworth, 484. Winder v. Little, 143. Windham v. Portland, 116. Windsors. Simpklns, 262. Winfleld V. Henning, 603, 862. Wing V. Cooper, 296, 298, 305, 308, 363. Wing V. Goodman, 292, 294. Wlng». Gray, 6. Wingi). Hall, 697. Vfingv. McDowell, 341. Wingerton v. Wingerton, 501. Winkfleld v. Brinkman, 501. Winkleman v. Winkleman, 163. Winn V. Abeles, 699. Winn V. Oalot, 829. Winn V. Littleton, 320. Winnepesaukee, etc.. Ass. v. Gordon, 603. Winningham v. Pennock, 852. Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young, 599. Winona, etc., E. K. v. St. Paul, etc., E. E., 501. Winship v. Pitts, 77. Winslow V. Ohlflelle, 246, 253. Winslow V. Clark, 352, 359. Winslow V. Kimball, 878. Winslow V. King, 837. Winslow V. Newell, 714. Winslow V. Winslow, 714. W instead Savings Bank v. Spencer, 809. Winston v. Bnrrell, 307. Winston v. Johnson, 843. Winter v. Anson, 294. Winter v. Brockwell, 605, 653. Winter v. Haines, 700. Winter v. Peterson, 837. Winterbottom v. Ingham, 216. Winters v. De Turk, 115. Winton's Appeal, 190. Wlscott's Case, 50, 398, 421, S38. Wisdom V. Newberry, 189. Wise V. Griffith, 359. Wise V. Metcalfe, 77. Wiseman v. Luckinger, 651. Wisner v. Farnhara, 359. Wissleru. Hershey, 609. Wlswall V. Ross, 809. Wiswell V. Baxter, 362. Wltczieski v. Everman, 342. Witham V. Perkins, 108. Witherby v. Ellison, 2. Withers v. Balrd, 810. Withers v. Jenkins, 101, 105, 162. Withers t". Larrabee, 214. Withers v. Sims, 401. Withers v. Withers, 600. Withers v. Yeadon, 498. Witherspoon v. Dunlap, 259, 261, Withington v. Warren, 811. Withingtou's Appeal, 562. Wlthinton v. Withinton, 877. Withnell v. Petzold, 214. Withy V. Munford, 860, 860. Witle V. Qulnn, 277. Wltman v. Lex, 884. Witt V. Harlan, 810, 827. Witt V. Mayor of New York, 217 Witte V. Quenn, 218. Wittemore v. Eussell, 664. Witter V. Harvey, 837. Wlttington v. Clarke, 808. Wltz V. Beard, 161. Wivel's Case, 731. Woerz V. Eademacher, 562. Woflord V. McKinna, 242, 696, 760, 827, 829a. Wolcotti). Winchester, 330. Wolcott V. Sullivan, 329, 352. Wolootti). Eaming, 361. Wolcott V. Johnson, 199. Wolf i>. Banning, 361. • , Wolf V. Frost, 697, 698, 603, 605, 651.^ Wolf V. Johnson, 199. Wolf V. McMillan, 305. Wolfe V. Van Nosfrand, 638. Wolford V. Herrington, 501. Wolf ord V. Farnham, 607. Wollaston v. Hakewell, 182. Wolerton v. Collins, 813. Womack v. "Womack, 659. Wornble v. Battle, 292. Wood V. Appal, 338, 834. Wood V. Augustine, 310. Wood V. Beach, 801. Wood i). Boyd, 843. Wood V. Burnham, 495. Wood V. Camden, etc., Trust Oo,, 606, Woodv. Chambers, 802. Wood V. Chapin.SlO, 817a. Wood V. Cochrane, 810. Wood V. Vox, 499, 607. Wood V. Farmere, 817. Wood V. Felton, 357. Wood V. Ferguson, 746. Wood V. Fleet, 260, 264. Wood V. Goodridge, 805, 807. Wood V. Griffin, 544. Wood V. Hildebrand, 790. Wood V. Holland, 361. Wood V. Hubbell, 174, 175. Wood V. Kellogg, 836. Wood V. Kelly, 836. Wood V. Eice, 52. Wood V. Leadbitter, 652, 654. Wood V. Little, 264. Wood V. Lord, 163, 164. Wood V. Mann, 758. Wood V. Mason, 401. Wood V. Moorhouse, 359. Wood V. Oakley, 359. Wood V. Perry, 501. Wood V. Reeves, 312,338. cxxxiii TABLE OF CASES CITED. References are to Sections. Wood V. Eobertson, 37. Wood V. sullens, 293. Wood V. Trask, 299, 322, 330. Wood II. Walbridge, 198. Wood V. Wood, 635, 890. Woodbridge v. Wilkins, 136. Woodbury v. Fisher, 812. Woodbury v, Luddy, 163, 164. Woodbury v. Parshley, 653. Woodbury v. Sbort, 686, 687. Woodbury v. Woodbury, 216. Woodcock V. Bennett, 858. Woodman v. Ooolbroth, 813. Woodman v. Good, 513. Woodman v. Pease, 5, 5a. Woodman v. Smitb, 842. Woodron v. Michael, 218. Woodruff V. Eobb, 368. Woods ». Dill, 700. Woods' Appeal, 338, 883. Woods V. Bailey, 292. Woods V. Banks, 696. Woods V. Freeman, 761. Woods V. Hilderbrand, 318, 326, 790 Woods V. North, 730, 850. Woods V. Wallace, 1, 306, 307. Woodson V. Wallace, 306. Woodward v. Blanchard, 694. Woodward v. Brown, 213. Woodward v. Conder, 201. Woodward v. Gates, 74, 81. Woodward v. James, 883. Woodward v. McEeynolds, 700. Woodward v. Seaver, 794. Woodward v. Seeley, 663. Woodward v. Sibert, 600. Woodward v. Wood, 362, 360. Woodward v. Woodward, 292, 293. Woodworth v. Guzman, 302, 303, 339, 818. Woodworth v. Paige, 127. Woodworth v. Root, 700. Wool V. Walbridge, 198. Woolcutu. Serdell, 164. Wooldridge v. Wilkins, 116, 124, 136. Woolery v. Woolery, 889. Wooley V. Schrader, 255. Wooley V. Paxton, 883. Woolfolk V. GranitevlUe Mfg. Co., 810, 816a. Wooliscrolt V. Norton, 190, 662. Woollsey v. Morss, 700. Woolsey v. Bohn, 343. IVoolsey v. Donnelly, 218. Woolston V. Woolston, 671. Wooster v. Hunt's Lyman Iron Co., 115. Worcester v. Lord, 699. Worcester v. Eaton, 792, 796, 812. Worcester v. Georgia, 682, 744. Worcester v. Worcester, 402, 411, 412. Word V. Trask, 322. Work V. Harper, 816a. Workman v. Greening, 307. Workman v. Guthrie, 694. Workman J). Mifflin, 196. Worman v. Teagarden, 883. Worrell v. Munn, 812, 816. Worrill v. Wright, 542. Worth V. Hill, 371. Worth V. McAdem, 513. Worthington v. Grimson, 697. Worthington v. Hewes, 862. Worthington v. Hylyer, 827. Worthington v. Lee, 369, 360. Worthington v. Young, 702. cxxxiv Worthy v. Johnson, 756. Wragg V. Comptroller-General, 392. Wray v. Steele, 500. Wren v. Parker, 697, 714. Wrenn v. Gibson, 264. Wright V. Barlow, 667. Wright V. Barrett, 875. Wright V. Bates, 307, 308, 309, 310. Wright V. Brandis, 802. Wright V. Brown, 93. Wright V. Bundy, 369. Wright V. Burrows, 277. Wright V. Cartwrlght, 435, 486. Wright V. Dame, 292. Wright V. De Graff, 130. Wright V. Douglass, 606, 507, 817o. Wright V. Dufleld, 294. Wright ii. Dunham, 760. Wright V. Eayes, 326, 330. Wright, Ex parte, 289. Wright V. Freeman, 613. Wright V. German, 793. Wright V. Harrison, 618. Wright V. Henderson, 322. Wrights. Herron, 104. Wright ». Hicks, 663. Wright V. Holbrook, 374. Wright V. Holford, 404. Wright V. Howard, 599. Wright V. Howell, 802. Wright V . Jennings, 66, 14fi. Wright «. Jones, 260. Wright V. Eeithler, 694. Wright V. Langley, 359. Wright V. Lattin, 196. Wright V. Lewis, 877. Wright u. Parker, 330. Wright V. Pearson, 495. Wright V. Eoberts, 216. Wrighte. Eo6e,8, 318. Wright V. Sadler, 696, 242, 245. Wright V. Shaw, 727, 728, 730, 731. Wright V. Shelby E. E., 815. Wright V. Sperry, 326. Wright V. Stephens, 413. Wright V. Stranb, 162. Wright V. Stewart, .S39, 305. Wright V. Swan, 746. Wright V. Tallmadge, 560, 566, 568. Wright V. Tichenor, 696. Wright V. Wakeford. 567. Wright V. Williams, 616, 617. Wright V. Wright, 127, 607, 530, 560, 562, 667,730,830,840,887.' Wyatt V. Barwell, 8176. Wyatt V. Elam, 818. Wyatt V. Harrison, 618. Wyatt V. Stewart, 303, 309, 817a, 818. Wyeth V. Stone, 883. Wyble V. McPheters, 606. Wylle V. McMakin, 359. Wyley v. Collins, 469. Wyman ». Babcock,326. Wyman v. Ballard, 861. Wyman v. Briglew, 39. Wyman v. Brown, 310, 463, 483, 695, 777, 779. Wyman v. Symmes, 878. Wyndham v. AVay, 70. Wynkoop v. Burger, 605. Wynkoop v. Cowing, 307, 308, 309, 310. Wynn v. Harman, 728. Wythe V. Thurlston, 568. Wyly V. Collins, 469. Wynel's Cases, 730. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Keferences are to Sections. X. XenoB V. Wickham. 812. Tale V. Dederer, 4,469, 794. Yale V. Flanders, 808. Yauoey v. Mauok, 292. Yancey v. Radford, 728. Yancy v. Smith, 148. Y'andes v. Wright, 618. Yanger v. Skinner, 792. Yarborough v. Monday, 808. Yarborough v. Newell, 302, 326. Yarborough v. Wood, 292. Yarnal'B Appeal, 434. Yarnold v. Moorehouse, 183. Yates v. Ashton, 310. Yates V. Compton. 563, 566. Yutes V. Kinney, 201. Yates V. McKibben, 161. Yates V. Milwaukee, 831, 834. Yates V. Mullen, 2. Yates V. Shaw, 832. Yayan v. Shriner, 292. Yeaton v. Gill, 885. Yeaton v. Eoberts, 396, 401, 402, 633, 6i Yelland v. Fioh's, 561. Yelverton v. Steele, 695, 698,699, 714. Yerby v. Yerby, 888. Yetzer v. Thoman, 699. Yocum V. Lovell, 163. York V. Jones, 192, 238. York V. Stone, 238, 253, 260. Youle V. Richards, 308. Young V. Adams, 239, 240. Young V. Boardman, 148, 149. Young V. Oollett, 196. Young V. DeBrnhl, 240, 241. Young V. Devries, 817a. Young V. Gray, 191, 278. Young V. Harris, 292. Young V, Heffner, 700. Young V. Hughes, 501. Young V. Miller, 329, 330, 332. Young V. Omohundro, 350. Young V. Eingo, 801, 803, 816a. Young V. Robinson, 885. Young V. Smith, 227. Young J). Spencer, 77. Young V. Tarbell, 117, 124, 137, 139. Young V. Thompson, 761. Young V. Williams, 334, 370. Young V. Wood, 293, 294. Young V. Young, 117, 341, 506, 509. Youngblood v. vastine, 817. Younge v. Guilbeau, 812, 814, 816a. Younge v. Moore, 812. Youngman v. Elmira, ete., E. E., 368. Young V. Wilson, 817&. Young's Petition, 843. Younkeu v. Nichols, 601. z. Zabriskle v. Bandlstel, 335. Zabriskie's Exrs. v. Wetmore, 513. Zapp V. Strohmeyer, 160. Zaverw. Lyons, 606, 307. Zeback v. Smith, 611, 663. Zeigler v. Grim, 262. Zeisweiss v. James, 882, 884. Zell V. Eeame, 228. Zeller ji. Eckhart, 200, 826. Zeller's Lessee v. Eckhart, 206, 700. Zentmeyer v. Mittower, 292. Zimmer v. Semott, 606. Zimmerman v. Anders, 882. Zinc Co. V. Franklinlte Co., 10. Zink V. Bohn, 177. Zouoh V. Parsons, 792, 794. Zwerneau v. Von Eosenbnrg, 159. cxxxv THE LAW or EEAL PEOPERTT. PART I. CHAPTBE I. EEAL PEOPEETT. Section 1. What Is real property. 2. What is land. 3. Fixtures. 4. Between what parties the question may arise. 5. Constructive annexation. 6. Question of fixtures between landlord and tenant. 7. Time of removal. 8. Emblements. 9. Trees. 10. Double ownership in land. 11. Lands, tenements, and hereditaments. § 1. What is real property. — In the English common law, property is divided into two classes, real and personal. Eeal property is such as has the characteristic of immobility or permanency of location, aa lands and rights issuing out of land. Personal property is every species of property which does not have the above mentioned characteristic. The former class constitutes the subject of these pages. 1 § 2 REAL PROPERTY. [PAET I, The term "real estate," when used in its strict technical sense, includes all estates for life or for a greater period, but does not include leasehold and other inferior estates.^ § 2. What Is land. — All real property or things real, are said to be comprehended under the terms, lands, tenements, and hereditaments. Land is the soil or the earth, and includes everything erected upou its surface, or which is buried beneath it. It extends in theory indefinitely upward, usque ad cmlum, and downward, usque ad orcum. Under the term land, therefore, are included the buildings, made so under the doctrine of accession, and the trees and other things growing upon the land, under the doctrine of acqui- sition by production, as well as the minerals which may be embedded in the earth. ^ If water runs over the land, the ownership of the land gives a right to the use of the water, but does not create therein a permanent right of property. The property consists in the use.^ A grant of lands, there- fore, without any qualification, conveys not only the soil but everything else which is attached to it, or which consti- tutes a part of it, the buildings, mines, trees, growing crops, etc. Even trees which have been cut, and are lying upon the land, have been said to pass with the land.* On the other hand, it has been held that a grant of i Westervelt v. People, 20 Wend. 416. 2 2 Bla. Com. 17-19; Co. Lit. 4g; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 3, 4; Will- iams on Real Prop. 14. = See post, sect. 614. But whether ice, formed upon a stream or pond, belongs to the owner of the soil, is a doubtful question. If it is an arti- ficial stream, it seems settled that the owner of the bed has a right of property in the ice. Mill River Co. v. Smith, 34 Conn. 462; Paine ». Woods, 108 Mass. 173. And the same position has been sustained in Indiana in respect to a natural stream. State v. Pottmyer, 33 Ind. 402. In Massachusetts, ice formed on a natural stream seems to be common property to all who have the right to go upon the stream. Paine v. Wood, supra; Inhab. of W. Eoxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen, 158. ^Brackett?;. Goddard, 54 Me. 313; Isham v. Morgan, 9 Conn. 374; Hilton u. Oilman, 17 Me. 263; Bakeru. Jordan, 3 Ohio, 438; BacKentoss 2 CH. I.j REAL PROPERTY. § 2 a mill included the contiguous land which had been used with the mill, and which was necessary to such use ; and the grant of a house passed the land upon which it is built. ^ But the land must be both contiguous and necessary to the enjoyment of the building which has been specifically con- veyed, in order that it too might pass under the grant. Thus the grant of a hotel " and the land adjoining it," was held n(it to include an island in the rear of the hotel, but which was separated from it by a river large enough for a mill stream.^ Manure made upon a farm is generally considered in this country to be a part of the realty and to pass with the grant of the land.^ So, also, has the rolling stock of a railroad been considered a part of the realty, and to pass with a conveyance of the road without any special descrip- tion of the same.* But the general subject of appurtenants is more fully discussed elsewhere,'' and for that reason it V. stabler, 33 Pa. St. 251 ; Toot v. Colwin, 3 Johns. 222 ; Austin v. Saw- yer, 9 Cow. 39; Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; Canfleld v. Ford, 28 Barb. 336; Gloninger t;. Franklin Coal Co., 55 Pa. St. 9; Mcllvaine v. Harris, 20 Mo. 457; Chapman «. Long, 10 Ind. 465; Todd v. Stokes, 10 Pa. St. 155; Cockrill v. Downey, 4 Kan. 426; Cooku. Whiting, 16 111. 481; Gib- bons V. Dillingham, 10 Ark. 9; Wescott v. Delano, 20 Wis. 514; Conklin V. Parsons, 1 Chand. 240. 1 Gear v. Burnham, 37 Conn. 229; Esty v. Currier, 98 Mass. 501 ; Wil- son V. Hunter, 14 Wis. 683; Allen v. Scott, 21 Pick. 225; Webster v. Potter, 105 Mass. 414; Mixer v. Eeed, 25 Vt. 81; Whitney v. Olney, 3 Mason, 282; Davis v. Handy, 37 N. H. 65; Eoe v. Strong, 119 N. Y. 316 (23 N. E. 743) ; Marmouth v. Plimpton, 77 Me. 656. 2 Miller v. Mann, 55 Vt. 476. 3 Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill, 142; Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 625; Perry v. Carr, 44 N. H. 122 ; Fay v. Muzzy, 13 Gray, 53 ; Middlebrook v. Corum, 15 Wend. 169 ; Witherby v. Ellison, 19 Vt. 379 ; Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558; Daniels v. Pond, 31 Pick. 367. * Minnesota v. St. Paul R. R., 2 Wall. 644; Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 493 ; Palmer v. Forbes, 23 111. 300 ; State v. Northern E. R. Co., 18 Md. 193. But the better opinion is that the rolling stock of a railroad is personalty. Randall v. Blwell, 52 N. Y. 52 ; s. c. 11 Am. Rep. 747; Hoyle v. Plattsburg, etc., E. R., 54 N. Y. 314; s. c. 13 Am. R. Rep. 595; Speiden v. Parker, 46 N. J. Eq. 292. " See post, § 842. 3 § 2 EEAL PEOPERTr; [PART I. will not be necessary to state here in detail what is included in the grant as appurtenant. The general rule of law is that a permanent annexa- tion to the soil of a thing, in itself personal, makes it a part of the realty. And the rule applies, in some cases, even where the thing annexed is the personal property of another. Thus, if a stranger erects a build- ing upon the land of another, having no estate therein, the building becomes the property of the owner of the soil. And this happens at common law, notwithstanding the strano-er acts under a mistaken claim of title. ^ But if such erection is in pursuance of a license granted by the owner of the soil, then the annexation will not make the building or other structure a part of the realty. A conveyance of the land will not transfer the structure with it, but will operate as a revocation of the license, and compel the owner, within, a reasonable time after such revocation, to remove the structure or lose his right of property therein.^ But where the person erecting the structure is the owner of the soil, or has an interest in the land, then it is more diffi- cult to determine from the various circumstances under which the question may arise, when the annexation is suffi- 1 Osgood V. Howard, 6 Greenl. 452; Aldrich •». Parsons, 6 N. Y. 555; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429; Ogden o. Stock, 34 111. 622; Rogers v. Woodbury, 15 Pick. 156; Mott v. Palmer, 1 Comst. 571; Westu. Stewart, 7 Pa. St. 122; Webster v. Potter, 105 Mass. 416. See post, sect. 702, as to erections under a mistake of title. 2 Tapley v. Smith, 18 Me. 12; Eussell v. Richards, 10 Me. 429; Keyser V. School District, 35 N. H. 480; Coleman v. Lewis, 27 Pa. St. 291; Reid V. Kirk, 12 Rich. 64; Yates v. Mullen, 24 Ind. 278; Mott v. Palmer, 1 Comst. 571 ; Hinckley ». Baxter, 13 Allen, 139 ; Antonl v. Belknap, 102 Mass. 200; Kutter v. Smith, 2 Wall. 491; O'Brien v. Kustener, 27 Mich. 292; Ham v. Kendall, 111 Mass. 298; Goodman v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R., 45 Mo. 33; Harrisburg Electric Light Co. ■». Goodman, 129 Pa. St. 206; Curtis v. Leasia (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 500; Keating Imple- ment Co. &, Machine Co. v. Power Co., 74 Tex. 605; Handforth v. Jack- son, 150 Mass. 149; Pope u. Skinkle,45N. J. L. 39; Rowland o. Anderson, 33 Kan. 264; Ingalls v. St. Paul, etc., E. E. Co. (_Minn.), 40 N. W. Rep. 524; 39 Minn. 479; Handforth «. Jackson (Mass.), 22 N. E. Rep. 634. 4 CH. I.J REAL PROPERTY. § 4 ciently permanent in its character, in order to merge the thing attached into the realty. This subject is known as the law of fixtures. § 3. Fixtures. — Fixtures are those things, which, per- sonal in their nature, become realty by reason of their annexation to the soil, such annexation being made by some one having an interest in the soil. They are removable or not, according to the circumstances of each case. In the first place, the attachment must be of a permanent and legal character. If there is no attachment or annexation, the thing remains personal property. But the annexation may be actual or constructive. Actual annexation is where the thing is annexed by actual attachment to the soil, as a house built upon a brick foundation, or fences with posts embedded in the soil. Constructive annexation is whei-e the thing is fitted for use in connection with the premises, and is more or less necessary to their enjoyment, but it is not firmly attached. Such, for example, are keys, movable window blinds, doors, etc. In the second place, since the thing assumes the character of a fixture, because of its annexation to the soil, it must follow, that if there can be a legal severance it will re-assume the character of personal property and cease to be a fixture. The right to remove fixtures depends upon the intention of the parties as mani- fested by the character of the annexation and the effect of severance upon the land, and the relation of the person making the removal to the fixture and to the land. § 4. Between what parties tlie question may arise. — Where the person who erected the fixture has a permanent estate in the land, such as a fee, the legal maxim quidquid plantatur solo solo cedit, applies to the fullest extent, qual- ified only by the rule that the annexation must be of a permanent character. The question, as to the right to remove such a fixture, may arise between (1) heirs and 5 § 4 REAL PKOPERTY. [PAET I. the executor; (2) vendor and vendee; (3) mortgagor and mortgagee. In all three cases, the general rule is, that all annexations of a permanent character pass with the realty respectively to the heir, vendee and mortgagee, and cannot be removed by the executor, vendor or mortgagor. Such is the rule, even though the severance might be made with- out any material injury to the freehold. But the per- manent or temporary character of the annexation often presents some difficult questions. It seems that the manner of fastening oifers, in most cases, the true solution. If the fastening is firm and secure, then it gives permanency to the annexation, and makes the thing attached an immovable fixture. Such would be engines, boilers, dye-kettles, cotton- gins, and all other kinds of machinery which are firmly attached to the building by rods and bolts passing through the joists and timber, gas fixtures and water-works, as well as houses and other buildings, erected upon a firm founda- tion. Such fixtures would, as between the heir aud execu- tor, vendor and vendee, and mortgagor and mortgaeee, constitute a part of the realty, and, therefore, pass with it.i "iHillu. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 274; Voorhiesw. Freeman, 2 Watts &S. 116; Union Bank I!. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159; Noble v. Butterworth, 19Pick. 314, Richardson v. Copeland, 6 Gray, 536; Tlfft u. Horton, 53 N. T. 377; 13 Am. Rep. 937; Potter u. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 273; Day b. Perkins, 2 Sandf. Ch. 359; Hill v. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428; Sweltzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 317; Hays V. Doane, 11 N. J. Eq. 98; Quinby u. Manhattan Cloth, etc., Co., 24 N.J. Eq. 260; Powells. Monson Co., 3 Mason, 459; Parsons o. Copeland, 38 Me. 537; Lavenson v. Standard Soap Co., 80 Cal. 245; Speiden v. Parker, 46 N. J. Eq. 292; Home v. Smith, 105 N. C. 322; Doughty v. Owen (N. J.), 19 Atl. Rep. 540; Langdon v. Buchanan, 62 N. H. 657; Hacket v. Amsden, 57 Vt. 432 ; Brass JFoundry, etc.. Works v. Gallentine, 99 Ind. 525; Dudley v. Hurst (Md.), 8 Atl. Eep. 901; Kisterbock v. Lan- ning (Pa.), 7 Atl. Rep. 596, note; Scheifele ». Schmitz, 42 N. J. Eq. 700; s. c. 11 Atl. Eep. 257, note; Smyth v. Sturges, 108 N. Y. 495; s. c. 15 N. E. Rep. 544; Appeal of Williams (Pa.), 16 Atl. Eep. 810; s. c. 24 W. N. C. 365; Hill«. Munday (Ky.), 11 S. W. Rep. 956 (stock of ice in house on land conveyed) ; Burrell v. Lumber Co., 65 Mich. 571; Childs v. Hurd, 33 W. Ya. 66; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78; Hill v. Hill, 43 Pa. St. 521; Mc- 6 CH. I. ] REAL PROPERTY. § 4- But the permanency of the annexation does not always determine the fixture to be irremovable. While such per- manency of annexation presumptively denies the right of removal of the fixture as between the parties just named, this is so only because the permaneut charucter of the interest in the land of the party who makes the annexation established, in conjunction with the permanent character of the annexation, an intention on his part to make it per- manently an appurtenant of the land. , It is in every case a question of intent. And if in any case, even as between the parties named, the contrary intention is clearly estab- lished, the fixture will be removable, notwithstanding the annexation was permanent in character, provided, always, that the removal can be made without any permanent material damage to the estate.^ Thus the intention to make a permanent fixture, which rests upon the security of the annexation, will always be rebutted, and the contrary intention established, where the owner of the land, to which the fixture was attached, had executed a chattel mortgage over the thing, either contemporan- eously with or prior to its attachment to the land, at Rea V. Central National Bank, 66 N. Y. 489 ; Burnsides v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. 752; 21 Am. Rep. 323; Bealton «. Clawson, 2 Strobh. 478; McKim «. Mason, 3 Md. Cb. 186; Latham i;. Blakely, 70 N. C. 369 ; Richardson v. Borden, 42 Miss. 71 ; 2 Am. Rep. 595 ; Deal ». Palmer, 72 N. C.582; Alvord, etc., Co.,i). Gleason, 36 Conn. 86; Sparks v. State Bank, 7 Blackf . 469 ; Brennan v. Whittaker, 15 Ohio St. 446; Lands v. Pfleffer, 10 Cal. 268; Stockwell v. Campbell, 39 Conn. 362; 11 Am. Rep. 393. 1 Manwaring v. Jennison, 61 Mich. 117; Carpenter v. Allen, 150 Mass. 281 ; Andrews v. Chandler, 27 111. App. 103; Vail v. Weaver, 132 ; Pa. St. 363; Buzzell v. Cummings, 61 Vt. 213; Elliott o. Wright, 30 Mo. App. 217; John Van Range Co. v. Allen (Miss.), 7 So. Rep. 499; Foster v. Prentiss, 75 Me. 279; Hartu. Sheldon, 34 Hun, 38; Sword ». Low (Ill.)> 13; N. B. Rep. 826; DeLacy v. Tillman, 83 Ala. 155; Harkey v. Cain, 69 Tex. 146; s. c. 6 S. W. Rep. 637, note; Benedict v. Marsh, 127 Pa. St. 309; McLaughlin v. Lester, 4 State Rep. 852; Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 496; Potter ». Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; Voorhees v. McGinniss, 48 N. Y. 278. 7 § 5 EEAL PROPEETY. [pAET I. least so far as to give priority of lien to the chattel mort- gagee.i Where the right of removal is denied to the party who annexed the fixture, the fixture, in case of such unlawful removal, can be recovered, as long as it remains in the pos- session of the party so removing it, or of one who is not a bona fide purchaser. But if the fixture has been trans- ferred to a bona fide purchaser for value, he acquires a good title thereto and it cannot be taken away from him. And the remedy for the owner of the land and fixture is for damages against the party who removed the fixture.^ § 5. Constructive annexation. — The permanency of the annexation may be presumed from the weight and size of the object, and its suitableness for use and enjoyment on the land on which its rests. Thus a statue of huge dimensions, resting with its pedestal upon a permanent foundation, and erected upon a lawn for the purpose of ornament, was held to be a part of the realty.' Under the doctrine of constructive annexation, it has been held that the poles, wires and lamps erected in the street, by an electric light company, were fixtures and appurtenant to the company's plant.* Where things, though temporarily detached, are permanently used in connection with the land, they are fixtures and pass with the realty. Thus, hop-poles, stacked up in piles, rolls in an iron mill, lying loose in the 1 Carpenter ». Allen, 160 Mass. 281 ; Sword v. Low (lU.), 13 N. E. Eep. 826 ; Miller v. Vfilson, 71 Iowa, 610 ; Henkle v. Dillon, 15 Oreg. 610; s. c. 17 Pac. Rep, 148; see Campbell v. Roddy, 4i N. J. Eq. 244; s. c. 14 Atl. 279; McGorriskj). Dwyer (Iowa), 43 N. W. Rep. 215; Binkleyc. Forkner, 117 Ind. 176; s. c. 19 N. E. Rep. 753, note. 2 Betz 1). Verner, 46 N. J. Eq. 256; 8 Snedeker v. Waring, 12 N. Y. 170. See, also, to same effect, Cavls ». Beckford, 62 N. H. 229; Hopewell Mills ». Taimton Sav. Bank, 150 Mass. 519. * Keating Implement, etc., Co.u. Power Co. (Tex.), 12 S. W Rep 489 8 CH. I.j REAL PUOPEETY. § 5a mill, fencing materials, etc., were held to be fixtures, even though they were at the time detached from the soil.^ § 5a. Temporary annexation. — But where the attach- ment is only for the purpose of keeping the things steady, and they were not specially adapted to use upon the prem- ises in question, the simple fastening, which may exist, will not give to them the character of permanent fixtures. Thus, looms and cording machines, fastened by screws to the floor, a large ice chest used in a tavern, and other such articles, are personal property, and will not pass with- the realty to the heir, vendee or mortgagee.^ And where a house is not put upon a firm foundation, the courts are inclined to hold that it was intended to be a temporary structure, and that it can be moved. ^ A great many things, such as rolls in an iron mill, stone doors, steps, etc., which, when actually fitted for use and attached to the premises, are held to be perma- nent fixtures, remain personal property until so fitted I Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 123; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503; Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 274; Voorhies v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. 116; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill, 142 ; Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28 : 1 Am. Rep. 372 ; Redlor^. Barker, 4 Kan. 445 ; Brock v. Smith, 14 Ark. 431 ; McLaugh- lin V. Johnson, 46 III. 163; Fulton u. Norton, 64 Me. 410; Gliddenu. Ben- nett, 43 N. H. 306; Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28; Doughty v. Owen (N. J.), 19 Atl. 540. ^Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28; Cresson u. Stout, 17 Johns. 116; Voorhies v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 278; Gale v. Ward, 14 Mass. 352: Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159 ; Park ». Baker, 7 Allen, 78 ; Pierce ^.George, 108 Mass. 78 ; 11 Am. Rep. 310 ; Blanche v. Rogers, 26 N. J. Eq, 563 ; Rogers v. Brokaw, 25 N. J. Eq. 496 ; Swift u. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ; Hill v. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 274; FuUam v. Stearns, 30 Vt. 443; Wade v. Johnstone, 25 Ga. 331; Feimster v. Johnston, 64 N. C. 259; Childress v. Wright, 2 Coldw. 350; Terry v. Robins, 13 Miss. 291; Moore v. Smith, 24 111. 512; Taffe v. Warnick, 3 Blackf. Ill; Bark v. Baxter, 3 Mo. 207; Graves v. Pierce, 53 Mo. 423: Long o. Cokern, 29 111. App. 304; s. c. 128 111. 29; Rogers v. Prattville Mfg. Co., 81 Ala. 483; Walker v. Grand Rapids, etc., Co. (Wis.), 35 N. W. Rep. 332; Appeal of Williams (Pa.), 16 Atl. 810; s. c. 24 W. N. C. 365. 8 Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478. 9 5a § SEAL PEOPERTY. L^-^^'^'''" ^• and attached, though they maybe deposited upon the land.i When the question arises between mortgagor and mortgagee, the fixture is not removable, whether it is annexed by the morto-agor or mortgagee, before or after the execution of the mortgage.^ The rule us to fixtures is the same between debtor and creditor, and the heir or vendee and the widow, in respect to the premises set out to her for dower. ^ 1 Johnsons. Mehaffy, 43 Pa. St. 308; Woodman v. Pease, 17 ^. H. 282; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Peck v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233; Bliss ». Misner, 2 Hun, 391; Noble v. Sylvester, 42 Vt. 146; Miller v. Wilson, 71 Iowa, 610. 2 Roberts v. Dauphin Bank, 19 Pa. St. 74; Richardson ■o. Copeland, 6 Gray, 536; Haskin v. Woodward, 45 Pa. St. 42; Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Bq. 30; Robinson d. Prestwick, 3 Edw. Ch. 246; Voorhies?;. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 278; Naples v. Millon, 31 Conn. 598 ; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390; Lynde v. Rowe, 12 Allen, 100; Quinby v. Manhattan, etc., Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 260; Millikin v. Armstrong, 17 Ind. 450; McKin v. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186; CuUwlck v. Swindell, L. R. 3 Eq. 249; Foote v. Gooch, 96 N. C. 265; s. c. 1 S. E. Rep. 526, note; Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Mason, 18 N. E. Rep. 406, note; McFadden v. Allen, 3 N. Y. S., note; s. c. 50 Hun, 361. But the mortgagor may remove the fixtures erected by him, where he has, expressly or by necessary implication, reserved the right to do so. Waterfall «. Penistone, 6 E. & B. 876; Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. 30; Burnsideu. Twitchell. 43 N. H. 390; Crippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 23. A chattel mortgage of the fixture executed before or contem- poraneous with its annexation, will have priority over a prior mortgage of the realty. TifEt v. Horton, 53 N. H. 377; 13 Am. Rep. 537; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314; 15 Am. Rep. 345; Carpenter v. Allen, 150 Mass. 2S1; Sword V. Low (111.), 13 N. E. Rep. 820; Miller ». Wilson, 71 Iowa, 610; Hankie v. Dillon, 15 Oreg. 610; s. c. 17 Pac. Rep. 148; Binkley v. Fork- ner, 117 Ind. 176; s. c. 19 N. E. Eep. 753, note; Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq. 244; McGorrisku. Dwyer (Iowa), 43 N. W. Rep. 215. See also Roppso. Barker, 4 Pick. 238; McClintock v. Graham, 3 McCord, 553; ,Bringlo££ v. Munzenmaier, 20 Iowa, 513. 3 Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432; Farrar ». Chanffetete, 5 Denio, 527; Powell V. Monson Co., 3 Mason, 459; Hutchman's Appeal, 27 Pa. St. 209; Way V. Way, 42 Conn. 62 ; Pemberton v. King, 2 Dev. 376. Where the debtor Is a tenant, and he has the right to remove the fixtures, his judg- ment-creditor may, under an execution against personal property, levy and sever the same from the freehold. Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 JI. & W. 450; 2 Smith's Ld. Gas. (7th ed.), 217; O'Donnell u. Hitchcock, 118 Mass. 401; Overton v. Williston, 31 Pa. St. 155; State u. Bonham, IS Ind. 231. 10 CH. t.J REAL PROPERTY. § 6 § 6. Question of fixtures between landlord and tenant. — ■ When the question arises between landlord and tenant, or remainder-man and executor of tenant for life, in respect to the fixtures placed upon the land by the tenant for years, and for life respectively, a more liberal rule is followed. The general rule, above alluded to, that every- thing permanently annexed to the soil becomes a part of the realty, and cannot be removed, still holds good.^ But since the tenant's interest in the land is temporary in char- acter, the presumption of permanency resulting from the character of the annexation has, in the more important cases, to give way to a counter-presumption that the tenant did not intend to continue the annexation longer than his term ; and for this reason there are certain exceptions, cre- ated in behalf of the tenant in respect to certain classes of fixtures. The tenant is permitted to remove a fixture, which falls within one of these classes, even though firmly affixed to the soil, provided such removal will not result in any permanent and material injury to the freehold. These are (1) trade fixtures; (2) agricultural fixtures; and (3) fixtures for domestic use and convenience. Until lately, the common law rule was relaxed only in favor of trade fixtures, while agricultural and domestic fixtures received the same strict construction as is applied to all fixtures between the heir and executor and other classes above mentioned. The tendency of the law at the present day is to permit the tenant to remove all fixtures he may attach to the soil, which come under one of tbese classes, and which can be removed without permanent injury to the premises.'-' Among the 1 Elwes V. Maw, 3 East, 38; 2 Smith's Ld. Cas. 212; Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. r. 344; Tmtv. HortOD, 53 N. Y. 377; 13 Am. Rep. 537; Madigan v. McCarthy, 108 Mass. 376; 11 Am. Kep. 371; McNally ». Connolly, 70 Cal. 3. 2 Capen v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88; s. c. 9 Am. Law Reg. (n. S.), 136; Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. St. 437; 18 Am. Rep. 452 ; Elwes v. Mawe, 3East, 38; 2 Smith's Ld. Ca.i. 278; Merritt v. Jadd, 14 Cal. 59; Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493; Wing v. Gray, 36 Vt. 261; Weston v. Weston, 102 11 ^ Q REAL PEOPEETT. [PAET 1. fixtures erected for the purpose of trade and manufacture by a tenant, which are held to be removable by him at the termination of his tenancy, are the following : Vats and coppers of a soap boiler, cider mills and presses, buildings erected for trade, fire engines in a colliery, kettles in distil- leries, store fixtures, etc.^ But where the tenant replaces an old and worn out article, such as a furnace, which he finds attached to the building when he takes possession, with a new one, he cannot remove the latter at the termi- nation of his tenancy.^ Nursery trees are held to be such an agricultural fixture as, when planted by the tenant for the purpose of sale, to be capable of being removed.^ So, Mass. 514; Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Pet. 137; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miles, 349; Ombony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. 234; Dubois 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 88-91; 2 Bla. Com. 109 j IPresfcEst 466-475; Seymour's Case, 10 Kep. 97 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 144. " Bee post, sects. 271-281. 3 33 § '46 ESTATES TAIL. [PART I. to any other class of heirs. If the first taker died leav- ing no heir of that kind, the estate was defeated and reverted to the donor. But as soon as that class of heirs came into being, as, in the case of an estate to one and the heirs of his body, upon the birth of a child, the con- dition was held to be so far performed As to permit the tenant to alien or charge the land in fee simple. And the subsequent death of the issue would have no effect upon the purchaser's title.^ But, if no alienation was made during the life of such heirs presumptive it would revert to the donor upon the death of the tenant, just as if they had never come into being. ^ § 46. Estates tail. — In consequence of the readiness with which fees conditional could be converted into a fee simple, great dissatisfaction was felt and manifested by the nobles and landed gentry. It had been their custom to settle their great estates upon their oldest sons and their issue, in order to keep them within their families, and prevent their subdivision into smaller estates. When fees conditional were made by judicial legislation capable of alienation upon the birth of issue, the protection to their entails was taken away, and the barons applied to King Edward I. to grant them a remedy. In compliance with this appeal, the statute " De Donis Conditionalibus " was passed in the thirteenth year of the reign of Edward I. By this statute fees conditional, which were limited to tlis heirs of one's body, were made inalienable under any circum- stances. It was held that the heirs do not take as purchasers, but as special heir ; nevertheless, the ancestor could not by any act of alienation defeat their interest in the estate.' 1 2 Bla. Com. Ill ; 2 Inst. 333 ; Co. Lit. 19 a, note 110 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 21, 141; Buckwortht). Thirkell, 3 B. & P. 652; Williams on Eeal Prop. 42; Nevil's Case, 7 Coke, Si h. 2 2 Inst. 332 ; 1 Bpence Eq. Jur. 141 ; Williams on Real Prop. 42, 43. » 2 Prest. Est. 378-380; 2 Bla. Com. 112-116; 2 Inst. 332, 333; 1 Washb. on Beal Prop. 94, 95. 34 CH. IV. J ESTATES TAIL. § 47 The fee conditional was then called estate tail. Estates tail, therefore, to quote Mr. Washburn's definition, " are estates of inheritance, which, instead of descending to heirs generally, go to the heirs of the donee's body, which means his lawful issue, his children, and through them to his grandchildren, in a direct line, so long as his posterity endures in a regular order and course of descent, and upon the death of the first owner without issue, the estate determines." ^ The tenants in tail cannot alien the estate, but it has ail the other characteristics of a fee simple. Tlie tenant can freely commit waste ; nor is he under any obligation to the reversioner to pay off an incumbrance or keep down the interest on it.'* § 47. 3S'ecessary words of limitation. — In the creation of an estate tail words of limitation must be used, which indicate clearly wliat heirs are to take. The usual form of limitation is to one and the heirs of his body. But any other equivalent expressions would be sufficient, provided the word " heirs " was not omitted. ^ The same distinction 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 99; 2 Prest.Est. 360; "Williams on Real Prop. 43, 44, 2 Co. Lit. 224 a; 2 Bla. Com. 115: Liford's Case, 11 Rep. 50; Jervis v. Benton, 2 Vern. 251 ; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Wms. 229. But a receiver may be appointed to collect the rents and profits of an estate tail to keep down the interest on incumbrances. Story's Bq. Jur., sect. 833; Bertie V. Abingdon, 3 Merw. 560. Dower and curtesy are incidents of estates tail. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 107; Co. Lit. 224 a; post, sects. 104, 116. Tenant in tail cannot charge the inheritance with his debts and obliga- tions after his death. Liford's Case, 11 Rep. 50; Wharton v. Wharton, 2 "Vern. 3; Partridge. ». Dorsey, 3 Har. & J._302; 1 Cruise Dig. 84; Williams on Real Prop. 57, 58. But his interest in the same, viz., bis life estate may be sold for the satisfaction of his debts. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 107; Williams on Real Prop. 58, 59. 3 2 Prest. Est. 480-482-485; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 104, 105; Co. Lit. 20 b; 2 Bla. Cora. 115; Weart ». Cruser, 49 N. J. L. 75; Lehndorf v. Cope (111.), 13 N. E. Rep. 505 (to M. " and her heirs by her present husband, H."); Ford v. Johnson, 41 Ohio St. 366 (word heirs omitted, and grantee took only a life estate). But see Fletcher v. Fletcher, 88 Ind. 418, where the word "children" was held to mean heirs of the body. 35 § 48 ESTATES TAIL. [PAET I. as to construction between estates created by deed and by will, mentioned in connection with fees simple, applies here. So that in the case of a devise, an estate will be held to be one in tail, whatever may be the words of limita- tion used. Thus a devise to A. and his seed, or his issue, or his heirs male, etc., all showing an intention to create an estate tail, would be held a good limitation of an estate tail.i And very often the gift will be construed to be an estate tail, where there is no direct limitation to the heirs of his body, as where there vvas a devise to A. and if he should die without issue of his body, then to B. The intention is so clear that B. is to have it only after the termination of what would be an estate tail, that A. was held to have such an estate by implication.^ § 48. Classes of estates tail. — If the estate be limited generally to the heirs of one's body, it is called an estate tail general. If it be limited to particular heirs of the body, as to the heirs of one's body upon the body of a certain named wife begotten, only the issue of that particular 1 2 Bla. Com. 115; Co. Lit. 27 a; Nightingale v. Burrell, 15 Pick. 104; Arnold v. Brown, 7 R. 1. 196; Hill«. Hill, 7t Pa. St. 173; s. c. 15 Am. Kep. 545; Reinoehl v. Shirk, 119 Pa. St. 108. 2 Arnold v. Brown, 7 E. I. 196; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 100; Idle v. Cooke, 2 Ld. Raym. 1152; Hulburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass. 241 ; Hayward v. Howe, 12 Gray, 49. But this will not always be the case. Whether an estate tail would under such circumstances be created by implication, depends upon the intention of the testator, as gathered from a considera- tion of the whole will. It will be explained in the chapter on Executory Devises (see post, sects. 538, 542, 543), when and under what circum- stances a limitation over upon a failure of issue will convert the prior limitation into an estate tail. According to the intention of the testator, it will either convert it into an estate tail, or, if the prior limitation has sufficient words of limitation, the prior limitation will be construed to be a fee simple, liable to be defeated by the failure of issue, and the limitation over will take effect as an executory devise. Such was held to be the proper construction in the case of Hill v. Hill, 74 Pa. St. 173 ; s. c. 173; 15 Am. Rep. 545. See also Allender's Lessee w. Sussan, 33 Md. 11; 3 Am. Rep. 171. 36 CH. IV. ] ESTATES TAIL. § 49 wife can take, and it is called an estate tail special. The issue of any other wife cannot take."^ The special tail, in order to be good, must be so limited as not to be unlaw- ful. ^ But it does not matter how improbable the marriage is, or that they would have issue if married, the limitation will nevertheless be good. Such would be the case even though the man and woman are both married at the time to different parties ; or they are so old that according to the ordinary laws of nature, they are incapable of procreating children. The law will consider it still possible for them to have issue, as long as they both live.^ Another form of estate tail special is that to the heirs, male or female, of one's body. In this case the inheritance is confined to the male or female heirs to the exclusion of the others. And each taker must trace his descent through an unbroken line of that class of heirs. Thus if the limitation be to the heirs male of one's body, the grandson by a daughter could not take, nor if it be to heirs female, could the granddaughter by a son inherit. Yery often the limitation is to the heirs male of the body, then to the heirs female, exhausting the first class of heirs, before the remainder to the latter takes effect. In such a conveyance, neither the grandson by the daughter, nor the granddaughter by the son, could inherit the estate, and it would revert for failure of issue,* if there were no technical heirs, male or female. § 49. How estates tail may be barred, r— The»statute de donis made the ordinary modes of conveyance incapable of 1 2 Bla. Com. 113, 114; 2 Prest. Est. 413, 414; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 102, 103. 2 Thus, if the limitation Is to the issue of the grantee begotten upon a woman, who is so near a relative as to render the marriage unlawful, the limitation in tail would be void, and the donee would take only a life estate. 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 103. s 2 Prest. Est. 395; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 103. * 2 Bla, Com. 114; 2 Prest. Est. 402, 403; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 103, 104; Williams on Real Prop. 35; Hulburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass. 241. 37 § 49 ESTATES TAIL. [PART I. barring entails, but in the course of time, the restraint upon alienation effected by this statute became so burden- some, practically excluding lands from the market as objects of barter or sale, that the courts at last by a fictitious con- trivance, aided by remedial statutes, secured a means of alienation. It was in the nature of a fictitious suit, by which some persons laid claim to the land, and the tenant in tail either acknowledged the justice of his claim, or allowed judgment by default to be entered up against him. There were two modes in use, viz. : fines, and common recoveries. They do not now exist, and have at no time existed in more than two or three of the States of this country. The subject therefore deserves no further con- sideration.i Since then, iu England, it has not been possible 1 The following quotation from Mr. Washbarn gives a lucid explana- tion ol the common recovery, which was the most common and the most effectual mode of barring the entail: " This was a fictitious suit brought in the name of the person who was to purchase the estate, against the tenant in tail who was willing to convey. The tenant, Instead of resist- ing this claim himself, under the pretense that he had acquired his title of some third person, who had warranted it, vouched in, or by a process from the court called this third person, technically the vouchee, to come In and defend the title. The vouchee came in, as a part of the dramatis personm of his judicial farce, and then, without saying a word, disappeared and was defaulted. It was a principle of the feudal law, adopted thence by the common law, that if a man conveyed lands with a warranty, and the grantee lost his estate by eviction by one having a better title, he should give his warrantee lands of equal value by way of recompense. And as it Would be too barefaced to cut off the rights of the reversion as well as of the issue in tail by a judgment between the tenant and a stranger, it was gravely adjudged, (1) that the claimant should have the land as having the better title to it, aad (2) that the tenant should have judgment against Mi vouchee to recover lands of equal value on tne ground that he was warrantor, and thus, theoretically, nobody was harmed. If the issue in tail, reversioner or remaiuder-man, lost that specific estate, he was to have one of equal value through this judgment ia favor of the tenant in tail; whereas, iu fact, the vouchee was an irre- sponsible man, and it was never expected that he was anything more than a dummy in the game." 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 97, 98. Taltarum's Case, Year Book, 12 Edw. IV. 19 is the leading case on the subject; 2 Bla. Com. 116; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 143; Williams onReal Prop. 45-48; Tay- 38 CH. IV.] ESTATES TAIL. § 51 to keep the estate entailed for any great length of time, at the most only during the minority of the tenants. As soon as the tenant became of age, he was able to bar it. This gave rise to what are known as marriage settlements, in which the lands were settled on the husband aud wife for life, remainder to the first and other sons in tall, etc. In such a case the estate tail in remainder would be locked up until the eldest son has reached his majority.^ § 50. Merger of an estate tall. — It is a general rule, which will receive constant illustration in the following pages, that where a less and a greater estate unite in one person, the former is merged and lost in the latter. But this is not always the case. A man may have an estate tail and the reversion in fee upon failure of issue, but the estate tail will remain intact, and cannot be barred except in the mode here indicated.^ § 51. Estate-tall after possibility of issue extinct. — When the legal possibility of issue has ceased, it leaves to the tenant in tail a life estate of a peculiar character, which is denominated an estate tail after possibilily of issue extinct. He is not liable to an action for waste by the reversioner, although he may be restrained by an equitable injunction from the commission of willful and malicious waste. It is lor ». Horde, 1 Barr. 84; Page u. Hayward, 2 Salk. 570. See the following- American cases, in which fines and common recoveries are discussed and recognized, but declared to be abolished. McGregor v. Comstock, 1 7 N. Y. 162 ; Croxhall v. Sherard, 5 Wall. 268. In Pennsylvania they apparent- ly exist still. Richman v. Lippincott, 29 N. J. L. 44; Lyle v. Eichards, 7 S. &R. 322; Dewitt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. 421; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 485. They never existed in Missouri. Moreau v. Detchemendy, 18 Mo. 527. 1 Williams on Real Prop. 60, 51 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 99. ' Wiscot's Case, 2 Rep. 61; Roe v. Baldwere, 5 T. R. 110; Poole v. Morris, 29 Ga. 374: Altham's Case, 8 Rep. 164 b ; Corbin i>. Healy, 20 Pick. 515. 39 § 52 ESTATES TAIL. [PAET I. apparent that this can only happen in the case of an estate tail special. If the limitation be to the heirs of one's body- generally, there is a legal possibility of issue, as long as the tenant is living.* § 52. Estates tail In the United States. — In the early colonial period, estates tail prevailed in this country very generally, and they could, in some of the States, be barred 1 by fines and recoveries.^ But at the present time they have been abolished in most of the States. In some they are changed into fees simple, while in others they are divided into a life estate and remainder to issue, or easy modes of converting them into fees simple are provided.^ 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 110, 111; Williams on Real Prop. 54, 55; 2 Sharwood's Bla. Com. 125; Soe v. Audley, 1 Cox, 324; List o. Rodney, 2 Norria, 483; Co. Lit. 27 b, 28 a. 2 Hawley u. Northampton, 8 Mass. 34; Perry v. Kline, 12 Cush. 120; Corbin v. Healey, 20 Pick. 515; Jewell v. Warner, 35 N. H. 170; Dennett V. Dennett, 40 N. H. 500 ; Jackson v. Van Zandt, 12 Johns. 149 ; McGregor V. Comstock, 17N. Y. 162; Lyle v. Richards, 9 S. & R. 330; Den v. Schenck, 10 N. J. L. 39; Partridges. Dorsey, 8 Har. & J. 302; Croxhall v. Sherard, 6 Wall. 283; Dewltt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. 421; 4 Kent's Com. 14; Walker Am. Law, 299; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 111. 5 In Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, Virginia, and West Virginia, estates tail are converted into fees simple. Wheatley v. Barker, 79 Ga. 790; 4 S. E. Rep. 387, note; Ewing V. Shropshire, 80 Ga. 374; East v. Garrett, 84 Va. 523; Smith ». Greer, 88 Ala. 414; Bait. & O.R. R. Co. v. Patterson, 68 Md. 606; Leather V. Gray (N. C. 1888), 7 S.E. Rep. 657. In Maryland, only estates tail gen- eral are converted into fees simple. An estate tail, male or female, re- mains unaffected by the statute. Pennington v. Pennington, 70 Md. 418. In Arkansasjjillinols, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, and Vermont, the tenant in tail takes a life estate and the heirs of his body the re- mainder In fee per formam doni. Lehndorf v. Cope (lU.J, 13 N. E. Rep. 505; Horsley v. Hilburn, 44 Ark. 458; Weart v. Cruser, 49 N. J. L. 75; Wood V. Kice (Mo. 1891), 15 S. W. 623; Lewis ». Barnhardt, 43 Fed. Rep. 854. In Indiana (Allen v. Craft, 109 Ind. 476) and New York, the tenant takes a fee simple, if there is no limitation in remainder, after the estate tail and a life estate, when there is such a limitation. And while in Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, estates 40 CH. IV. J ESTATES TAIL. § 52 tail are not expressly abolished, and presumably If not aliened they would descend to the special heirs, and revert to the grantor upon failure of such heirs, it is now provided by statute in those States that a convey- ance in common form will pass a fee simple estate, and bar the entail. Titzell V. Cochran (Pa.), 10 Atl. 9; Coombs v. Anderson, 138 Mass. 376; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Pa. St. 335 ; Rowland v. Warren, 10 Greg. 129 ; Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa, 60; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 112, note; Will- iams on Real Prop. 35, Rawle's note. In South Carolina, the statute de donis has never been recognized as a part of the common law, and fees conditional still exist there. 3 S. C. Stats, at Large, 341; Archer v. Ellison, 28 S. C. 238; Powers v. BuUwinkle, 33 S. C.293. 41 CHAPTEE V. ESTATES FOB LITE. Sbction 60. Definition and classes of life estates. 61. Peculiarities of an estate per auter vie. 62. Words of limitation in estates for life. 63. The merger of life estate in a greater. 64. Alienation by tenant for life. 65. Tenure between tenant for life and reversioner. 66. Apportionment between life tenant and reversioner of incum- brances. 67. Same — Of rent. 68. Claim for improvements. 69. Estovers. 70. Emblements, what they are. 71. Same — Who may claim them. 72. Definition and history of waste. 73. What acts constitute waste. 74. Waste in respect to trees. , 75. Continued — In respect to minerals and other deposits. 76. Continued — Management and culture of land. 77. Continued — In respect to buildings. 78. Continued — Acts of strangers. 79. Continued — Destruction of buildings by fire. 80. Exemption from liability. 81. Remedies for waste. 82. Property in timber unlawfully cut. § 60. Definition and classes of life estates. — An estate for life is strictly one whose duration is limited by the life or lives of certain persons ; it may be the life of the tenant, the life of another, or the joint lives of the tenant and others. But the term has been generally extended so as to include all freeholds not of inheritance. It will, therefore, embrace an estate for an uncertain period, which may continue during a life or lives. Such would be a grant to a woman during widowhood. If she marries, her estate would terminate ; but it may endure as 42 CH. v.] ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 61 long as she lives J And it is of ho consequence how uncer- tain the duration of the estate may be, or how likely it will terminate in a given number of years ; if it can, and may, continue during a life, it is considered a freehold estate for life. Such is a grant to one, until he can, out of the rents and profits, pay the debts of the grantor. But if the con- veyance be a devise to executors, until the devisor's debts are paid, they would take only a chattel interest." An estate for one's own life is considered by the law to be the highest and best estate for life that one can have. Conse- quently the courts, in construing a doubtful grant for life, would hold it to be for the life of, the tenant, rather than for the life of the grantor.' An estate for the life of an- other is called in the Normai^French, an estate per auter vie, and the one whose life limits its duration is called the cestui que vie."' In the present chapter we shall speak only of estates for life in general and of those incidents which pertain to the estates for life, which are created by the act of the parties, or in other words, of conventional life estates. There are other classes of life estates, which come into being by operation of law, as in the case of dower and curtesy; these will be treated in a separate chapter.^ § 61. Peculiarities of an estate per auter vie. — An estate for the life of another, as, for example, an estate for the life of the grantor, is a freehold, but is not an estate of inheritance. Perhaps during the earlier existence of the feudal system, it was not considered as strictly a freehold interest; but it is now, and has long been, in- cluded in that class of estates. The estate terminates with ' Co. Lit. 42 a; Hurd v. Gushing, 7 Pick. 179; Jackson v. Myers, 3 Johns. 388; Eoseboom v, VanVechten, 5 Denio, 414; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 285; Clark v. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434; Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 B. & G. 221; 2 Bla. Com. 121 = Go. Lit. 42 a; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 116. » Co. Lit. 42 a; 2 Bla. Com, 121 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 115. ♦ Co. Lit. 41 b ; 2 Bla. Com. 120. ' See post, ch. VI., sects. 90, 164. 43 § 61 ESTATES FOR LIFE. [PART I. the death of the cestui que vie, and does not expire with the death of the tenant. If, therefore, the tenant dies dur- ing the life of the cestui que vie, the estate continues and must vest in some one. If he has conveyed it away, his grantee will hold it, unaffected by his death. But if he dies in possession, a question of some difficulty arises. At common law, it could not descend to his heirs, for the law of descent applies only to estates of inheritance ; and this is not such an estate. It could not descend to the executor or administrator, for they could take only chattel interests, and this was a freehold. It was also not devisable, for it was a freehold interest. At common law it was permitted for any one who first took possession to hold it, and he was called the general occupant ^ This right of general occupancy could only be exercised where there were no per- sons designated in the grant who could take as special occupants. If the grant was to A. and his heirs during the life of B., the heirs would take as special occupants, to the exclusion of the general occupant.^ But these special occupants had not the interest of purchasers during the life of the tenant. They only took what was left undisposed of, and could not prevent its alienation by the tenant. On the other hand, the tenant could not bar them by a devise of the estate.^ This peculiarity of the common law has since been done away with by statute in England, and in almost every State in this country. In some, estates ^er auter vie are made to descend to heirs in common with ' Co. Lit. 41 b; 2 Bla. Com. 259. 2 2 Bla. Com. 259, 260 : Atkinson v. Baker, 4 T. K. 229. A tenant at will of the tenant per auter vie, in possession at the death of the latter, will, as against the general occupant, have a superior claim as one species of special occupant, though he would have to yield possession to the special oc- cupant, who was also heir of the tenant. Co. Lit. 41 b, note 232. And in like manner, the executor or administrator might have taken the estate as special occupant, if the grant had been to the tenant and hia ezecutora and admin- istrators, instead of to him and his heirs. See authorities, supra. ' Doe V. Robinson. 8 B. & C. 296 ; Doe v. Luxton, 6 T. K. 289 ; Allen v. Allen, 2 Dru. & War. 307.; 1 Washb. on Keal Prop. 121. 44 CI-I. V.J ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 63 other real estate ; while in others it is treated as a chattel interest, and constitutes assets in the hands of the personal representatives.^ § 62. Words of limitation in estates for life. — There are no words of limitation required at common law. A grant of an estate was construed to be for the life of the grantee, where there was no express limitation.^ But in those States where now by statute all grants and devises are made to convey a fee simple estate, unless a less estate is expressly limited, it would be necessary to limit the estate for the life of the grantee in express words.^ And in devises, a life estate is often raised by implication. Thus where A. devised his lands to his heirs after the death of B., it was held that B. took an estate for life by neces- sary implication, since no one could take the estate except the heir, and he was postponed by the will until B.'s death. But if the devise had been to a stranger after the death of B., the heirs would .have taken by descent during the life of B!, instead of the latter.* § 63. The merger of life estate in a greater. — If a life estate is conveyed to one having a reversion or any other greater estate, or the tenant acquires the reversion, 1 In Missouri, Arkansas, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Massachusetts and some others, it is real estate ; while in New York, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, it is personal property. In all the States it can now be disposed of by will. In Maryland, the right of special occupancy is still recog- nized, so that if the estate per auter vie is expressly limited to the heirs, the heirs will take as special occupants. In the other States, the limita- tion does not give them a superior title, if the statute makes the estate personal property. See 1 Washb. on Seal Prop. 121; Williams on Real Prop. 21, Rawle's note. 2 Co. Lit. 42 a; 5 Bla. Com. 121; Truesdell v. Lehman, 47 N. J. Eq. 218 ; Dorney's Estate, 136 Pa. St. 142. 3 See ante, sect. 37. 4 1 Washb. on Seal Prop. 116, 117. 45 § 64 ESTATES FOR LIFE. [PAKT I. the life estate is merged in the latter.^ So would an estate for the life of another merge in an estate for one's own life.''* But if the tenant for life conveys to the reversioner an estate for the life of the latter, a possible reversionary interest being left in the tenant, there will bo no merger, and the tenant would take the estate again, if the rever- sioner should die during his life-time.^ The two estates must also be of the same character. A legal life estate will not merge into an equitable estate in remainder.* § 64. Alienation by tenant for life. — ■ Unless there is a condition in restraint of alienation, ^ the tenant for life may convey his estate as freely as the tenant in fee. He may alien his entire interest, which would become, in his grantee, an estate per auter vie. Or he may grant any smaller estate, and may carve up his estate into any number of smaller estates, as long as they do not together exceed his life estate.® If the life tenant attempted to convey, by a common-law feoffment, a greater estate than he had, it worked a forfeiture of his estate; his grantee received nothing, and the estate in remainder or in reversion vested in possession. This rule follows as a consequence from the feudal notion that the wrongful feoffment of the life tenant was a renunciation of the feudal tenure between him and the lord, an act of disseisin, which divested the re- mainder-man or reversioner, of his seisin by its livery to 1 2 Bla. Com. 177; Co. Lit. 41 b; Mudd v. Mullican (Ky.), 12 S. W. Kep. 268. 2 1 Washb. ou Real Prop. 117; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 144; Williams on Real Prop. 22. 8 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 117, 118; Co. Lit. 42, 218 b. " Davis V. Townsend (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 837. « Hayward v. Kinney, 84 Mich. 591; Criswell v. Grumbling, 107 Pa. St. 408. See post, sect. 275. <5 1 Cruise Dig. 108; Stewart v. Clark, 13 Mete. 79; Jackson©. Van Hoesen, 4 Cow. 325; Williams on Real Prop. 26; Lehndorf v. Cope (lU.) 13 N. E. Rep. 505. 46 CH. V.J ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 65 the grantee.^ And this rule applies to this day, wherever it has not been changed by statute. But if he attempts the conveyance of a greater estate by any other mode of con- veyance, such as a grant, lease, and release, or bargain and sale, which operate under special statutes or under the Statutes of Uses, it will only have the effect of conveying what interest he has, and no forfeiture results therefrom.^ These deeds do not operate by transmutation of possession, and therefore do not divest the tenant in remainder or reversion of his seisin. The nature and effect of these various deeds will be more particularly considered in subse- quent pages. ^ § 65. Tenure between tenant for life and rever- sioner. — The relation of tenure so far exists between the life tenant and his reversioner, as that the possession of the former is never deemed to be adverse to the latter. That is, during the existence of the life estate he cannot disseise his reversioner by any adverse claim of title. Nor will the disseisin of the life tenant by a stranger affect the rights of the reversioner during the life of the former. He may recover possession of the disseisor at any time after the death of the life tenant within the statutory period of limit- ation. The statute only runs from the death of the tenant.* And where the life tenant has granted the fee, his grantee becomes a trespasser from his death, and may be ousted by 1 2 Bla. Com. 274, 275; 1 Cruise Dig. 108; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 118, 119; Jackson v. Mancius, 2 Wend. 365; Stump v. Findlay, 2 Rawle, 168; Mattliews v. Ward's Lessee, 10 Gill &J. 449; Redfern ». Middleton, 1 Rice, 459; Faber v. Police, 10 S. C. 376. Seeposi, sects. 422, 770. 2 1 Waslib. on Real Prop. 119. See post, sect. 422. 3 See post, sects. 774, 779. ^Varney v. Stephens, 22 Me. 334; Austin o. Stevens, 24 Me. 526 Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. 491; .Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 4 Johns. 390 Jackson o. Mancius, 2 Wend. 357; Grout v. Townshend, 2 Hill, 554 McCorry v. King's heirs, 3 Humph. 367; Guion v. Anderson, 8 lb. 325 Archer v. Jones, 26 Miss. 583; Kirksey v. Cole, 47 Ark. 504. 47 § 66 ESTATES FOR LIFE. [PART I. the reversioner, it matters not how long he may have been in possession during the life of the tenant for life.^ But the common-law real actions, when brought against the life tenant for recovery of the land under a claim of title adverse to both reversioner and life tenant, barred the claims of the reversioner as well as the life tenant, even though the former was not made a party to the suit. These real actions could only be brought against the tenant in posses- sion, who was called the tenant of the prcecipe. The life tenant was, therefore, under obligation to the reversioner to defend the title in such actions ; but he could relieve him- self of the duty by calling in the reversioner to assist in the defense. This was called " praying in aid." He could, however, defend without calling in such assistance, and the judgment would be equally conclusive against the rever- sioner.^ These actions have now been abolished in England and in this country, and since the principle did not prevail in any other forms of actions, a judgment for recovery of land only affects the parties to the suit.^ § 66. Apportionment, between life tenant and rever- sioner of Incumbrances. — The life tenant is bound to pay all the accruing interest on existing incumbrances upon the estate; but he is not compelled, as against the rever- sioner, to pay off the principal of the debt. The payment of the principal falls upon the reversioner.* If the life 1 Williams v. Caston, 1 Strobh. 130. See Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 263. ^ 1 Prest. Est. 207, 208 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 73, 74, 122. 8 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 225; 1 Washb. oa Real Prop. 122, 123. * 1 Story Eq., sect 486; 4 Kent's Com. 76; Kensington v. Bouverie, 31 Eng. Law & Eq. 345 ; Mosely v. Marshall, 25 Barb. 42 ; Doane v. Doane, 46 Vt. 496; Warley v. Warley, 1 Bailey Eq. 397. But this is not a personal claim against the life tenant, which the incumbrancer can enforce. He is only obliged to pay the Interest, if he desires to save the estate from for- feiture. Morley v. Sanders, L. R. 8 Eq. 594; Kensington v. Bouverie, supra; Doane v. Doane, supra; Plympton v. Boston Dispens., 106 Mass. • 544. It is different in respect to the liability of the tenant for life for accruing taxes. These he is obliged to pay ; if he does not, and pur- 48 CH. v.] ■ ESTATES FOR LIFE. § G6 tenant pays off the entire debt, he becomes a creditor of the reversioner for the share of the latter, and vice versa. The payment is, in such a case, apportioned between them. The tenant would have to pay such a sum, as would equal the present value of the amount of interest he would probably have paid during his life, if the mortgage had continued so long in existence, estimating his probable length of life by the ordinary tables of mortality. The balance, after deduct- ing this sum, would be the amount due from the rever- sioner.^ Formerly it was arbitrarily apportioned between them, the tenant paying one-third, and the reversioner chases the tax-title given for default of taxes, he cannot set it up in opposition to the reversioner. Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. 312 ; Fleet ' V. Dorland, 11 How. Pr. 489; Patrick v. Sherwood, i Blatchf. 112. ^ Saville v. Saville, 2 Atk. 403; Eastabrook v. Hapgood, 10 Mass. 316, note; Foster v. Hilliard, 1 Story, 87; Newton v. Cook, 4 Gray, 46; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146 ; Bell v. Mayor of New York, 10 Paige Ch. 71; House v. House, lb. 158; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 482; Cogs- well V. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch. 231; Dorsey v. Smith, 7 Har. & J. 367; Snyder a. Snyder, 6 Mich. 470; Abercrombie v. Riddle, 3 Md. Ch. 324. The tables usually employed are Wiggle worth's and the Carlisle tables, the latter being considered the more accurate. The following algebraic formula will be very helpful, if not actually necessary, to an accurate computation of the tenant's share of contribu- tion: P_ f (l+r)n-l \ rt.(l+r)n i , p = amount of contribution. s = annual interest, r = rate per cent, of interest, n = number of years of duration of life. The calculation with the aid of this formula can be simplified by the use of logarithms. When it is stated in the text, that the reversioner is obliged to pay the balance remaining, after deducting the sum to be liquidated by the tenant for life, it is not meant that he is under a personal obligation to pay it. He may refuse, and allow the tenant for life to enforce the incumbrance against him. See post, sect. 192. The tenure existing 'between them only prevents the tenant from holding the incumbrance, so acquired, adversely to the reversioner. If he should desire to obtain the benefit of the purchase by contributing his share towards the ex- penses. Fosters. Hilliard, 1 Story, 77; Davies v. Myers, 13 B. Mon. 511. 4 49 § 67 ESTATES FOR LIFE. [PART I. two-thirds. But this rule has now generally been super- seded by the rule of aiDportionment, just explained.^ § 67. Same — Of rent. — It was the common-law rule that, if a tenant for years was ousted by one holding a better title before the expiration of his lease, or between the daj's of payment of his rent, he was not li:ible for any rent, since the rent could not be apportioned to the time during which he enjoyed the possession under the lease. So, if a tenant for life grunts a lease for years, the rent to be paid on a fixed day, and he dies before the rent becomes due, his per- sonal representative would have no right of action for rent accruing between the la-'t pay-day and the day of his death.' And if the lease was given by virtue of, and under, a power so that it did not terminate with the death of the life tenant, the entire rent would be payable to the reversioner, and the personal representatives of the life tenant would get nothing. This rule was so strictly enforced that in one case the rent hicked on^ hour of falling due, when the life tenant died, and the reversioner took the rent.^ But this ^ 1 story Eq. 487. See Jones u. Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B. Ch. 179. But It is still the rule of law in Sou tti Caroliua, that the tenant is to pay one-third, and the reversioner two-thirds. Wright v. Jennings, 1 Bailey, 277. In Garland v. Crow, 2 Bailey, 24, the court say: " In contemplation of law, an estate for lite is equal to seven years' purchase of the fee. To estimate the present value of an estate for life, interest must be computed on the value of the whole property for seven years; and perhaps, interest on the several sums of annual interest from the present time to the periods at which they respectively fall due, ought to be abated." Following this rule, and calculating the interest at seven per cent., it would be a little more than thirty-five per cent, of the value of the estate. See post, sect. 146. 2 2Bla. Com. 124; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 126; Fitchburg Cotton Co. V. Melvin, 15 Miss. 268; Perry v. Aldrich, 13 N. H. 343; Hoagland v. Crum, 113 111. 365 (55 Am. Rep. 424). See post, sect. 192 3 Strafford v. Wentworth, 1 P. Wms. 180; Rockingham v. Penrice, lb. 178; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 127; post, sect. 192. In England by the Settled Estates Act, 1877, every tenant for life, unless expressly declared to the contrary in the deed to him, may demise the premises for twenty- 50 CH. v.] ESTATES FOE LIFE. § 68 injustice of the common law has now been remedied by statutory changes, so that now generally, the rent is appor- tioned between the life tenant and reversioner, giving each his pro rala share according to the time of enjoyment of the lease before, and after the tenant's death. And the personal representatives of the life tenant may sue the ten^ant for years for the rent which may be apportioned to him.^ § 68. Claim for Improvements. — The tenant for life has no claim for any improvements which he may have made upon the premises. He is bound to keep the premises in repair, but is under no legal obligation to undertake any improvements. If he does, it is a voluntary act of his own, which gives rise to no claim against the reversion for the payment of his share of the expenses. ^ On the other hand, the tenant for life is obliged to pay all the taxes of every kind which may be assessed upon the land ^ and, if he fails to do so, a receiver may be appointed to take charge of the estate, and pay the taxes out of accruing rents and profits.* If the life-estate is held in trust, the one years, which shall not determine at the death of the tenant, provided the lease takes efEect in possession within one year alter its execution, and the rent reserved is made an incident of the reversion. Williams on Real Prop. (5th ed.) 26, 27. But in the United States, as a general rule, there are no such statutes, and an express power to make leases is neces- sary, in order to have the term continue after the expiration of the life estate. 1 Williams on Eeal Prop. 27; 1 Washb. on Keal Prop. 127; Price v Pickett, 21 Ala. 741 ; 3 Kent's Com. 469, 470. 2 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 123; Parsons v. Winslow, 16 Mass. 361; Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 Mass. 351; Corbet v. Laurens, 5 Eich. Eq. 301; Elam V. Parkhill, 60 Tex. 581; Van Bibber v. Williamson, 37 Fed. Eep. 756; Hancox v. Meeker, 95 N. Y. 528; but see apparently conira, Appeal of Datesraan, 127 Pa. St. 348. 3 Eeyburn v. Wallace, 93 Mo. 326. * Varney v. Stevens, 22 Me. 331; Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. 312; Prettyman v. Walston, 34 111. 192; McCook v. Harp (Ga.), 7 S. E. Eep. 174; Stewart v. Matheny (Miss.), 5 So. Eep. 387; see In re Detmole, 4N. Y. Supp. 903 ; Pruitt v. Holly, 73 Ala. 369. , 51 § 69 r.STATES FOR LIFE. [PART I. trustee must charge the life-estate with the expense of the administration.^ § 69. Estovers. — This word signifies the timber that a tenant is allowed to cut upon the land for use upon the prem- ises, and for keepingthem in repair. They were divided by the common law into three kinds, viz. : house-bote, plougli- bote, and hay-bote. House-bote included the wood necessary for the repair of the buildings and for the purpose of fuel. Plou^h-bote covered such as was needed for the manufact- ure or repair of all instruments of husbandry ; while hay- bote was what was used in the erection and maintenance of fences and hedges. The tenant, whether he is one for life, or for years, has this right as a compensation for the duty of keeping the premises in repair and so does his assignee.^ But the right is limited to only what is reasonably necessary for present use. If the tenant exceeds this amount, and cuts timber, for the purpose of sale, or even cuts a reason- able amount of wood, which is not suitable for estover, and exchanges it for what is, he is deemed guilty of waste, and is liable to the reversioner for damages.^ Nor can he use them on any other place but the one from which they are taken. Thus a widow, who had two places set out to her as dower out of two separate estates, was not allowed to cut wood on one place for use on the other, even though the latter has no woodland. But if she obtained both parcels of laud from the same estate, it would not be waste 1 Cammann v. Cammann, 2 Demarest (N. Y.), 211. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 128, 129; Co. Lit. 416; 2 Bla. Com. 35. s 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 129 ; 2 Bla. Com. 122 ; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 21; Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 532; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 597; Hubbard u. Shaw, 12 Allen, 122; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640; Richardson v. York, 14 Me. 221; White v. Cutler, 17 Pick. 248; Padelford V. Padelford, 7 Pick. 152; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. 601; Livingston V. Reynolds, 2 Hill, 157; Gardiner v. Bering, 1 Paige Ch. 573; Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186; Doe v. Wilson, 11 East, 56. 52 CH. V.j ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 70 for her to use wood on one, which waa cut on the other. ^ In England the rule in regard to the right of estovers is much stricter than it is in this country, on account of the difference in the economic necessities of the two countries. In this country woodland is very abundant, and what would be waste in England, would not necessarily be so here. The rule as applied in this country is that the life tenant may cut as much timber as he may need for use upon the premises, provided it does not materially injure the value of the reversion. Nothing but actual injury would be con- sidered waste, and there caii be no general rules laid down in detail which would be applicable to each case which may arise. The determination of the question dei^euds upon the circumstances of each case.^ § 70. Emblements — What they are. — Emblements are the profits which the tenant of an estate is entitled to receive out of the crops which he has planted, and which have not been harvested, when his estate terminates. Under the term emblements are only included, "as a rule, such products of the soil as ard of annual growth and cult- ivation. Such would be the different cereals and vegetables, wheat, corn, beans, hay, flax, potatoes, melons, etc. Hops are also included, although they are not planted annually.'' But they do not include the grasses, which are only planted perennially, nor the fruit of trees, because in these cases, the tenant cannot expect to reap such a benefit in one year, 1 Cook V. Coot, 11 Gray, 123; Padelford ». Padelford, 7 Pick. 152; Phillips V. Allen, 7 Allen, 117; Dalton v. Dalton, 7 Ired. Eq. 197; Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. 334; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 26. 2 Padelford v. Padelford, 7 Pick. 152 ; Pynclion v. Stearns, 11 Mete. 304; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 26; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. 227; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 2 N. J. L. 521 ; McCuUough v, Irvine, 13 Pa. Sti 448 ; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 1 80. 3 Co. Lit. 55 a. b. note 364 ; 2 Bla. Com. 122 ; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns. 108; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 132, 133. 53 § 70 ESTATES FOE LIFE. [PART I. and he is aware of that fact when he plants thena.^ This does not, of course, refer to the right which nurserymen have to trees and shrubs, which they plant for the purpose of sale. As has been shown, in such cases the plants are fixtures, which he is entitled to remove, tree and plant, as well as the fruit thereof .^ And to entitle one to the crops, they must be planted by him. If the crop has been planted by another, the tenant will not be entitled to them, however much care be may have bestowed upon them.^ As an incident to the right of emblements, the tenant or his representatives have a right of entry upon the land, after the termination of the tenancy, for the purpose of attend- ing to the crop while growing, and for harvesting it when ripe. The right of ingress and egress, however, is limited to what is necessary for these i)uiposes.* But it has been asserted and claimed by some authorities, that the tenant would be liable for rent for such occupation of the land.^ It does not, however, seem to be the general custom to pay it or demand it.* In some of the States it is provided by statute that the tenant must pay rent for the time during which he holds over.' The commonlawasto what constitute emblements, and the extent of the right, has been very accurately and definitely settled. But it will be found that local usages and customs will cause the local law to vary somewhat from the common law. Still the more important 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 133; Reife v. EeifE, 64 Pa. St. 13* ; 2 Bla. Com. 123; Evans v. laslehart, 6 GiU & J. 188. 2 Taylor's L.&T. 81; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 11, 133; Penton ». Robart, 2 East, 88; Miller v. Baker, 1 Mete. 27; Whitmarsh v. Walker, lb. 313; Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316. 3 Grantham v. Hawley, Hob. 132; Stewart o. Doughty, 9 Johns. 108; Gee V. Young, 1 Hayw. 17; Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Munf. 614; Price V. Pickett, 21 Ala. 741. * 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 186, 137; Forsythe u. Price, 8 Watta, 282; Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired. 362. s 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 137. " McClellan v. Kcall, 43 Kan. 216. ' King V. Foscue, 91 N. C. 116. 54 CH. V.J ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 71 principles are found to be uniformly applied throughout the country.^ § 71. Same — "Who may claim, tbem. — In order that a tenunt may claim emblements, he must show that his estate was one of uncertain duration. This would, of course, include the representatives of all tenants for life, whether they are conventional or legal life estates, and because they constitute the larger class of those who are entitled to them, the subject lias been discussed in this connection.* Tenants at will also have the right,^ but not tenants for years or at sufferance.* And as an outcome of the law of emblements the executors of the tenants in fee are entitled to the crops if they are ripe for harvest, iu preference to the heirs. ^ But if the estate is terminated through the fault of the tenant, as when he abandons the premises, or voluntarily destroys his estate, by failure to perform a condition, or 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 137. In several of the States, the tenant lor years under special circumstances is by local custom allowed emble- ments, although generally, as will be explained in sect. 71, tenants for years have no right to emblements. See Van Doren v. Everitt, 5 N. J. L. 460; Howell v. Schenck, 24 N. J. L. 89; Templeman v. Biddle, 1 Harr. 622; Dorsey v. Eagle, 7 Gill & J. 331 ; Foster v. Robinson, 6 Ohio St. 95. 2 Taylor's L. & T. 81; Chelsey v. Welch, 37 Me. 106; Kiltredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; Whitmarsh v. Cuttinj.', 10 Johns. 360; Gravest. Weld, 5 B. & Ad. 105; Debow v. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. 128; Harris u. Car- son, 7 Leigh, 632; Spencer v. Lewis, 1 Houst. 223; Haslett o. Glesin, 7 Har. & J, 17; King v. Whittle, 73 Ga. 482. 3 Davis V. Thompson, 13 Me. 209; Sheeburn ». Jones, 20 Me. 70; Chandler v. Thurston, 10 Picfc. 205; Davis v. Brocklebank, 9 N. H. 73; Stewart v. -Doughty, 9 Johns. 108 ; Harris v. Prink, 49 N. Y. 24. * Doe V. Turner, 7 M. & W. 226; Wheeler v. Kirkendall, 67 Iowa, 612. As to tenants for years see cases cited in note 1, p. 55. ^ Penhallow v. D wight, 7 Mass. 34; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 319; Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 208; Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 29. But they will pass with the land under a devise. Bradner v. Faulkner, 34 N. Y. 349. In Mississippi a contrary rule is maintained, and the crops pass to the heir upon the death of the tenant in fee. McCormick v. Mc- Cormick, 40 Miss. 763. See also on the general subject, 2 Redf. on Wills, 143. 55 ^71 ESTATES FOR LIFE. [PAET I. where the party is in wrongful possession, without color of title, he is not entitled to emblements. ^ Thus, a widow has no claim to emblements, where she terminates her tenancy during widowhoood by marriage ; ^ nor has a mortgagor, where the mortgage is foreclosed by the mortgagee, since he could have avoided its destruction by payment of the mort- gage. ^ But if the purchaser under a foreclosure sale, permits the mortgagor, or one claiming under him, to re- tain possession for any length of time, and plant crops, as a tenant at will he would have a right to the emblements.* The right to emblements is not only enjoyed by the parties above enumerated, but also by their assignees and subles- sees, unless the tenant is restricted from alienating the land.^ And very often sublessees and assignees would be entitled to emblements, when the original parties would not. Thus, if a widow, having an estate during widowhood, leases the premises, and then marries, her tenant would be entitled to emblements, while she would not have been if shehadbeen in possession.^ 1 2 Bla. Com. 123; Chesley v. Welch, 37 Me. 106; CTiandler v. Thurs- ton, 10 Pick. 210; "Whitmarsh v. Catting, 10 Johns. 360; Rowell v. Klein, 44 Ind. 290; Richard v. Liford, 11 Rep. 51; McLean c. Bovee, 24 Wis. 295. 2 Debow V. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. 128 ; Hawkins v. Skegg, 10 Humph. 31. 3 Doe V. Mace, 7 Black, 2; Toby v. Reed, 9 Conn. 216; Cooper w. Davis, 16 Conn. 556; McCall ». Lenox, 9 Serg. &R. 302; Jones ». Thomas, 8 Blackf . 428. * Allen V. Carpenter, 15 Mich. 38. And the same rule applies to a mort- gagor's tenant, who holds subject to the mortgage. Mayo v. Fletcher, 14 Pick. 525; Lynde u. Eowe, 12 Allen, 101; Wallace v. Cherry, 32 Mo. App. 436; Lane v. King, 8 Wend. 684. But where the crops are already har- vested, when the mortgage is foreclosed, the tenant is entitled to them; they do not pass to the purchaser under the mortgage. Johnson v. Camp, 51 111. 220. « King V. Whittle, 73 Ga. 482) King v. Foscue, 91 N. C. 116. " Bla. Com. 124; Bulwer, 2B. & Aid. 470; Davis v. Byton, 7 Bing. 154; Bevaus w. Briscoe, 4 Har. & J. 139 ; conJra, Oland's Case, 5 Rep. 116; Debow V. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. 128; Bittinger v. Baker, 29 Pa. St. 70. See also contra, note 1, supra, in reference to mortgagors' tenant. 56 CH. V.J ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 73 § 72. Definition and history of waste. — Evegfenant of a particular estate is 'prohibited from doing ailything with the land which would constitute a waste in the legal accept- ation of the term. The subject applies, therefore, to all tenants, whether for life or for years, or at sufferance. In early times this disability was attached by law only to estates of dower and curtesy, it being supposed that, since they were created by the act of the law, the law should in all cases provide for the due protection of the inheritance. But in the case of conventional estate less than a fee, if the grantor did not expressly provide such a protection, it was his own fault, and he was left without a remedy. Sub- sequently, by the statute of Marlbridge, the disablity of committing waste was made an ordinary and general incident to all kinds of estates for life and for years. And the statute of Gloucester imposed upon the guilty party the penalty of treble damages, together with the forfeiture of his estate.^ Waste is any unlawful act or omission of duty, which results in permanent injury to the inheritance. It may consist in either diminishing its value, in increasing its burdens, or destroying and changing the evidences of title to the inheritance.^ Waste may therefore be volun- tary, as by an act of commission, and involuntary, by an act of omission.' § 73. What acts constitute waste — G-eneral rule. — Whether a particular act constitutes waste is a question of ^ Washb. on Eeal Prop. 139, 140. 2 Bla. Com. 281 ; Huntley v. Kussell, 13 Q. B. 588; Doe v. Burlington, 5 B. & Ad. 517; Jones v. Chappell, L. R. 20 Eq. 589 ; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 117; Proffit v. Henderson, 29 Mo. 327. And in some cases the law raises a conclusive presumption that the act complained of is an injury to the inheritance, and therefore constitutes waste. McGregor v. Brown, supra; Agate v. Lowenbein, 57 N. Y. 604. See post, sects. 74, 77. 3 Bla. Com. 281; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 140. Thus to alter a building, so as to change the maner of using it, is voluntary waste. To let it fall into decay, is permissive or involuntary waste. See post, sect. 77. 57 § 74 ESTATES FOK LIFE, [PART I. fact for the jury to determine. If it does damage to the reversioner, and is not one of the ordinary uses , to which the land is put, it is waste. And the same act might be waste in one part of the country, while in another it is a legitimate use of the land. The usages and customs of each community enter very largely into the settlement of this question.^ § 74. Waste — In respect to trees. — The tenant has no right to cut down any trees, or to injure them in any way, beyond the amount he is entitled to as estovers. And at common law certain trees, which were used for timber, could not be cut for any purpose.^ But in this country the question would depend upon whether the cutting of a particular tree would be consonant with good husbandry, in its relation to the inheritance and the surrounding cir- cumstances.^ In the case of wild and uncultivated lands, 1 See Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 143; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 393; Jackson u. Tibbits, 3 Wend. 341; Pynchon v. Stearns, 11 Mete. 304; Lynon's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 46; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 25; More- house D. Cotheal, 22 N, J. L. 521; Jackson ». Brownson, 7 Johns. 227; Savles V. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. 601; Adams v. Brereton, 3 Har. & J. 124; Davis V. Gilliam, 5 Ired. Eq. 311 ; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180. 2 2 Bla. Com. 281 ; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 141 ; Honywoodi). Honywood, L. R. 18 Eq. 306. Mr. Washburn mentions oak, ash and elm, as being timber trees in all parts of England, while others constitute timber in some sections, and not in other sections, according to local usages and customs, p. 141, supra. Timber trees are those which are used for build- ing and repairing houses. Chandos v. Talbot, 2 P. Wms. 606; Alexander V. Fisher, 7 Ala. 514. The only purpose- for which the tenant may cut timber is for the repair of the buildings on the land, which he is under obligation to keep in repair. 22 Vin. Abr. 453; Doe v. Wilson, 11 East, 56. And he cannot cut timber unsuitable for repair, to sell and with the proceeds to procure other timber which is suitable. See ante, sect. 69. s Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171; Hickman v. Irvine, 3 Dana, 121 ; Sarles u. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. 601 ; Givens V. McCalmont, 4 Watts, 460; Shine v. Wilcox, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 631 ; Smith V. Poyas, 2 DeS. 65; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180; Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. 334; Alexander v. Fisher, 7 Ala. 514; Sayers v. Hoskinson, 110 Pa. St. 473; Duncome v. Felt (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. Kep. 1004; Davis ». 58 CH. V.J ESTATES J^'OR LIFE. § 74 the tenant would have the right to clear the land of the trees, whatever they m.ay be, if such clearing was necessary for the purpose of cultivating it."^ And the timber cut by the tenant in clearing belongs to him, which he may sell for his own profit.^ But in no case is the tenant allowed to cut timber for sale, unless this is the customary mode of using the land.^ Clark, 40 Mo. App. 515. But it is an almost universal rule, that shade and ornamental trees cannot be cut down by the tenant. Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 Eq. 306; Hawley D. Wolverton, 5 Paige, 522; Dunn D.Bryan, 7 Ired. Eq. 143; Marker v. Marker, 9 Hare, 1. So also is it waste to cut young trees. Dunn v. Bryan, supra. In conformity with the rule enunciated in the text, it has been held in Massachusetts that the cutting of oak for firewood is not waste according to the common usage and custom in that State. Padelford v. Padelford, 7 Pick. 162. 1 Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141 ; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293 ; McGregor V. Brown, 10 N. Y. 118; Jackson u. Brownson, 7 Johns. 227; McCulloua;h ». Irvine, 13 Pa. St. 438; Harder v. Harder, 20 Barb. 414; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 22 N.J. L. 521; Hastings u. Crunckleton, 3 Yeates, 261; Davis v. Gilliam, 5 Ired. Eq. 311; Woodward v. Gates, 38 Ga. 206; Adams v. Brereton, 3 Har. & J. 124; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180; ProfBtt V. Henderson, 29 Mo. 327. And the same rule is now applied to a dow- ress, although formerly under the old rule, that the tenant of a particu- lar estate could under no circumstances change woodland into arable land, the widow was held not to have dower in wild lands. 4 Kent's Com. 76; Ballantine ?;. Poyner, 2 Hayw. 110; Parkins c. Coxe, J6. 339; Hastings V. Crunckleton, 3 Yeates, 261; Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. 334; Pindlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. 134; Alexander v. Fisher, 7 Ala. 514. SeecoreJra, Connor ». Shepherd, 15 Mass. 164. But it must be with the bona fide intention to clear the land. If under this pretense, the tenant is really cutting for the purpose of profiting by the sale of the wood, it will be waste, notwith- standing the land is made more valuable by being cleared. See Kidd o. Dennison, 6 Barb. 8; Davis v. Gilliam, supra. 2 Davis V. Gilliam, 5 Ired. Eq. 31 1 ; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180. 3 Chase v. Hazelton, 7N. H. 171; Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 272; Par- kins V. Coxe, 2 Hayw. 339; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. 9; Davis v. Clark, 40 Mo. App. 515. But if the land is customarily used in cultivating trees for sale, the tenant may follow the custom, and continue to cut and sell the wood. Bagot v Bagot, 32 Beav. 509; Clemence v. Steere, supra; Ballentine v. Poyuer, 2 Hayw. 110. So also if the land is let with a fur- nace or turpentine still, wood may be cut for use in the furnace, or the pine may be tapped for resin to be used in the still, if that had been the custom with former owners. Den u. Kenny, 5 Jf. J. L. 652; Findlay ti. 59 § 76 ESTATES FOE LIFE. [PAET I. § 75. Continued — In respect to minerals and other deposits. — The tenant is not permitted to dig and sell "•ravel, clay and other deposits, which may be found thereon , or to use the clay for the purpose of making bricks.^ If, however, it had been the custom with previous owners to make such use of the land, the tenant may continue to use what pits and mines are already opened, but he cannot open new ones.^ In the case of minerals he may follow the same vein and for the purpose may make new shafts, railroads, and other improvements.' § 76. Continued — Management and culture of land. — At common law it was not permitted of the tenant of a particular estate to change the character of the laud, as wood, pasture or arable land, and put it to a different use. Any such change in the management or culture of the land constituted waste, for which the tenant would be answer- Smith, 6 Munf. 134; Carr v. Carr, i Dev. & B. 179. And when the cutting of some of the trees is necessary to facilitate the growth of others, the tenant may liltewise cut them for that purpose. Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293; Cowley?). Wellesley, L. R. 1 Eq. 656. 1 Co. Lit. 53 b; Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 572; Livingston v. Rey- nolds, 2 Hill, 157. So also toopen new mines, or to malce excavations in search for mines, would be waste, unless the right Is expressly granted. 2Bla. Com. 282; Saunder's Case, 5 Rep. 12; Darcy i). Askwith, Hob. 234; Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410; Viner v. Vaughan, 2 Beav. 466; Irwin V. Covode, 24 Pa. St. 162; Owings v. Emery, 6 Gill, 260. 2 Huntley B. Russell, 13 Q.B. 591; Moyle ». Moyle, Owen 66; Knight u. Moseley, Amb. 176; Stoughton ?). Leigh, 1 Taunt, 410; Neelc.Neel, 19 Pa. St. 824; Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 361 •, Crouch v. Puryear, 1 Rand. 258; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. 134; Billings v. Taylor, 10 Pick. 460; Irwin ». Covode, 24 Pa. St. 162; Coates t). Cheever, 1 Cow. 460; Lenfers ». Henke, 73 111. 405; 24 Am. Rep. 263; Hendrix v. McBeth, 61 Ind. 473; 28 Am. Eep. 680. 3 Clavering v. Claveriug, 2 P. Wms. 388; Billings v. Taylor, 10 Pick. 460 ; Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cow. 460 ; Irwin v. Covode, 21 Pa. St. 162 ; Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St, 45; Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 361 ; Crouch v. Puryear, 1 Rand. 258 ; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. 134. Sayers v. Hoskinson, 110 Pa. St. 473. 60 CH. V.J ESTATES FOK LIFE. § 77 able to the reversioner.^ The rule, however, in this country is, that jao such change will be waste unless it results in a permanent injury to the inheritance. In each case it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is waste, and it is very largely governed by the usages and customs of the place in which the question arises.^ The tenant, however, is obliged to use the land in the manner required by the rules of good husbandry, and it will be waste if he permits the arable or meadow land to be overgrown with brush- wood, or if he exhausts the lands by unwise tillage.^ § 77. Continued — In respect to building's. — In like manner at common law, the strict rule was applied, that any change in the character of the building, even though it resulted in a benefit to the inheritance, would be consid- ered waste. Thus the removal of wainscots, the opening of new doors or windows, as well as the more important change of the building from a dwelling house to a store, or a change in the location of the building, were held to be waste.* A more liberal rule is now applied, and actual 1 2Bla.Comi«82; Co. Lit. 53; Darcy «. Askwlth, Hob. 234 a;l Washb. on Keal Prop. 145. 2 Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293 ; Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. 1. 272 ; Webster V. Webster, 33 N. H. 25; Jones v. Whitehead, 1 Pars. 304; Sarlesw. Sarles, 3 Sandf . 601 ; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 118 ; Crocljett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180; Owen u. Hyde, BYerg. 334; Proffitt ». Henderson, 29 Mo. 327; Sayres v. Hoskinson, 110 Pa. St. 473. 3 Clemens v. Steere, 1 E. I. 272; Claik v. Holden, 7 Gray, 8; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. 601. Likewise the removal of grasses, manure made upon the land, and the digging of turf, which by the rules of good husbandry should be left upon the land to enrich it, would be waste. Sarles v. Sarles, supra; Daniels u. Pond, 21 Pick. 371; Moulton v. Eobinson, 27 N. H. 550; Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 658; Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. 169; Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 262; Harris v. Mins, 20 W. E. 999. * Co. Lit. 63a, note 344; City of London v. Greyme, Cro. Jac. 181; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 146; Huntley v. Eussell, 13 Q. B. 688; Greene v. Cole, 2 Saund. 252; Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688; Douglass v. Wiggins, 1 Johns Ch. 435; Agate v. Lowenbein, 67 N. Y. 504; Mannsell ». Hart, II Ired. Eq. 478 ; Thatcher v. Phinney, 7 Allen's Tel. Cas. 146 ; Austin v. 61 § 77 ESTATES EOE LIFE. [pART I. damage must be shown, in order that the action might lie.^ And although even now a material and permanent change in the character of the building, and the uses to which it might be put, will not be permitted, yet any slight or immaterial change, as the cutting of a door or the opening of two rooms into one, will be permissible, whenever it is possible for the premises to be restored to their original con- dition at the end of his term, and in no case is it likely that the erection of new buildings will be considered waste. ^ The tenant is also under obligation to keep the buildings in repair, and is responsible in damages, if he permits them to fall into decay. Tenants for life or for years, are required to make all the repairs necessary to keep the premises in as good condition as they were when they entered into possession ; and for that purpose they may use the timber to be found on the land." But the tenant Stevens, 24 Me. 520; Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256. But he may tear down a ruinous building, which Is dangerous to his cattle or to life and limb. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272. 1 Young V. Spencer, 10 B. & C. 145; Doe v. Burlington, 5 B. & Ad- 607; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 25; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y.118; Jackson v. Tibbits, 3 Wend. 341; Phillips v. Smith, 14 Mees. & W. 595; Jackson v. Andrew, 18 Jotins. 431. 2 Jones V. Chappelle, L. R. 20 Eq. 539; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige, 259; Jackson v. Tibbits, 3 Wend. 341 ; Sarles v. Sales, 3 Sandl. Ch. 601 ; Beers v. St. Jolm, 16 Conn. 329. But see Dooley v. Stringham, 4 Utah 107, where the tearing down of an old building and erection of a new one was con- sidered an act of waste. See cases cited In notes 1 and 2, supra. And if the structure is an agricultural fixture, which the tenant may remove according to the law of fixtures. It is certainly no act of waste for him to put it there; and he may remove it at the expiration of the estate. If he can do so without materially injuring the inheritance. Van Ness »• Pacard, 2 Pet. 137; Austin v. Stevens, 24 Me. 520; Clemence ». Steere, 1 K. I. 272; Washburue v. Sproat, 16 Mass. 449; McCullough v. Irvine, 13 Pa. St. 438; Dozier v. Gregory, 1 Jones L. 100. But see Madigan v. Mc- Carthy, 108 Mass. 376 ; Benney v. Foss, 02 Me. 251 ; Conklin v. Foster, 67 111. 104. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 149; Long v. Fitzslmmons, 1 Watts & S. 630; Darcy v. Askwith, Hob. 235; MUes v. Miles, 32 N. H. 147; Harder V. Harder, 26 Barb. 409; Sticlilebone \>. Hatchman, Owen, 43; AValls v. (52 CH. v.] ESTATES FOR LIFE. § 79 is obliged to repair, even though there be no timber on the land.^ He will not, however, be forced to expend any very large sums of money, where there has been any extraor- dinary decay or destruction of the buildings. And if the juildings were in a state of decay at the time when his .;erm begun, he will not be called upon to repair.^ The tenant from year to year is only required to keep the buildings wind and water tight. He is npt expected to provide against the ordinary wear and tear.^ § is. Continued — ^Acts of strangers. — The tenant is not responsible for damages done by the act of God, the pub- lic enemies, or by the law. But he is obliged to protect the premises from waste by strangers, and for the acts of such persons he is responsble to the reversioner.* § 79. Continued — Destruction of buildings by fire. — If the buildings are destroyed by fire through the careless- ness of the tenant or his servants, he is responsible in damages, but he is not liable if it is the result of an acci- . Lansley, 2 Russ. & Mylne, 855; Porter v. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt. 410; Stuart V. Kissam, 3 Barb. 493 ; Trenton Banking Co. v. Woodruff, 2 N. J. Eq. 117; Cochrane ». O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. 95; Heath v. Knapp, 4 Barr, 228; Shirley v. Shirley, 9 Paige, 364 ; Blanchard v. Blood, 2 Barb. 352 ; Pears v. Brooks, 12 G-a. 195 ; Steele v. Steele, 1 Ired. Eq. 452 ; Knight v. Bell, 22 Ala. 198; ariffith v. Griffith, 5 B. Mon. 113; Long o. White, 5 J. J. Marsh. 226. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 331 ; Tritt v. Colwell, 31 Pa, St. 228 ; Pears v. Broolcs, 12 Ga. 195; Goodrum v. Goodrum, 8 Ired. Eq. 313; Welch «. Welch, 14 Ala. 76. See Tidd v. Lister, 17 Eng. Law & Eq. 560 ; s. c, 23 Id. 578. s 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 331 ; Williams Real Prop. 224, Rawle's note ; Whiter. Hulme, 1 Bro. C. C. 16; Brandon v. Sobinson,,18 Ves. 434; Tullett •». Armstrong, 1 Beaa. 1 ; Scarborough v. Borman, lb. 34. The statement in the text thai the trustee must join in the conveyance with the married ■woman Is not true when the married woman's separate estate is a pas- sive. It is only true when it is an active use. See post, sect. 469. ^ In New Jersey, Connecticut, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Vermont andMaryland. Leaycraf ta. Heddeu, 4N. J. Eq. 69 § 94 ESTATES OUT OF MARITAL EELATION. [PART I. while in other States the contrary rule has been adopted that no disposition of the wife's separate property can be made by her or her husband, unless a power of disposition is expressly granted to her.' In the latter States, therefore, the wife's separate property is amply protected against the control or influence of the husband. But in England, and in those States which have adopted the Enghsh rule, he may still gain control of her property by the exercise of his persuasive powers over her. In order to afford her com- plete protection, it is permitted in those States to impose restrictions upon her power to alien the estate or to anticipate the income thereof.' § 94. Statutory changes in tliis country. — The fore- going paragraphs present the law as it obtains at common law and in this country, in the absence of remedial statutes. The common-law rights of the husband in the wife's prop- erty during coverture have been entirely taken away in some of the States, the married woman being vested, by statutes, with all the rights and capacities, in respect to her property, of a single woman, while in other States they are more or less modified and regulated by statute.' In the limited space, which can be given to the subject, it is impos- 651 ; Imlay v. Huntington, 20 Conn. 175 ; Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 198 ; Col- lins o. Larenburg, 19 Gra. 685; Cooke v. Husbands, 11 Md. 492; C lemanu. Wooley, 10 B. Mon. 320 ; Hardy v. Van Harlingen, 7 Ohio St. 208 ; White- sides V. Cannon, 23 Mo. 457 ; Feary v. Booth, 4 Am. Law Reg. (n. s.) 141, note; Frazier v. Brownlow, 3 Ired. Eq. 237. In New York, the Erglish rule formerly prevailed. Dyett v. North American Coal Co., 20 Wend. 570. But now the matter is regulated by local statute, and the wife's power over her separate estate has been greatly restricted. Rogers v. Ludlow, 8 Sandf. Ch- 104; Leggetti). Perkins, 2 N. T. 297. See post, sect. 469, note. 1 In Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Wright v. Brown, 8 Wright, 204; Metcalf v. Cooke, 2 R. L 355; Williamson v. Beekhsm, 8 Leigh, 20; Ewing v. Smith, 3 DeSau. 417; Doty V. Mitchell, 9 Smed. & M. 447 ; Marshall v. Stephens, 8 Humph. 159- See post, sect. 469, note. ' 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 331; Williams on Real Prop. 225; cases cited in notes (11, 12, 13). See also post, sect. 469. ' See 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 335-341, note. 70 • CH. VI. j ESTATES OUT OF MARITAL KELATION. § 94 sible to give the law of each State in detail, as it has been modified by statute. But the following brief and general statement may be taken as reasonably accurate : In Cali- fornia, Colorado, Dakota, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indi- ana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, the common law estate during cover- ture has been practically abolished, except that in Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada and Pennsylvania, in order to convey her property, the hus- band must join in the deed, and in Texas he is held to have the management of her lands during coverture. In Ala- bama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Vermont, the common-law rights of the husband in his wife's property have been more or less modified, the chief provision being, that his creditors can- not levy upon it for his debts. In New Hampshire and Ohio, all lands acquired by the wife by devise, conveyance, or purchase with her own funds, shall be her separate prop- erty free from the common-law rights of the husband, but she cannot convey her lands, without joining with the hus- band. In California, Dakota, Nevada, and Texas, the "partnership" theory of marriage, borrowed from the civil or Roman law, and in force in Louisiana, has been adopted, and a statute declares that all lands purchased by the husband or wife with funds earned by their labor, shall be the common property of both, and one-half goes to the heirs of each, or it may be conveyed away during his or her lifetime, without the co-operation of the other. It is evi- dent from this brief synopsis, that an accurate knowledge of the law of married women, in any given State, can only be had by a careful study of the statutes and decisions of that State. A general treatise of limited scope can only give an outline of the subject.' 1 See 1 "Washb. on Real Prop. 335-341, note. 71 SECTION n. ESTATE BY CURTESY. Section 101. Definition. 102. Marriage. 103. Estate of Inlieritance necessary in tlie wile. 104. Curtesy in fees determinable. 105. Curtesy in equitable estates. 106. Seisin in -wife during coverture. 107. Curtesy in reversion. 108. Necessity of issue. 109. Liability for husband's debts. 110. How estate may be defeated. § 101. Deflnltion. — An estate by the curtesy is a free- hold estate, limited by operation of law to the husband for life in the lands and tenement of the wife, in which she was seized of an estate of inheritance during coverture. The estate by curtesy becomes initiate upon the birth of issue, born alive and capable of inheriting the estate, and takes effect in possession upon the death of the wife.^ Until the death of the wife, the husband cannot by reason of his curtesy initiate make any claim to the land or to the rents and profits which she receives therefrom.^ It does not exist in Louisiana, California, Indiana, Michi- gan, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas ^ and Uli- 1 Co. Lit. 30 a; 2 Bla. Com. 126; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 163; Will- iams on Eeal Prop. 227. 2 Mocre v. Darby (Del. 1890), 18 Atl. Eep. 768. 3 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 164; Tong v. Marvin , 15 Mich. 73 ; Portis o. Parlier, 22 Texas, 699. But it is either recognized by the courts, or ex- pressly given by statute, in the other States. Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill, 186 Thurber v. Townshend, 22 N. Y. 617; Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226 Eeaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 162 McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. 267; Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush, 679; s. c. 15 Am. Eep. 747; Morris o. Morris, 94 N. C. 613; Luntz v. Qreve, 102 72 CH. VI. J ESTATE BY COURTESY. § 103 nois.^ The requisites of the estate by curtesy are: 1. Law- ful marriage; 2. Seisin of wife during coverture; 3. Birth of a living child in the life-time of the wife ; 4. The death of the wife. § 102. Marriage. — The marriage must be a lawful one. If the marriage be void because of some illegality, cur- tesy does not attach ; but if the marriage is only voidable, the husband will have curtesy, unless it be actually declared void during the life of the wife.^ And in some of the States, a dissolution of the marriage by decree of court at the suit of the wife for the fault of the husband, will take away the husband's estate by curtesy.* § 103. !Estate of inheritance necessary in the wife. — In order that curtesy may attach, the estate of the wife must be a freehold of inheritance, and no form of convey- Ind. 173. In South Carolina, it has been lately decided that the statute of 1791 only abolished curtesy in fees simple ; and that it still exists in a fee conditional. Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; GafEney v. Peeler, 21 S. C. 65; Erost v. Frost, 21 S. C. 501. The position of the South Caro- lina court that curtesy in fees simple is abolished, is based upon an erroneous construction of the act of 1791. That act gave the husband the same interest in the lands and other property of his deceased wife, as was given to the wife in her deceased husband's property, that is, he was included In the Statute of Descent as an heir of the wife. The court lolds that the estate by curtesy was impliedly abolished, whereas the proper construction is, that he is put to his election, and cannot take both the curtesy and the statutory provision. This construction Is universally recognized and adopted in the parallel case of the widow, who Is entitled to dower and is also made statutory heir. She may take her dower, but cannot take both. • 1 Abolished in 1874 and a dower interest substituted therefor. Com. v. O'Eear (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 956. 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 165. s This is the law in Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Arkansas, New Hamp- shire, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 309-12, note; Bishop's Mar. &. Div., sect. 666; 1 Oreenl. Cruise, 150. 73 § 104 ESTATE BY CURTESY. [PAET I. ance of a common-law legal estate of inheritance can be devised by which the husband may be deprived of his curtesy therein.! But the legal estate, of which the wife may be possessed as trustee, is not subject to the husband's curtesy.^ § 104. Curtesy in fees determinable. — In respect to the rio^ht of curtesy in fees simple and fees tail, no question can arise, as explained in a preceding paragraph. And the same may be said of a fee conditional at common-law, where such an estate has not been converted by the statute de donis into an estate tail.^ If, however, the estate be a fee upon condition, upon limitation, or a conditional limitation, some difficulty is experienced in determining what effect the happening of the condition or contin- gency would have upon the husband's curtesy. The following may be stated as the prevailing rule: If the estate of the wife be pne upon condition or upon lim- itation, estates which take effect and are determined according to the rules of the common law, and the lim- itation overtakes effect as common-law estates, as in the case of a remainder after an estate upon limitation, the husband's curtesy is defeated.* But, by a refinement of distinction, which is difficult to comprehend, if the estate be a fee determinable upon the happening of some future event, and the limitation over be by way of executory devise, or shifting use, or in other words a conditional limit- ^ Mildmay's Case, 6 Rep. 41; Mullany ». Mullany, 4 N. J. Eq. 16; Williams on Real Prop. 328; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 169. 2 Chewo. Commissioners, 6 Rawle, 160. And this is true, whetiier the trust is expressed or implied by law from the wife's contract, entered into before marriage, to sell the land. Welsh v. Chandler, 13 B. Mon. 431. 3 Odom V. Beverly (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. Rep. 835. < Co. Lit. 241, Butler's note, 170; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 167, 168, 170. 74 CH. VI.] ESTATE BY CURTESY. § 105 ation, the estate by curtesy still exists, unaffected by the happening of the contingency.^ § 105. Curtesy in equitable estates. — It was once held that the husband was not entitled to curtesy out of the equitable estates of the wife. But it is now very generally conceded that he has curtesy in all equitable as well as legal estates, and the same rules are applied to the former, which obtain in the latter. For the foundation of the claim of curtesy, the receipt by the wife of the rents and profits is a sufficient seisin.* The husband has also curtesy in tlie equity of redemption, where he and his wife joined in the execution of the mortgage.^ And this is true also, even of those equitable estates" which are granted to her sole and separate use.* But equitable estates will not be subject to the right of curtesy, if the intention of the grantor, to 1 Buckworth v. Thlrkell, 3 B. & P. 652; Moody v. King, 2 Bing. 447; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 285; Grant v. Townshend, 2 Hill, 554; Evans V. Evans, 9 Pa. St. 190; Wright u. Herron, 6 Rich. Eq. 406; Martin ». Renaker (Ky. 1888), 9 S. W. Rep. 419; Webb v. Trustees, etc., Baptist Cliurch (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. Rep. 362. See 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 171, 172; Co. Lit. 241 a, Butler's note, 170; 4 Kent's Com. 33. See posf, sect. 129, note. 2 4 Kent's Com. 31; 1 Washb. on Real. Prop. 166, 166; Watts v. Ball, 1 P. Wms. 109 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; S weetapple v. Bindon , 2 Vern. 537, note 3; Davis w. Mason, 1 Pet. 508; Houghton v. Hapgood, 13 Pick. 154; Robinson u. Codman, 1 Sumn. 128; Dunscombo. Dunscomb, 1 Johns. 508; Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts, 113; Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 154; Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Sid. 54; Forbes ». Smith, 5 Ired. Eq. 369; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; Alexanders. Warrance, 17 Mo. 228. In several of the States, notably Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland, Missis- sippi, and Virginia, curtesy is by statute made to attach to equitable estates. 1 Greenl. Cruise, 157. 3 Robinson v. Lakenan, 28 Mo. App. 135; Mettler v. Miller, 129 111. 630. * Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. 1.383; Nightingale v. Hidden, lb. 116; Sartill V. Robeson, 2 Jones Eq. 510; Carter v. Dale, 8 Lea, 710; 31 Am. Rep. 660. But see Moore v. Webster, L. R. 23 Eq. 267. Appleton v. Row- ley, L. R. 8 Eq. 139; Carson u. Fuhs, 131 Pa St. 256, and succeeding note. 75 § 106 ESTATE BY CURTEST. [PAET I. exclude the husband from such equitable estate, is clearly manifested in the deed.^ § 106. Seisin in wife during coverture. — Another requisite of the estate by curtesy is, that the wife must be seised of the estate during coverture ; and if divorce is ob- tained before the wife's acquisition of the seisin, he cannot cannot claim curtesy in such property because she would not in that case have had the seisin during coverture.^ The actual seisin was required at common law, but at the present day, in this country, all that is required is legal seisin, which is a present right to the possession. But adverse possession will preclude the husband's right of curtesy, if the seisin is not regained during coverture. In the absence of such adverse possession, actual possession is not required.^ In England, in case of the descent of lands upon the wife, an entry by the husband during coverture is necessary to support his right to curtesy. But it is the general rule in this country, that actual entry is not required,* and in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Connecticut, 1 Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea, 710; 31 Am. Law Eep. 660; Stokes v. McKlbbin, 13 Pa. St. 207; Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. 95; Eigler v. Cloud, li Pa. St. 361 ; Clark v. Clark, 24 Barb . 582 ; Pool v. Blaikie, 53 111. 495 ; Hearle V. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ; Bennett v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 316 : 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 165-169. 2 Schult v. Moll, 10 N. Y. S. 703. s 4 Kent's Com. 30 n ; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 506 ; Jackson v. Sellick 8 Johns. 262 ; Den v. Demarest, 1 N. J. L. 525 : Ellsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. 640; Jackson u. Johnson, 5 Cow. 74; Bar v. Galloway, 1 McLean, 476; Pierce v. Wanett, lOIred.446; Mercer ». Selden, 1 How. 37; McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. 267; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 277. McDaniel ■0. Grace, 15 Ark. 465; Adams v. Logan, 6 Men. 175; Neeley v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. 48; Eeaume u. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793; Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 B. Mon. 467; Mettler v. Miller (111. 1890), 22 N. B. 529; Baker v. Oak wood, 49 Hun, 416. "Co. Lit. 29 a.; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 173, 174, Adair t). Lett, 8 Hill, 182 ; Jackson u. Johnson, 5 Cow. 74; Chew r. Commissioners, 5 Rawle, 160; Day v. Cochrane, 24 Miss. 261; Stephens v. Hume, 26 Mo. 76 CH. Vl.J ESTATE BY CURTESY. § 107 adverse possession does not necessitate an actual entry. ^ If the lands are in possession of a co-tenant in a tenancy in common, the wife is deemed sufficiently seized in order to give the husband curtesy, and such would also be the case, where a tenant for years or at sufferance has possession by lease from the wife. The tenant in such a case holds the actual seisin' or possession as a quasi bailee of the reversioner.^ § 107. Curtesy in reversion. — But if the estate of the wife be a reversion or a remainder, supported and preceded by a particular freehold estate, she will not have such a present right to the possession, as to give her husband curtesy, unless the prior freehold is determined during coverture, and this, too, though the husband is the tenant of the prior freehold.^ The husband in such cases can only have curtesy, when during coverture, the particular freehold is determined or is merged in the reversion by coming into the same hands.* 349; Harvey v. ■Wichman, 23 lb. 115; Carr v. Glvens, 9 Bush. 679; s. c. 15 Am. Eep. 747. 1 Stoolfoos u. Jenkins, 8 Serg. & E. 175; Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day, 298; Boreland v. Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 308; Merrltt v. Home, 6 Ohio St. 307; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494. Contra, Mercer's Lessee m. Selden, 1 How, 154. 2 De Grey w. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 245; Wass V. Bucknam, 35 Me. 360; Taylor u. Gould, 10 Barb. 388; Jackson V. Johnson, 5 Cow. 74; Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. Eq. 177; Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. 179 ; Vanarsdallw. Tauntleroy, 7 B. Mon. 401 ; Day v. Cochrane, 24 Miss. 261. 3 Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. 263; Purguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543; Orford u. Benton, 36 N. H. 395; Shores u. Carley, 8 Allen, 426; Hitner V. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305; Robertsons. Stevens, 1 Ired Eq. 247; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 163; Planter's Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala. 633; Doe v. Rivers, 9 T. E. 272; Webster ». Ellsworth (Mass. 1888), 18 N. E. Eep. 669. * 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 175-178; Doe v, Scuddamore, 2 B. & P. 294; Plunket v. Holmes, 1 Lev. 11; 1 Cruise Dig. 149. 77 § 109 ESTATE BY CURTESY. [PAET I. § 108. Necessity ot issue. — The estate by curtesy is by the theory of the law only a continuance of the wife's estate of inheritance, and is supposed to be intrusted to him during life for the benefit of the wife's issue. It is there- fore necessary by the common law, that the wife should have issue born alive, who can take the inheritance as heir to the wife. A female chUd in the case of a tail male would not satisfy this requirement.^ , His right becomes initiate upon the birth of the child, and attaches and vests in possession, whether it was born before or after the acquisition of the estate ; and, provided it was born alive, its death at any time would not affect the husband's right o.f curtesy. 2 In Pennsylvania, by statute, the birth of a child is not necessary.^ The issue must not only be born alive and capable of inheriting the estate, but it must also at common law have been born during the life-time of the mother. The birth of the child after her death, by means of the Csesarian operation, would not give the husband curtesy.* § 109. liiabillty for liusband's debts. — As soon as the right becomes initiate by the birth of the child as well as after it is consummate, it may be subjected to the satisfac- 1 Co. Lit. 29 b; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 178; Williams on Real Prop. 228; Heath v. White, 5 Coun. 228 ; Day v. Cochrane, 24 Miss. 261. 2 2 Bla. Com. 128 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 179 ; Witham v. Perkins, 2 Me. 400; Comer v. Chamberlin, 6 Allen, 166; Watson v. Watson, ISConn. 83; Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cow. 74; Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph. 307; Martina. Renaker (Ky. 1888), 9 S. W. Rep. 419. The husband's right of curtesy, upon birth of a ch'ild by him, takes precedence to any claim by descent of a son of the wife by a prior marriage. Heaths. White, 5 Conn. 236. The law is different in Michigan by statute. Hathorn «. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93. 3 Williams on Real Prop. 228, Rawle's note; Dubs ». Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 154; Lancaster Co. Bank v. Staufter, 19 Pa. St. 398. ' 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 179; Co. Lit. 29 b; 1 Greenl. Cruise, 143. note ; Marsellis v. Thalheimer, 2 Paige Ch. 42. 78 CH. VI.] ESTATE BY CURTESY. § 110 tion of the husband's debts and can be sold under a levy of execution.^ Equity will not interfere in behalf of the wife or children.^ It can be conveyed by the husband in- dependently of the wife's conveyance of her estate in the land.' § 110. How estate may be defeated. — The statutory divorce as has been seen, will defeat the husband's right of curtesy, where it is granted for his fault.* In Pennsylvania it is also provided by statute that if the husband unjusti- fiably deserts his wife for a year preceding her death, he shall forfeit his claim to curtesy.'' So, likewise, the accept- ance of a testimentary provision which was made for him in the place of the curtesy, will bar the curtesy.^ It was also the rule at common law that a f eoffm ent in fee by the hus- band would destroy his tenancy by curtesy. But although the same rule is now enforced in this country in regard to feoffments, wherever they still obtain, and it is not changed by statute, yet the ordinary conveyance is held to transfer only what the grantor has, and will not work a forfeiture of his actual estate.' In a preceding section it has been 1 Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326; Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186; Litchfield u. Cudworth, ISPicIi. 23; Watson tJ. Watson, 13 Conn. 83; Burd V. Bausdale, 2Binn. 80; Lancaster Co. Banii; v. Stauffer, 10 Pa. St. 398; Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige, 36C; Day v. Cochrane, 24 Miss. 261; Canbyt). Porter, 12 Ohio, 79; Bozarth t?. Largent, 128 111. 95. But see Harvey v. Wicliham, 23 Mo. 112; Welsh v. Solenberger (Va. 1889), 8 S. E. 91. * 2 Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige, 366. - ' Mettler v. Miller (111. 1889), 22 N. E. 529. 4 See ante, sect. 102. « Bealor v. Hahn, 132 Pa. St. 242. « Beirne's Ex'rs v. Von Ahlefeldt, 33 W. Va. 663. ' French v. Rollins, 21 Me. 372; Plagg v. Bean, 25 N. H. 63; Dennett u. Dennett, 40 N. H. 505; McKee v. Pfont, 3 Dall. 486; Munneslyn w. Munneslyn, 2 Brev. 2; Butterfield v. Beall, 3 Ind. 203; Meramec v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon. 32; Baykin «. Rain, 28 Ala. 332; Miller v. Miller, Meigs, 484. 79 § 110 ESTATE BY CUETEST. [PART I. stated that in a number of the States, statutes h^ve been passed, which enable a married woman to hold property as free from marital rights, as if she were single. In New York, where the change was first made, it has been held that the common-law right to curtesy still exists, but it may be defeated by the conveyance of the wife during cover- ture.^ But it seems that under the New York statute, the tenancy by the curtesy vests only where the land remains undisposed of by deed or by will. A devise of the lands would therefore defeat the tenancy.^ But this doctrine is not always followed elsewhere, the curtesy being held to attach, notwithstanding the married woman is given the power to dispose of her lands by deed or by will. The power so granted to her is presumed to be exercised subject to the husband's curtesy.^ 1 Clark V. Clark, 24 Barb. 681; Thurber v. Townsliend, 22 N. Y. 517. ' See Burke v. Valentine, 52 Barb. 412 ; Scott ». Guernsey, 60 Barb. 163; Rider v. Hnlse, 24 N. Y. 372, N. B. 76. s Cooke's Appeal, 132 Pa. St. 633. 80 SECTION m. DOWEE. Bbction 115. Dower defined and explained. 116. In what estates has she dower. 117. Dower in equitable estates. 118. Dower in lands of trustee. 119. Dower in mortgage. 120. Dower in proceeds of sale. 121. Seisin required in the husband during coverture. 122. Continued — Defeasible or determinable seisin. 123. Duration of the seisin. 124. Instantaneous seisin. 125. Marriage must be legal. 126. How dower may be lost or barred by act of the husband. 127. Continued — By wife's release during coverture. 128. Continued — By elopement and divorce. 129. Continued — By loss of husband's seisin. 130. Continued — By estoppel in pais. 131. Continued — By statute of limitations. 132. Continued — By exercise of eminent domain. * > 133. "Widow's quarantine. 134. Assignment — Two modes. ' 135. Continued — Of common rights 136. Dower against common right. 137. By whom may dowerbe assigned. 138. Remedies for recovery of dower. 139. Demand necessary. 140. Against whom and where the action is bought. 141. Continued — Abatement by death of widow. 142. Judgment, what it contains. 143. Continued — Damages, when recoverable. 144. Continued — Assignment after judgment. 145. Assignment — Where two or more widows claim dower. 146. Decree of sura of money in lieu of dower. 147. Dower barred by jointure. 148. Continued — By testamentary provision. 149. Continued — By statutory provision for inheritance. § 115. Dower defined and explained. — Dower is that interest or estate which is provided by the law for the widow out of the real property of the husband. At common law, 6 81 § 115 DOWEK. [part I. and generally in this country, it is an estate for life in one- third of his lands, tenements, and hereditaments.^ During coverture, her interest, though an incumbrance, is but an inchoate right, which she can neither assign, release, nor extinsruish, except by joining in the deed of her husband, as explained later on. It cannot at this stnge be considered even a choxe in action; ami it is not affected by any adverse possession until the death of the husband, when her right of action accrues and the statute of limitation begins to run ao-ainsther; although such possession is sufficient to bar (he husband's interest in tlie laiid.^ Upon the death of the husband, the wile surviving, the right becomes consummate ; it is then a chose in action which entitles her to have certain of her husband's lands set out to her. She has not yet an estate, simply a consummate right to an estate, which she 1 2 Bla. Com. 180; Co. Lit. 30 a; 1 Washb. on Rpal Prop. 187-189; Moure V. New York, 8 N. Y. 110; Reaume ». Chambers, 22 Mo. 36. la some of tlie States, the widow has one -third in fee, instead of for life, while in others it is enlarged to one -half, but except in respect to quantity, the estate has the same general qualities throughout the United States. See Burlse v. Barron, 8 Iowa, 134; O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 lowj' 381; Lucas ». Sawyer, 17 Iowa, 519; Sturgis v. Ewing, 18 111. 176; Noel V. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37; Gaylord v. Dodge, 13 Ind. 47. In Louisiana and California, the widow has one- half of all the common property of her husband. Beard v. Knox, 5 Cal. 252. And, although there are statutes in a number of tiie States giving the widow an interest in the personal, as well as the real property of the husband, dower technically can only be had out of real estate of inheritance as above stated. Dow o. Dow, 36 Me. 211; see post, sect. 116. 2 Durham v. Angler, 20 Me. 242; Moore v. Frost, 3N, H. 127; Gun- nison V. Twitche',1, 38 N. H. 68; Loarned v. Cutler, 18 Pick. 9; Moore v. New York, 8 N. Y. 110; McArthur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 200; Miller v. Pence (III. 1890), 23 N. E. 1030; Williams i). Williams (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. 760; Winters?). DeTurk, 25 W.N. C. 511; 19 Atl. 354. And it is so far an interest In the land, that if the renunciation of her dower right has been obtained by fraud of her husband with knowledge of the purchaser, the wife may avoid the deed in respect to her inchoate dower right. Somar ■«. Cauady, 68N. Y. 298; 13 Am. Rep. 623; Buzick ii. Buzick, 44 Iowa, 259; 24 Am. Rep. 740; White v. Graves, 107 Mass. 325; 9 Am. Rep. 38. 82 CH. VI. J DOWER. § 115 can assign in equity, and release at common law to one in possession, but which was incapable of assignment at com- mon law, like all other chosee in action.^ It only becomes an estate in the lands, when it has been set out to her. The act of setting out ^he dower is called the assignment of dower. From thisttime on, she has a life estate, with all the rights, incidents, and disabilities, which pertain to that class of estates.^ In some of the States, the wife holds her 1 Johnson u. Shields, 32 Me. 424; Hoxsie v. Ellis, 4 R. I. 123; Sheafe V. O'Neil, 9 Mass. 9; Gooch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 37S; Lund v. Wood-!, 11 Mete. 566; Croade v. Ingrahara, 13 Pick. 33; Tompkins v. Fonda, 4 Paige Ch. 448; Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. 167; Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. 651; Stewart v. McMartin, 5 Barb. 438; Harrison v. Wood, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 437 ; Saltmarsh v. Smith, 32 Ala. 404 ; Strong v. Bragg, 7 Blackf . 63 ; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483; Blaine v. Harrison, 11 111. 384; Torrey v. Minor, 1 Smed. & M. Ch. 489; Shield v. Batts, 5 J. J. Marsh. 12; Stewart V. Chadwick, 8 Iowa, 463; Brown v. Meredith, 2 Keen, 627; Corey v. The People, 45 Barb. 265. And likewise the dower right before assignment cannot be sold under attachment or execution. Kausch v. Moore, 48 Iowa, 611; 30 Am. Rep. 412; Brown v. Meredith, 2 Keen, 527; Gooch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 378; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. 500; Saltmarsh v. Smith, 32 Ala. 404. In Vermont and Connecticut she is held to have an estate in common with the heirs from the death of the husband . Dummerston v. Newlane, 37 Vt. 13; Woostenj. Hunt'sLyman Iron Co., 38 Conn. 257. And her interest before assignment is sufficiently vested to enable her to secure an injunc- tion against the infliction of injuries on the property by the heir, or by any other person, whether he is a stranger to the land or the tenant of the freehold. Shepard v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 57 N. Y. Super 5. In Ala- bama and Indiana she has such an interest in the land, as that it may be assigned before It has been set out. Powell v. Powell, 10 Ala. 900; Strong V. Clem, 12 Ind. 37. And even when the dower right before assignment cannot in law be conveyed, except by way of release to the tenant of the freehold, a conveyance or assignment to a stranger will be valid in equity,. and the assignee may bring the action for assignment in the name of the widow. Robie v. Flanders, S3 N. H. 624 ; Lamar v. Scott, 4 Rich. Eq. 516; Potter v. Everitt, 7 Ired. Eq. 152; Powell c. Powell, 1'' Ala. 900. Brayu. Conrad (Mo. 1890), 13 S.W. 957; Serryu. Curry, 26 Nc"**- 353. She can also mortgage her dower right before assignment. Mut'^ ' Ins. Co. V. Shipman, 119 N. Y. 324; overruling s. c. 50 Hun, 578. •" C°°"- 2 Windham v. Portland, 4 Mass. 384; Jones v. Brewer, ip-efor999 Powell V. Monson, 3~ Mason, 368; Lawrence v. Brown, 5 N. ^-^'ate of in- drewsu. Andrews, 14 N. J. L. 141; Norwood ». Marrow'^*- ^'^'' ^""^ '"^ 442; Sutton o. Burrows, 2 Murph. 79; Thompson v. Sta^**' ^'^^^- ^''^^- § 116 DOWER. [part 1. dower subject to the claims of her husband's creditors, but as a general rule her dower right takes precedence to such claims.! And because of this difference in the character of the widow's estate, her estate as dowress will not merge into the estate in reversion which she may acquire by in- heritance from her son if it should prove to be against her wishes and her interests.^ § 116. In what estates has she dower. — The widow has dower in all freehold estates of inheritance, which her issue, if any, could have inherited as' heir of the husband, and of As soon as judgment has been entered up, she may release or transfer the estate. Leavitt v. Lamprey, 13 Pick. 382. Serry v. Curry, 26 Neb. 353. And when the liabere facias has been issued, she may enter upon the land. Co. Lit. 37 b, n; Parker v. Parker, 17 Pick. 236; Evans v. Webb, 4 Yeates, 424. But if the assignment Is subsequently set aside, she may be treated as a disseizor or trespasser from the time of her entry. 4 Kent's Com. 61 ; Hildreth v. Thompson, 10 Mass. 131 ; Jackson V. O'Donaghy, 7 Johns. 247; Sharpley v. Jones, 6 Harr. 373; McCully v. Smith, 2 Bail. 103. After it is set out to her, she holds her dower land of her husband, and not of the heir or tenant. It is not the grant of the heir, and the grant by the heir of the dower land after her death. Incor- porated in the deed of assignment, is a grant of the reversion ana not of a technical remainder. Baker u. Baker, 4 Me. 67; Conant v. Little, 1 Pick. 189 ; Adams v. Butts, 9 Conn. 79 ; Lawrence v. Brown, 5 N. Y. 394. 1 When it is stated that in some of the States the dower right is sub ■ ject to the claims of creditors, it is meant that a judicial sale for debt will bar the wife's dower right, and, it being indicate, she cannot pro- tect it. Kirke v. Dean, 2 Binn. 347 ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & K. 18 ; Lozear v. Porter, 87 Pa. St. 513; 30 Am. Rep. 380; Taylor v. Highberger, 65 Iowa, 134. But it will not be barred by the assignment for benefit of creditors, or by sale in bankruptcy. Keller v. Michael, 2 Yeates, 300; Eberle?;. Fisher, 13 Pa. St. 52C; Lozoar v. Porter, 87 Pa. St. 513; 30 Am. Eep. 380; Bryar's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 81. But the general rule is, that "t cannot in any manner be barred by a sale for debts. Stinson v. Sum- g^f , 9 Mass. 149; Griffin v. Eeece, 1 Harr. 508; Lewis v. Coxe, 6 Harr. jjg^ Hinchman v. Stiles, 10 N. J. Eq. 361; Coombs v. Young, 4 Yerg. the w?''''* Smith, 111. 503; Davis v. Townsend CS. C. 1890;, 10 S. E. Somar 'k ^^^ *' ^^^ ■'^'^'^ i^ under attachment before marriage, a sale of Iowa 259;''* ^^^ wife's dower; Brown v. Williams, 31 Me. 403; Sanford Kep.'sS. ^aige, 117; Shiell v. Sloan, 22 S. C. 151. 'g2 'ink, 25 W.N. C. 78; 18 Atl. Eep. 621. CH. VI. J DOWER, § 116 which he was seised during coverture. It therefore in- cludes everything that is comprehended under the terms lands, tenements, and hereditaments, corporeal and incor- poreal. ^ The widow's claim for dower will in nowise be affected by the source of the consideration paid for the land, though it consisted of money wrongfully taken from her own property, during her insanity, and which the guard- ian requires to be returned. The return of the money is not inconsistent with her claim of dower. ^ She has no dower in estates per auler vie, or for years, except where these estates, or certain of them, are given by statute the incidents and characteristics of freehold estates of inherit- ance.^ On the other hand, while the wife has dower in 1 2 Bla. Com. 131 ; Co. Lit. 40 a ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 193-195. Dower may be claimed out of rents and other incorporeal hereditaments, except annuities not issuing out of land. Co, Lit. 32 a; 2 Bla. Com. 132 ; Aubin v. Daly, 4 B. & Aid. 59 ; Chase's Case, 1 Bland, 227 ; 4 Kent's Com. 401. But the incorporeal hereditament, like corporeal heredita- ments, must be an estate of inheritance. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 210; Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410; AYeir v. Tate, 4 Irod. Eq. 2G4; Chase's Case, 1 Bland, 227. She has dower in the crops planted by her husband, and growing at his decease. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 211; Ral^on w. Ralston, 3 Greene (Iowa), 533. In Massachusetts, she is not dowable in wild lands. Conner «. Shepherd, 15 Mass. 1G4. But in the other States, since the tenant for life has a right to clear wild lands, in order to make them available for use, the widow is granted her dower in such land. 4 Kent's Com. 76; Hastings «. Cruckleton, 3 Yeates, 261; Find- lay V. Smith, 6 Munf. 134; Ballantine v. Payner, 2 Hayw. 110; Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. 334; Alexander v. Fisher, 7 Ala. 514. See ante, sect. 74. She is likewise dowable in the mines, which were opened and worked by her husband. Lenfers v. Henke, 73 111. 405; 24 Am. Rep. 263; Hendrix v. McBeth, 61 Ind. 473; 28 Am. Rep. 680; ante, sect. 75. There is no dower in a burial lot. Price v. Price, 54 Hun, 349. 2 Rannells v. Isgrigg, 99 Mo. 19. f Gillis V. Brown, 5 Cow. 388; Spangler v. Spangler, 1 Md, Cb. 36; Tisher v. Grimes, 1 Smed. & M. Ch. 107; Ware v. Washington, 6 Smed. & M. 737; Burris v. Page, 12 Mo. 358; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 194, 195; Whltmire v. Wright, 22 S. C. 446. But see Goodwin v. Goodwin, 33 Conn. 314, which holds that the widow has no dower out of an estate for 999 years, although the statute converts this leasehold into an estate of in- heritance. Concerning estaXea per auter vie, see ante, sect. 61; and in respect to leaseholds made estates of inheritance, see post, sect, 171. 85 § 116 DOWER. [PAET I. lands which the husband holds as tenant in tail, as she has in any other estate of inheritance, of which he is seised durino- coverture, and which attaches although he may die without heirs capable of taking the estate, yet if the charac- ter of the estate tail is changed bystatute,sothat the interest of the tenant in tail is reduced to a life estate, with a remain- der in the heirs of his body, his wife cannot claim dower in such an estate.^ The inheritance must also be a continuous and entire one. The interposition of a freehold estate between the husband's estate in possession and his reversion or remainder in fee will prevent the wife's dower from attaching. It can only attach when the interposed freehold terminates during coverture.^ For still stronger reasons she cannot claim dower in her husband's reversions and remainders, where the preceding estate is a freehold.^ And so, also, where her husband's estate is a conditional limita- tion.* Nor can she for the same reason have dower in lands, which her husband holds in joint tenancy, until the tenancy has beea terminated by partition or by the death 1 Trumbull v. Trumbull, U9 Mass. 200. 2 Lewis Bowie's Case, 11 Rep. 80; Crump v. Norwood, 7 Taunt. 362; Eldridge v. Forrestal, 7 Mass. 353; Brooks v. Everett, 13 Allen, 458; Blood 11. Blood, 23 Pick. 80; Robison v. Codman, 1 Sumn. 130; Fisk v. Eastman, 5 N.H.2i0; Otis ». Parshley, ION. H. 403; Dunham o. Osborne, 1 Paige, 634; Durando v. Durando, 23 N. Y. 331; Gardner v. Greene, 5 R. I. 104; Shoemaker ». Walker, 2 Serg. & E. 556; Arnold v. Arnold, 8 B. Mon. 202; Apple v. Apple, 1 Head, 348; 4 Kent's Com. 39; 1 "Washb. on Eeal Prop. 195. But if the interposed estate be one for years, it will not affect the dower right, since the entire seizin is in the husband. Bates V. Bates, 1 Ld. Eaym. 326; Kitchens u. Kitchens, 2 Tern. 403. According to the early common law, a contingent remainder would be defeated by the coming together of the reversion and the life estate in one person. It was then held that the widow would have dower, notwithstanding the Interposed contingent remainder. Hooker v. Hooker, Ca. Temp. H. 13; Purefoy v. Rogers, 2 Saund. 380. But the contingent remainder cannot now be defeated by merger of the life estate in the reversion. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 197; Williams on Real Prop. 281, 282. 3 See pnst, § 388. 4 Bush V Bush, 5 Del. eh. 144. 86 CH. VI.] DOWEB. § 117 of the- Other tenant.^ Bat the estate of a tenant in common is subject to dower; the dower attaches to the husband's undivided interest in the land before partition, and after- wards to the share set out to him/ Estates held by a partnership for partnership purposes are also subject to (lower; but tlie dower is subordinate to the demands that might be made I)y partnership creditors against the part- nership property.^ In Michigan it is provided by statute that the wives of non-resident landowners cannot claim dower in lands which they have sold and conveyed during their non-residence.^ § 117. Dower in equitable estates. — According to the early English law there was no dower in equitable estates, ' 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 198; Co. Lit. 37 b; Duncnmb v. Duncomb, 3 Lev. 437; Maybury v. Brien, 15 Pet. 21; Babbitt v. Day, 41 N. J. Eq. 392. See post, sects. 237-239. 2 1 Washb. on Keal Prop. 199; Reynard u. Spence, 4 Beav. 103; Potter •». Wheeler, 13 Mass. 504; Totten v. Stayvesaut, 3 Edw. Ch. 500; Wilkin- son V. Parish, 3 Paige, 653 ; Lloyd v. Conover, 25 N. J. L. 48 ; Warren v. Twiley, 10 Mil, 39; Davis v. Bartholomew, 3 Ind. 485; Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Oliio St. 547; Lee v. Lindell, 22 Mo. 202; Jourdan ». Haran, 5Ji N. Y. Super. Ct. 185; Balier v. Leibert, 125 Pa. St. 106. In Iowa, the wife's dower is barred by partition in consequence of a statute which confines her bower to estates which "had not been sold on execution or on any other judicial sale." Williams v. Wescott, 77 Iowa, 332. 3 Burnside v. Merrick, 4 Mete. 537-, Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. 562 ; Smith v. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. 28; Coster v. Clark, 3 Edw. Ch. 428; Hawley v. James, 5 Paige, 451; Goodburn v. Stevens, 1 Md. Ch. 437; Pierce v. Trigg, 10 Leigh, 406; Richardson v. Wyatt, 2 Desau. 471; Loubat v. Nourse, 5 Fla. 350; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Harr. 328; Woolridge v. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) 372; Hale w. Plummer, 6 Ind.121; Bopp u. Fox, 63 111.540; Duhring w. Duhring, 20 Mo. 174. But in order that the claims of the creditors may take precedence of the widow's dower in respect to the laud held by two or more, the land must be in truth the prop, erty of the partnership. The character or their joint estate is deter- mined entirely by their intention, and it is possible for partners to hold real estate as tenants in common, without its becoming partner- ship property. In such a case, the widow takes her dower free from the claims of creditors. Wheatley u. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264; Markham v. Merrett, 8 How. (Miss.) 437; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121. 1 Bear v. Stah), 61 Mich. 203. 87 § 117 DOWEK. [part I. and the Statute of Uses expjressly excepted the estates ex- ecuted by it from the claims of dower. ^ But at present, in England, and generally in this country, the widow is entitled to dower in all classes of equitable, as well as leo-al, estates.^ In the same manner now, she has dower in the husband's equity of redemption, which gives her the right of one, who is interested in the mortgaged property, subject to the mortgage.* 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 202, 203 ; 4 Kent's Com. 43 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 601; Dixon?;. Saville, 1 Bro. C.C. 326; D'Arcy ». Blake, 2 Sch.&Lef. 887; Maybury v. Brien, 15 Pet. 38 ; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 19 Me. 141. Seepost, sect. — . 2 Hawley v. James, 5 Paige, 318; Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 151; Shoe- maker V. Walker, 2 Serg. & R.554; Bowie v. Berry, 1 Md. Ch. 452; Miller II. Stump, 3 Gill, 304; Rowtouu. Rowton, 1 Hen. & M. 92; Thompson v. Thompson, IJones (N. C.) Eq. 430; Dawson v. Morton, 6 Dana, 471; Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Mon. 93; Gully v. Ray, 18 Ky. 113; Barnes V. Gay, 7 Iowa, 26; Smiley «. Wright, 2 Ohio, 512; Gillespie v. Somerville, 3 Stew. &P. 447; Davenport i). Farrar, 2 111. 314; Atkins o. Merrill, 39 III. 62; Clapp v. Galloway, 56 Mich. 272. Contra, Hamlin v. Hamlin, 19 Me. 141; Stelle ®. Carroll, 12 Pet. 201. In Iowa, a widow is not dowable in lands held by her husband under a pre-emption right. Bowery v. Keesecker, 14 Iowa, 301. But in several of the States it has been held that the widow has dower in lands which her husband had contracted to purchase, where he died before the deed was de- livered. Church V. Church, 3 Sandf. Ch. 434; Smiley v. Wright, 2 Ohio, 512; Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Mon. 93; Davenport v. Farrar, 2 111.314; Reedw. Whitney, 7 Gray, 533; Lobdell v. Hayes, 4 Allen, 187; Joseph V. Fisher, 122 Ind. 399; Young v. Young, 45 N. J. Eq. 27; Bowen v. Brockenbrough, 119 Ind. 560; see contra, Morgan o. Smith, 25 S. C. 337; Morgan v. Wright, 25 S. C. 601. But if the contract of sale rests upon a condition precedent, which vpas not performed by the husband, the wife's dower does . not attach Walters v, Walters (111. 1890'), 23 N. E. Rep. 1120; Beebe v. Lyle, 73 Mich. 114. In some of the States the old English rule still prevails, that dower cannot be had in equitable estates. See cases cited supra. 3 Smith?). Eustis,7Me. 41; Young «. Tarbell,37 Me.509; Moore I'.Esty, 6 N. H. 479; Eaton v. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98; Fay v. Cheney, 14 Pick. 399; FarwellB. Cotting, 8 Allen, 211; Hastings v. Stevens, 29 N.Y. 664; Savage V. Dooley, 28 Conn. 411; Hitchcock d. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290; Jackson r. Dewitt, 6 Cow. 316; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278; Montgomery o. Bruere, 5 N. J. L. 265; Thompson v. Boyd, 1 N. J. Eq. 58; Stopplebein ». Shulte, 1 Hill (S. C.),200;Heth u. Cooke, 1 Rand. 344; Mclver ». Cherry, 88 CH. VI. J DOWER. § 119 § 118. Dower in lands of trustee. — The wife has no <3ower in lands, which her husband holds as trustee, except so far as he may at the same time have an equitable inter- est therein. And this rule is applied to every kind of trust, whether express or implied, as for example, where the husband, before marriage, has entered into a contract for the sale of the land.^ § 119. Dower In mortgage. — The mortgagee's wife has no dower in the mortgaged premises until foreclosure. 8 Humph. 713; McArthur v. Franklin, 15 Ohio St. 608; s. c. 16 lb. 193 "Whitehead v. Middletou, 2 How. (Miss.) 692; Taylor v. Fowler, 18 Ohio 567; Taylor u. McCrackin, 2 Blackf. 262; Mayburg v. Brien, 15 Pet. .38 Burrall v. Hurd, 61 Mich. 608; Burrall v. Clark, 61 Mich. 624; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. V. Mayer, 14 Daly, 318; MandoU v. McClave, 46 Ohio St. 407 Burnet v. Burnet (N. J. 1889), 18 Atl. 374. See contra, In re Thompson's Estate, 6 Mackey, 636. If the mortgage is foreclosed, her right of dower Is defeated. Stow v. TifEt, 15 Johns. 458; Frost v. Peacock, 4 Edw. Ch. 678; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 18; Elder v. Robbin, 122 Ind. 203; Seibert v. Todd, 31 S. C. 206. On the other hand, if the mortgage is satis- fied by one who is under a primary liability to pay It off, the dower right ^.ttaches to the property free from the mortgage ; but if the heir or pur- chaser pays the mortgage to prevent foreclosure, in order that the widow may claim a proportionate benefit from the satisfaction of the mortgage, she must contribute her share towards the expenses. Hatch V. Palmer, 58 Me. 292; Simonton v. Gray, 34 Me. 50; Hinds v. Ballou, 44 N. H. 619; Ballard v. Bovvers, 10 N. H. 500; McCade v. Swap, 14 Allen, 118; Toomey v. McLean, 105 Mass. 122; Wedge v. Moore, 6 Gush. 8; Collins V. Torrey, 7 Johns. 278 ; Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cow. 400 ; Hitch- cock V. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290; Matthewson v. Smith, 1 R. I. 22; Klinck V. Keckley, 2 Hill Ch. 250; Carter v. Goodin, 3 Ohio St. 75; Bank of Commerce v. Owens, 31 Md. 320; 1 Am. Rep. 60; Noffts v. Ross, 29 111. App. 301 ; Everson o. McMullen, 113 N. Y. 293. See post, sect. III., ch. X. Where the dower right Is subject to the mortgage, and the mort- gagee is in possession, the action for dower cannot be instituted until the mortgage has been redeemed. A suit for redemption must precede the assignment of dower. Smith v. Eustis, 7 Me. 41; Richardson ». Skol- field, 45 Me. 386; Cass v. Martin, 6 N. H. 25; Van Dyne v. Thayer, 14 Wend. 233. 1 4 Kent's Com. 43, 46; Coster v. Clarke, 4 Edw. Ch. 428; Prescott v. Walker, 16 N. H. 343; Hopkiuson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 303; Powell ». Monson, 3 Mason, 364; Brooks i;. Everett, 13 Allen, 458; Dean v. Mitchell, 89 § 120 DOWER. [part I. This is true both in law and equity ; under the common law, as well as under the modern lien, theory of mortgages. i And this is true, although the deed of conveyance, which was delivered as a mortgage, appears on its face to be an absolute conveyance. The judgment of the court that this deed was a mortgage would bar the wife's dower, although she was not made a party to the action.^ § 120. Dower Id proceeds of sale. — Whenever it is necessary for the settlement of varied interests in lands, of which she is dowable, that the lands should be sold, her dower right will follow and atttach to the share in the pro- ceeds of the sale, to which her husband would have been entitled. This is generally true, for whatever cause the land might have been sold.^ But it has been held that she is not entitled to dower in the surplus of the proceeds of sale of the land in foreclosure of a mortgage in which she has renounced her dower. That is, she is not entitled to a share in such surplus, where the foreclosure and sale took 4 J. J. Marsh. 457; Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 97; Cowman v. Hall, 3 Gill & J. 398 ; Bartlett r. Gouge, 5 B. Mon. 152; Robinson ». Codman, 1 Sumn. 129; Brown v. Cave, 23 S. C. 251; Walker c. Rand (Ul. 1890), 22 W. E. 1006; Huukins v. Hunkins (N. H. 1889), 18 Atl. 655. 1 4 Kent's Com. 43; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 204; Foster v. Dwinel, 49 Me. 44; Crittenden v. Johnson, 6 Eng. (Ark.) 44. 2 Lea V. Woods, 67 Iowa, 304. 3 Jennison ». Hapgood, 14 Pick. 345; Van Vronker v. Eastman, 7 Mete. 157; Hawley v. Bradford, 9 Pai^e, 200; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452; Church v. Church, 3 Sandt. Ch. 434; Smith v. Jackson, 3 Edw. Ch. 28; Queen Anne's Co. v. Pratt, 10 Md. 3; Bank of Commerce o. Owens, 31 Md. 820; s. c. 1 Am. Rep. 60; Keith v. Trapier, 1 Bailey Eq. 63; Pifer v. Ward, 8 Blackf. 252; Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2 N. J. Eq. 349; Nazareth Inst. v. Lowe, 1 B. Mon. 267; Willett v. Beatty, 12 B. Mon. 172; Crane v. Palmer, 8 Blackf. 120; Beavers v. Smith, 11 Ala. 33; Chaney u. Chaney, 38 Ala. 35; Shaefter v. Ward, 5 111. 511; Bonner ». Peterson, 44 III. 258; Barnes v. Gay, 7 Iowa, 26; Thompson v. Cochran, 7 Humph. 72; Williams v. Woods, Humph. 408; Schmitt v. Willis, 40 N. J. Eq. 515; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. u. Mayer, 14 Daly, 318. But see Newhall V. Five Cents Savings Bank, 101 Mass. 428; 3 Am. Rep. 387. 90 CH. VI.] DOWER. § I2JI place during the life of her husband. ^ The sale must in any case be had at the instance of some third party, in order that the widow may make claim to her share in the proceeds. She has not the right to take the initiative in procuring the sale of the land. The creditors or other claimants against the land must do that.^ If, however, the widow's dower has precedence over the claims of those who are demanding a sale of the lands, she may refuse to take a share of the proceeds of sale in the place of her dower, and in that case her dower must be assigned to her of com- mon right, before the land is offered for sale in satisfaction of the claims of the other.' But if the widow permits the land to be sold pending an appeal from an order, adjudging her not entitled to dower in the laud, the title of the pur- chaser under order of the court remains unaffected by a reversal of the decree of the court below, and the widow's dower right is transferred from the land to the proceeds of sale.* § 121. Seisin required in tlie husband during cover- tare. — In order that the dower can attach, tlie husband must be seised of an estate of inheritance during coverture. But for this purpose it is not necessary that the husband should have the actual corporeal seisin. Seisin in law, with a present right to actual seisin, would be sufficient.* But disseisin, resulting from adverse possession or from any other cause beginning before, and continuing during, cover- ture, will prevent dower from attaching. The dower can 1 Genobles v. West, 23 S. C. 154; see contra N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Mayer, 14 Daly, 318; see Kauffman 11. Peacock, 115 111. 212. 2 Hull D. Hull, 26 W. Va. 1. 3 Kilbreth v. Root's Adm'r, 33 W. Va. 600; Hart u. Burch, 130 111. 426. * Jeffries V. Allen (S. C. 1890), S. B. 764. 5 2 Bla. Com. 129, 131; Go. Lit. 31 a; Mann v. Edson, 39 Me. 25; At- wood V. Atwood, 22 Pick. 283; Dunham y. Osborne, 1 Paige, 635; Thomp- son V. Thompson, 10 Ired. 133; Mclntyre u. Costelle, 47 Hun, 289. 91 § 122 DOWER. [part I. only take effect when the seisin has been recovered by the husband during coverture.^ A mere right of entry, as in the case of the breach of the condition in an estate upon condition, is not suflScient.^ § 122. Continued — Defeasible or determinable seisin. — Possession by the husband of the premises is prima facie evidence of lawful seisin, although it may be defeasible. ^ As long as possession is retained and except as against the true owner, the widow is entitled to dower in the same manner as if the seisin had been lawful and indefeasible. And the rule is the same with qualified or determinable fees. The widow's dower attaches subject to all the con- ditions which are attached to the husband's estate, and is destroyed only by the determination of the fee in the hands of the husband or his assigns.^ Nor, in the case of an un- lawful or defeasible seisin, can the wife's claim for dower be resisted by the claim of the husband's grantee that he had no lawful seisin, unless the same defense could be raised by the same parties against the husband.* 1 1 Washb. OD Real Prop. 216; Small v. Proctor, 15 Mass. 495; Thomp- son w. Thompson, 1 Jones (N. C), 431. 2 Thompson u. Thompson, 1 Jones (N. C), 431; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 216. = 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 218; Co. Lit. 241, note 4; Lewis v. Me- serve, 61 Me. 374; Mann v. Edson, 89 Me. 25; Knight v. Mains, 12 Me. 41; Moore 17. Esty, 5 N. H. 479; Carpenter v. Weeks, 2 Hill, 341; Griggs V. Smith, 12 N. J. L. 22; Jackson v. Kip, 8 N. J. L. 241; Reid v. Steven- son, 3 Rich. L. 66; Forrest v. Tremmell, 1 Bailey, 77; Thompson ». Thompson, 1 Jones (N. C.;, 431; Torrance v. Carbey, 27 Miss. 697; Fire, stone V. Firestone, 2 Ohio St. 415; Gordon v. Dickinson (JW. 1890), 23 N. B. Rep. 439; Beokwith u. Beckwith, 61 Mich. 315; Burrall v. Hurd, 61 Mich. 608; Burrall u. Clark, 61 Mich. 624; Lake v. Nolan (Mich. 1890) 45 N. W. Rep. 376. ' ' Kimball v. Kimball, 2 Me. 226; Bolster o. Cushmau, 34 Me. 428; Hitchcock V. Carpenter, 9 Johns. 344; Bancroft v. White, 1 Cains, 185; Ward V. Fuller, 15 Pick. 185; Osterhout v. Shoemaker, 3 Hill, 419; Hitch- cock V. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290; Hale v. Munn, 4 Gray, 132; Bo^vne ». Potter, 17 Wend. 164; Thompson v. Boyd, 2 N. J. L. 543; Moore v. Esty, 5 N. H. 479; Gammon v. Freeman, 31 Me. 243; Wedge B. Moore, 6 Gush 92 CH. VI. J DOWEE. § 124 § 123. Duration of the seisin. — No length of time is required for the seisin to be in the husband, in order that the wife's right of dower may attach, provided it is in him for his own use and benefit. The vesting of the seisin in law in him for an instant of time is sufficient.^ § 124. Instantaneous seisin. — But if the seisin in the husband is instantaneous, and it was not intended that he should acquire the beneficial interest therein, and he serves only as a means of passing the seisin to an other, the wife will not be entitled to dower. Not the duration, but the character and purposes, of theseisin determine the wife's right of dower therein. It, therefore, does not matter whether the trans- actions, which effect a conveyance of the seisin through the husband, are instantaneous, or are separate in point of time of execution, provided the subsequent conveyance out of the husband is in pursuance of an agreement forming a part of the original transaction ; in both cases the wife will not have dower. ^ The most common instance of instan- 8; Pledger v. EUerbe, 6 Rich L. 266; Gale v. Price, 5 Rich. 525; Griffith V. Griffith, 5Harr. 5; Montgomery u. Bruere, 5 N. J. L. 265; Hugley «. Gregg, 4 Dana, 68 ; May v. Tillman, 1 Mich. 262 ; Crittenden v. Woodruff, 6Eng. (Ark.) 82; Taylor's Case, 9 Johos. 293; Douglas u. Dickson, 11 Rich. D. 417 ; Stimpson «. ThomastonBk., 28 Me. 259 ; Stark v. Hopson, 30 S.C. 370. 1 2 Bla. Com. 132; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 218, 219; Broughton v. Randall, Cro. Eliz. 503; Gage v. Ward, 25 Me. 101; McCauley v. Grimes, 2 Gill & J. 318; Douglass v. Dickson, 11 Rich. L. 417; McClure v. Har- ris, 12 B. Mon. 261; Mclntyre v. Costello, 47 Hun, 289. 2 2 Bla. Com. 132; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 219, 223; Maybury v. Brien, 15 Pet. 39; Gage v. Ward, 25 Me. 101; Moore u. Rollins, 45 Me. 494; Hazelton v. Lesure, 9 Allen, 24; Clark v. Munroe, 14 Mass. 351; King V. Stetson, 11 Allen, 408; BuUard v. Bowers, 10 N. H. 500; Hinds V. Ballou, 44 N. H. 620; Stow c.Tifft, 15 Johns. 462; Kittle v. VanDyck, 1 Sandf. Ch. 76; McCauley v. Grimes, 2 Gill & J. 318; Wooldrldge u. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) 369; Mills©. Van Voorhis, 23 Barb. 135; Griggs V. Smith, i2 N. J. L. 22; Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 262; Reed ». Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 18; Dimond v. Billingslea, 2 Har. & G. 264; Klinck i;. Keckeley, 2 Hill Ch.250; Boynton v. Sawyer, 35 Ala. 497; Stev. ens 13. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh, 64; Gully «. Kay, 18 B. Mon, 107; Stephens V. Sherrod, 6 Texas, 297 ; Lassen v. Vance, 8 Cal. 274. 93 § 126 DOWER. [part I. taneous seisin, without attachment of dower thereto, is a conveyance of lands to the husband with a mortgage for purchase money to the grantor, executed at the same time, or subsequently in pursuance of a contemporaneous agree- ment. ^ § 125. Marriage must be legal. — Like estates by the curtesy the wife has dower only when the marriage is a legal one. It the marringe is absolutely void, she has no claim for dower; but if it is only voidable, she has dower, unless the marriage has been declared void during the life- time of the husband.^ In determining the legality of the marriage iu questions of dower, as a general rule, the ques- tion will be determined by the lex loci contractus, and not by the lex loci rei sitoe.^ § 126. How dower may be lost or barred — By act of the husband. — At common law the husband could not, by any act during coverture, defeat the wife's right of dower, or prevent its attachmient to the property by having inserted in the deed to himself a clause, to the eflfect that the land ' Bullard v. Bowers, 10 N. H. 500; Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493; TouHg V. Tarbeil, 37 Me. 509; Strong v. Converse, 8 Allen, 559; Hol- brook V. Finney, 4 Mass. 5G6; Hinds v. Ballon, 44 N. H. 620; Stow ». Tifft, 15 Johns. 458 ; Mills v. Van Voorhis, 23 Barb. 125 ; Reed v. Morri- son, 12 Serg. & R. IS; Bogie w.Rutledge, 1 Bay, 312; Henagon v. Harllee, 10 Rich. Eq. 285; Chase's Case, 1 Bland. 206; McClure v. Harris, 12 B. Mon. 261; Klinck ». Keekley, 2 Hill Ch. 250; Sheldon v. Hofnagle, 51 Hiin, 478; Stewart v. Smith, 36 Minn. 82. And in the same manner, in those States where the vendor's lien for the purchase-money Is recog- nized, the widow of the purchaser takes her dower subject to the lien. Hugunin v. Cochrane,51 HI. 302; 2 Am. Rep. 303; Warner v. Van Alstyne, 3 Paige, 513; EUicott v. Welch, 2 Bland, 242; Miller v. Stump, 3 Gill, 304; Barnes v. Gay, 7 Iowa, 26; McClnre v. Harris, 12 B. Mon. 261; Crane v. Palmer, 8 Blackf. 120; Thompson v. Cochrane, 7 Humph. 72. 2 2Bla. Com. 130; Co. Lit. 33 a; Bishop's Mar. &Div., sect. 177. See Jenkins u. Jenkins, 2 Dana, 102; Donnelly?). Donnelly, 8 B. Mon. 113; Higgins V. Breen, 9 Mo. 497; DeFrance v. Johnson, 26 Fed. Rep. 891. " Smith V. Smith, 52 N. J. L. 207. 94 CH. VI. J DOWER. § 126 should be held by him free from the claim of dower, ^ not even where the land is mortgaged during the pendency of an action for divorce, and where the mortgage was given to secure the alimony which had been decreed to the wife.^ Nor can the wife's dower be defeated by a secret convey- ance of the property by the hushand before and on the eve of the marriage.^ But an exception was made in equity in respect to the equitable interest the husband, as vendee under the theory of implied trusts, acquires in the land under the contract of sale, and before the delivery of the deed ; whereby a release of his light to specific perform- ance will bar her right of dower therein .* And in a number of the States it is now provided by statute that the widow shall be dowable only in the lands of which her husband dies seised. Under these statutes a bona fide conveyance by the husband during coverture will defeat his wife's dower, as effectually, as under similar statutes the wife may by conveyance during coverture defeat the hus- band's right of curtesy.^ 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 244, 255; Swain v. Ferine, 6 Johns. Ch. 482; Norwood V, Marrow, 4 Dev. & B. 442; Kunke v. Hanna, 6 Ind. 20. And not even will the destruction of the deed before recording defeat the wife's dower in the estate, as against those who have notice. Johnson v. Miller, 40 Ind. 376; 17 Am. Rep. 699. 2 Rea V. Rea, 63 Mich. 257. 3 Jones V. Jones, 64 Wis. 301; Lake ». Nolan (Mich. 1890"), 45 N. W. Rep. 376. * Herron v. Williamson, Litt. Sel. Cas. 250; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 224, 225. And this is also the case, where the husband causes the deed to be made to a third party instead of himself. Lobdell v. Hayes, 4 Allen, 187; Steele v. Magie, 48 111. 396; Heed v. Ford, 16 B. Hon. 114; Gully V. Ray, 18 B. Mon. 107; Welsh v. Buckings, 9 Ohio St. 331 ; Blakeney V. Ferguson, 20 Ark. 547. But if the contract of sale has been per- formed by the husband, and nothing more is to be done than to execute and deliver the deed, and the husband then dies, as has been already stated, the widow has dower in the premises, and can enforce it against the vendor. See ante, sect. 117, note. s Jenny v. Jenny, 24 Vt. 324; McGee v. McQee, 4 Ired. 105; Brewer v. Connell, 11 Humph. 500; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 268, note. See Atkins V. Atkins, 18 Neb. 474. 95 § 127 DOWEK. [part I. § 127. Continued — By wife's release during cover- ture. — The wife has, however, always had the power to bar her right of dower by joining with her husband in the conveyance of the land. Formerly, in England, it was barred by means of fines and recoveries. ^ But now, in England, and in this country generally, it is regulated by statute, and by joining in the deed of the husband in the manner prescribed by statute, she may release her dower. The requisites of the deed and of her acknowledgment of its execution vary with the terms of each statute. ^ But what- ever might be the statutory requirements, they must be strictly complied with, otherwise the dower still exists.* 1 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 245; 2 Bla, Com. 137. 2 Williams on Keal Prop. 230,452; 1 Washb. onEealProp. 245, 249. The wife must be of age. Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 488; Cunningham v. Knight, 1 Barb. 399; Priest v. Cummings, 16 "Wend. 617; s. c. 20 Wend. 338; Thomas v. Gammel, 6 Leigh, 9; Jones v. Todd, 2 J. J. Marsh. 359; Cason V. Hubbard, 38 Miss. 46; Lyon v. Kain, 36111. 370; Hoyt v. Swar, 53 111. 139; Hughes v. Watson, 10 Ohio, 127. Generally she must re- nounce the dower in the same deed in which her husband conveys the land. ShawB. Russ, 14 Me. 432; Powell v. Monson, 2 Mason, 353; Ulp v. Campbell, 19 Pa. St. 361 ; Davis v. Bartholomew, 3 Ind. 485 ; Williams v. Robson, 6 Ohio St. 514; Moore v. Tisdale, 5 B. Mon. 352; Atkinson v. Taylor, 34 Mo. App. 442 ; Grant v. Jackson, 5 Del. Ch. 404. Execution of the deed by the husband's attorney, with the wife. Is sufficient. Fowler V. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; Glenn v. Bank of United States, 8 Ohio, 72. The deed of renunciation must also be sealed. Manning v. Laboree, 33 Me. 343 ; Keeler a. Tatnell, 3 N. J. 62. And where the defect in the acknowl- edgment of the renunciation of dower does not appear upon the deed, the deed cannot be avoided for that purpose after the land has passed to a subsequent purchaser without notice. Shivers v. Simmons, 54 Miss. 530; 28 Am. Rep. 372. So, also, where the renunciation has been ob- tained through the fraud or undue influence of the husband, it cannot be avoided, unless the purchaser had actual or constructive notice of it. White V. Graves, 107 Mass. 325; 9 Am. Rep. 38; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rook, 84 Pa. St. 442; 24 Am. Rep. 204; Kerr v. Russell, 69 111. 666; 18 Am. Rep. 634. And a mistake in the certificate of acknowledgment cannot be sub- sequently amended, unless the mistake relates to an unimportant fact. Angler v. Sliieffelin, 72 Pa. St. 106; 13 Am. Rep. 659; Merrittu. Yates, 71 111. 636; 22 Am. Rep. 128. 3 Elwoodc. Klock, 13 Barb. 50; Kirk o. Dean, 2 Blnn. 341; Lewis ». Coxe, 6 Harr. 402 ; Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 633 ; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; Scanlan 96 CH. VI.] DOWER. § 127 She must, of course, have the mental capacity to under- stand what she is doing. If she is insane her renunciation of dower is a nullity, it matters not how strictly the pro- visions of the statute may have been complied with.^ In Kentucky a statute authorizes the sale of a wife's inchoate dower, when she is insane, by order of court, and by a deed, in the execution of which the guardian or committee of the insane woman joins with the husband, provision being made to set apart for her, out of the purchase money, the value of such dower, to be claimed by her whenever the dower becomes consummate.^ Since the dower is extinguished by a release in conjunction with the husband's deed, and operates as an estoppel rather than as a grant, the dower is only extinguished as against those who claim the land under the deed. If, therefore, the deed is void for some cause, whether it be fraud, accident, or mistake, as where the husband's act is void as against his creditors, her dower right would be revived and could be en- forced against all other parties.^ And if the wife has her- V. Turner, 1 Bailey, 421 ; Rogers v. Woody, 23 Mo. 548 ; Clark v. Redman 1 Blackf. 379; Stevenson u. Brasher (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 242. In Texasj it is held that a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute is sufiScient. Belcher ^.Weaver, 46 Texas, 293 ; s. c. 26 Am. Rep. 267. See also Morris v. Sargent, 18 Iowa, 99 ; Johnson v. Parker, 51 Ark. 419. 1 Eannells o. Isgrigg, 99 Mo. 19; Rannells v. Gerner, 80 Mo. 474. 2 Fichtner v. Fichtner's Assignee (Ky. 1889), 11 S. W. 85. 3 Harsiman v. Gray, 49 Me. 537; Richardson v. Wyman, 62 Me. 280; 16 Am. Rep. 459; Robinson v. Bates, 3 Mete. 40; Stinson v. Sumner, 9 Mass. 143; Moore v. New York, 8 N. Y. 110; Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 6 Paige, 457; Malloney v. Horan, 49 N. Y. Ill ; 10 Am. Rep. 335; Ridgway V. Masting, 23 Ohio. St. 294; 13 Am. Rep. 251; Woodworth v. Paige, 5 Ohio St. 70; Pinson v. Williams, 23 Miss. 64; Nickell v. Tomlison, 27 W. Va. 597; Smith v. Howell (Ark. 1890), 13 S. W. 929; Bohannon v. Combs, 97 Mo. 446. But in Illinois it was held, that if the deed is avoided by not being properly recorded, she could not reclaim her dower. Morton V. NobZo, 57 111. 176 ; 11 Am. Rep. 7. It is doubtful if this may be accepted as a universally recognized exception. From the rule laid down in the text, which is fully supported by the cases cited, and by reason, the judg- ment in the Illinois case should have been in favor of the widow. See contra Stowe v. Steele, 114 111. 382. 7 97 § 128 DOWER. [part I. self received value for the renunciation of dower, ahe will not have to return such consideration before recovering her dower, when the deed of conveyance or renunciation is invalid for any cause.' But the wife can only release her dower to her husband's grantee. She cannot by any inde- pendent act release her right during coverture to a stranger laying claim to the land, or to her husband,^ nor to a pur- chaser at a sale in partition, until the, transaction has become complete by a judicial confirmation of tiie sale.^ She may, however, relinquish her dower to her husband's grantee by a subsequent deed in which her husband does not join, if he has previously conveyed his interest by a valid deed.* § 128. Continued — By elopement and divorce. — Un- der the early statute of Westminster, 13 Edw. I., ch. 34, which is generally received in this country as part of the common law, if a wife elopes with another man ;iikI com- mits adultery with him, she is deprived of lier dower. ^ The forfeiture is more in the nature of a suspension than an absolute extinguiahment, unless such elopement and adul- tery is followed by a divorce." The divorce not only bars 1 Bottomly u. Spencer, 36 Fed. Rep. 732. 2 Rowe V. Harailtou, 3 Me. 63; Vauce v. Vance, 21 Me. 364; Gibson v. Gibson, 15 Mass. 106; Croade v. lugraliani, ]3 Pick. 33; Carsou ». Murray, 3 Paige, 483; Martin v. Martin, 22 Ala. 104; Mason v. Mascn, 140 Mass. 63; Wright v. Wrig-iit (llich. 1890), 44 N. W. 944. s Hart V. Burcli, 130 111. 426. ^ Irving V. Campbell, 56 N. Y. Super Ct. 224. fi 4 Kent's Com. 53; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 242, 243, 309, note. See Elder v. Riel, 62 Pa. St. 308 ; 1 Am. Kep. 414 ; Stegall v. Stesall, 2 Brocken, 256 ; Walters v. Jordan, 13 Ired. 361 ; Bell v. Nealy, 1 Bailey, 312 ; Lecorapte V. Wash, 9 Mo. 551. In Massachusetts, it has been held that the statute is not recognized. Lakin o. Lakin, 2 Allen, 45. " Divorce is not necessary to bar her dower at common law. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 242. But by statute it is now provided in some of tiie States that elopement and adultery without divorce is no bar. Bryan v. Batchelder, 6 R. I. 543 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 24 Wend. 193 : Pitts v. Pitts, 52 N. Y. 693; Rawlins v. Buttel, 1 Houst. 224. See 1 Washb. ou Real Prop. 309, note. 98 \ CH. VI.] DOWEE. § 128 her dower right in the lands of which her husband is seised at the time of the divorce, but also in those lands which had previously conveyed away without her renunciation of dower. ^ If the parties are not subsequently divorced, her dower right is revived, if she returns to her husband and is received by him and accorded a full forgiveness. She has dower in the case of a reconciliation and condonement, not only in the lands which he possessed before her elope- ment, but also in those which he has acquired and sold subsequently.^ The commission of adultery, while living apart from her husband, whatever may have been the cause of the separation, will also be a bar.^ But a separation of some kind must have taken place, in order that her adultery might work a forfeiture of the dower ; adultery in her and her husband's house will not be a bar.^ So, on the other hand, mere desertion on the part of the wife, unless com- plicated by adultery, is no bar to dower. ^ It is necessary to support the claim to dower, that the widow should be the wife of the husband at his decease. If, therefore, they have been absolutely divorced, from whatever cause, for his as well as her fault, her dower right would be extin- guished, unless the statutes of the different States, provid- ing for divorces, contain a saving clause, giving the innocently divorced wife the right to enjoy her dower, as if she was still a wife.'' If the court grant to the wife a 1 McKean v. Brown, 83 Ky. 208. 2 Co. Lit. 33 a, note 8 ; Washb. on Eeal Prop. 242, 243. But he is not bound to take her back again. Govier v. Hancock, 6 T. E. 603. 3 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 243; Hethriugton v. Graham, 6 Bing. 135; Coggswell V. Tibbetts, 3 N. H. 41; Goss v. Proman (Ky. 1889), 12 S. W. 387. But she does not lose her dower, if she commits adultery, under the mistaken belief that her prior husband was dead. 1 Washb. on Eeal. Prop. 243; 1 Cruise Dig. 175, 176. * Coggswell V. Tibbetts, 3 N. H. 41 : Elder v. Eeed, 62 Pa. St. 308; 1 Am. Kep. 414. * Mye's Appeal, 126 Ea. St. 341; Henderson v. Chaires (Fla. 1889), 6 So. 164. 6 4 Kent's Com. 54; 2 Bla. Com. 130; Bishop's Mar. and Div., sects. 99 § 129 DOWER. [part I. gross sum by way of alimony, she will take this sum in lieu of dower, and her dower right will thus be barred.^ But in order that in any case divorce may affect the wife's dower right, except in the case of elopement and adultery, the divorce must be an absolute one, dissolving the marriage tie altogether. A divorce a mensa et tJioro, ordinarily has no effect on the wife's dower. ^ The effect of divorce on wife's dower is held to be determined by the law of the place in which the divorce was granted.^ § 129. Continued — By loss of husband's seisin. — As a general proposition, dower can be enforced only so far as the lawful seisin of the husband extends at the time when the dower right attaches. She, therefore, acquires dower' in his lands, subject to all the defects, conditions, limita?- tions, and incumbrances, which characterize and cover the husband's title. If, therefore, the husband's seisin is de- feated, whether by the assertion of a paramount title, the breach of a condition, or the expiration of the limitation, the wife's dower right is also extinguished.* But if the husband's estate is determined and made to shift over to another upon the happening of a contingency, so that the limitation over is a conditional limitation, it has been generally held. 661, 662, 663; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 309, note. The statutes relating to the grant of divorce usually provide that the innocent party shall not lose his or her marital rights. Stalil u. Stahl, 114 111. 375; Perclval v. Percival, 56 Mich. 297; Gordon v. DicJiSon (111. 1890), 23 N. E. 439; Van Cleaf V. Burns, 118 N. Y. 649 ; Rhea v. Rhea, 63 Mich. 257. 1 Tatro ». Tatro, 18 Neb. 395; 53 Am. Rep. 320; Owen v. Yale, 73 Mich. 256. 2 Taylor v. Taylor, 93 N. C. 418; 53 Am. Rep. 460. 3 Van Cleaf v. Burns, 118 N. Y. 549. * 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 256; Seymour's Case, 10 Rep. 96; Ray v. Pange, 6 B. & Aid. 561; Brown ■». Williams, 31 Me. 403; Beardslee v. Beardslee, 5 Barb. 324; Sanford u. McLean, 3 Paige, 117; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 8 Pa. St. 126; Weir v. Tate, 4 Ired. Eq. 264; Bishop v. Boyle, 9 Ind. 169; Northcutt i). Whipp, 13 B. Mon. 72; Greene v. Greene, 1 Ohio, 249; Wheeler v. Smith, 55 Mich. 355; Moriarta B. McRea, 45 Hun, 564. 100 CH. VI. J DOWER. § 129 although controverted by good authorities, that the wife's dower nevertheless survives and suspends the execution of the limitation over until her death.^ A like exception is 1 Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 B. & P. 653, note; Moody v. King, 2 Bing. 447; Sammes v. Payne, 1 Leon. 167; Hatfield o. Sweden, 54 N. Y. 286; Evans v. Evans, 9 Pa. St. 190; Milledge v. Lamar, 4 DeSau, 637; North- <:ut V. Whlpp, 12 B. Mon. 72; Nickell u. Tomlinson, 27 W. Va. 697; Pollard V. Slaughter, 92 N. C. 72; 53 Am. Eep. 402; Fry v. Scott (Ky. 1889), 11 S. "W. 426. Chancellor Kent says: "The ablest writers upon property law are against the right of the dowress, when the fee of the husband, is determined by executory devise or shifting use." C. J. Gibson in Evans v. Evans, supra, says: "Not one of the text-writers has hinted at the true solution of the diflBculty, except Mr. Preston. All agree that where the husband's fee is determined by recovery, condition, or collateral limitation, the wife's dower determines with it. I have a deferential respect for the opinion of Mr. Butler, who was perhaps the best conveyancer of his day, but I cannot apprehend the reasons ol his distinction in the note to Co. Lit. 241 a, between a fee limited to continue to a particular period at its creation, which curtesy or dower may sur- vive, and the devise of a fee simple or a fee tail absolutely or conditional, which by subsequent words is made determinable upon some particular event, at the happening of which dower or curtesy will cease." " How to reconcile to any system of reason, technical or natural, the existence of a derivative estate, after the extinction of that from which it was de- rived, was for him (Butler) to show, and he has not done it. The case of a tenant in tail," says Mr. Preston (3 Prest. Abst. 373), " is an excep- tion arising from an equitable construction of the statute De Bonis, and the cases of dower of estates determinable by executory devise and springing (shifting) use owe their existence to the circumstance that these limitations are not governed by common law principles." " It was the benign temper of the judges who moulded the limitations of the estates introduced by them, whether original or derivative, so as to relax the severer principles of the common law, and among other things, to preserve curtesy and dower from being barred by a determination of the original estate which could not be prevented." The foregoing opinion of Justice Gibson is more an explanation, how th^ courts arrived at the distinction between conditional limitations and other determinable estates, than a logical and sound argument in favor of it. It is ditBcult to see why the equity of the tenant in curtesy or dower, over the grantee of the limitation over in a conditional limitation, should be superior to the equity against the heir of the grantor, who takes the property upon ihe determination of an estate upon limitation, or estate upon condition. But the position of the Pennsylvania court is sustained by the other cases cited. The student is not prepared to understand the refined dis- tinctions here hinted at, until he has mastered the subsequent chapters 101 § 130 DOWER. [part I. recognized universally in favor of the continuance of the wife's dower, where the husband's estate as tenant in tail has been determined by the failure of issue capable of taking.'^ § 130. Continued — By estoppel in pais. — After the death of the husband, the widow may, by acts which are sufficient to work an estoppel in ordinary cases, ^ bar her right to dower without any formal release. Her acts would hiive that effect, if they were calculated to mislead and work a fraud upon purchasers.' But in order that her acts during coverture may operate as an estoppel and bar her dower they must be equivalent in legal effect to one of the different formal modes provided by law for the extinguish- ment of the dower.* on Estates upon Condition, Uses and Trusts, Remainders and Executory Devises. A recurrence to this section after a study of the subjects mentioned is advisable. 1 i Kent's Com. 49; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 261; Northcnt v. Whipp, 12 B. Mon. 73;' Paine's Case, 8 Kep. 36. 2 See post, sects. 724, 726. 3 It must be an unequivocal act or declaration. Mere silence Is not sufficient, and presence at the sale without giving notice of her right, wiU not estop her from claiming dower. Heth u. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344 ; Smith v. Paysenger, 2 Const. (S. C.) 59; Owen ».-Slatter, 26 Ala. 547; Tennent v. Stoney, 1 Rich. Eq. 222; Davis v. Cornelius (Ky. 1889), 10 S. W. 471. And likewise her dower is not estopped by a conveyance by her in the capacity of her husband's administratrix, where no mention was madeof her dower, unless she covenants to warrant the title, or purports to con- vey generally her interest as well as his. Shurtz v. Thomas, 8 Pa. St. 359; Usher v. Richardson, 29 Me. 415; Magee v. Mellon, 23 Miss. 585; Shoot V. iGalbreath, 128 111. 214. And dower will not be barred by join- ing the widow in a suit for specific performance against the heirs on the contract of the husband for the sale of the lands ; she need not answer and may afterwards claim her dower. Grady v. McCorkle, 57 Mo. 172 ; 17 Am. Rep. 672. But parol denials of her claim or a participation in the proceeds of a judicial sale in a suit, to which she is made a party, will estop her. Dongrey v. Topping, 4 Paige, 94; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 18; Simpson's Appeal, 8 Pa. St. 199; Gardiner v. Miles, 5 Gill, 94; Wright V. De Groff, 14 Mich. 167; Ellis v. Diddy, 1 Ind. 561; Smiley v. Wright, 2 Ohio, 511; Allen v. Allen, 112 111. 323. * Martin v. Martin, 22 Ala. 104; Davis v. Townsend (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 837; Rockwell v. Rockwell (Mich. 1890), 46 N. W. 8. And where the 102 CII. VI.] DOWER. § 132 § 131. Continued — By statute of limitations. — Under no circumstances will the wife's inchoate right be affected by the adverse possession of the land during the life-time of the husband. '^ And after it has become, by his death, a consummate right in the nature of a chose in action, although long adverse possession after the husband's death is proper evidence for the jury to establish a release of the dower right, it is no absolute bar to the action, unless the statute is made expressly to include actions of dower.^ § 132. Continued — By exercise of eminent domain. — It is well settled, that the dower right of the wife or widow is defeated by the exercise of eminent domain over the land, out of which the dower issues. But it is a matter«of considerable doubt, whether the right before assignment, during the life of the husband, or after his death, partakes so much of the nature of an interest or estate in the land, as to entitle her to compensation separate from her husband or his heirs and assignees. It has been held that she can- not claim such compensation, but the question cannot be considered as definitely settled.* wife of the mortgagor releases dower in her husband's conveyance of the equity of redemption, it bars her dower in the entire estate, although she did not join in the execution of the mortgage. Hoogland v. Watt, 2 Sandf. Ch. 148. See Usher v. Richardson, 29 Me. 415. 1 Durham v. Angler, 20 Me. 242; Moore u. Frost, 3 N. H. 127; Williams v. Williams (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. 760. 2 4 Kent's Com. 70; Parker v. Obear, 7 Mete. 24 ; Barnard v. Edwards, 4 N. H. 107; Spencer v. Weston, 1 Dev. & B. 213; Guthrie v. Owen, 10 Yerg. 339; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 267. , But in a number of the States there are express statutory provisions in respect to barring dower by lapse of time. See Robie v. Planders, 33 N. H. S24 ; Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242; Chew v. Farmers'* Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 231 ; Spencer v. Weston, 1 Dev. & B. 213; Wilson v. McLenagham, 1 McMull. Eq. 35; Chapmaa V. Schraeder, 10 Ga. 321; Ralls v. Hughes, 1 Dana, 407; Chase v. Alley, 82 Me. 234; 19 Atl. 397; Carmichael v. Carmichael, 5 Humph. 96; Ridgway V. McAlplne, 31 Ala. 464; Owen v. Peacock, 38 111. 33; Tattle v. Wilson, 10 Ohio, 24. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 270. See Moore v. New York, 4 Sandf. 450; s. c. 8 N. Y. 110; Gwynne o. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio, 24. See, contray 103 § 134 DOWEK. [part I. § 133. Widow's quarantine. — Upon the death of the husband, the widow's right of dower becomes consummate, and she is entitled to an immediate assignment of her dower. Until assignment has been made, and for a period of forty days, she was entitled at common law to a residence in the principal mansion house of her husband, provided she did not marry within that time. This right was called her quarantine.^ It is generally recognized in the United States ; but since it is principally regulated by statute, there is a considerable variation in respect to its duration, audits relation to the right of assignment of dower. ^ The general rule is that dower should be set out to her within the time of her quarantine, and if it is not, she may at the end of that time pursue the different remedies given for the recovery of the dower and its assignment.^ § 134, Assignment — Two modes. — There are two modes of setting out dower respectively called, " of com- mon right," and " against common right." If it has been assigned of common right, and the widow has lost a part or the whole of the land set out to her by the assertion of a paramount title, she is entitled to an assignment de novo out of the remainder of the husband's estate, so that the loss by eviction will not fall entirely upon her. Apd on the other hand, if there is an eviction of the heir, affeer assign- ment of dower, he will in like manner be entitled "to a new assignment. But if the assignment was " against common right," it is final, and if the share of either widow or tenant of the freehold is subsequently lost by eviction under recognizing the widow's claim to compensation, Ebey v. Ebey, 1 Wasli. Ter. ise. 1 Co. Lit. 34 b; 2 Bla. Com. 139. 2 See Neustaclier v. Schmidt, 25 111. App. 626. s 4 Kent's Com. 63; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 277, note 277. She can claim her right of . quarantine even against her husband's grantee. Shelton v. Carroll, 16 Ala. 148 ; Phasis «. Leachman, 20 Ala. 662. 104 CH.VI.J DOWEE. §135 paramotint title, they have no remedy against each other, as in the case of assignment " of common right." ^ § 135. Continued — Of common right. — Dower of common right must, as a general rule, be set out by metes and bounds.'^ It is not necessary, where the husband died seised, that the widow should receive one-third by metes and bounds of each tract of land; nor can she of right con- trol the discretion of the sheriff or tenant in the assignment of the dower by the expression of her own wishes." The tenant or sheriff, as the case may be, is vested with con- siderable discretion in regard to this matter, and if, under all the circumstances surrounding the case, it is advisable or reasonable, the dower might be assigned to her out of one tract altogether, or where the property consists of arable, pasture and other kinds of land, she may be given her dower in one kind to the exclusion of the others.* But if the lands are held separately by several grantees of the husband, dower must be set out in each parcel.^ So, also, must assignment be made out of each sepai'ate tract, where some of them are incumbered by mortgages in which the wife has joined, and where other tracts are free from in- cumbrances.® While she can claim dower out of existing incorporeal hereditaments, including easements, the sheriff cannot create in her favor, and as a part pf her dower, a ^ French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381; Scott v, Hancock, 13 Mass. 162; Jones «. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202; St. Clair v. Williams, 7 Ohio, 110; Singleton v. Singleton, 5 Dana, 87; HoUoman v. HoUoraan, 5 Smed. & M. 559. 2 Co. Lit. 34 b, note 213; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 273; Pierce v. Will- iams, 3 N. J. L. 521. 3 Moore v. Dick (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 768. * 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 286; White v. Story, 2 Hill, 643; Jones v. .Jones, Busbee (N. C), 177. See Hardin v. Lawrence, 40 N. J. Eq. 154. 6 Co. Lit. 35 a; Doe v. Gwinnell, 1 Q. B. 423; Coulter v. Holland, 2 Harr. 330; Cook v. Eisk, Walk. 423; Morgan v. Blatchley, 33 W. Va. 165. 6 Askew V. Askew, 103 N. C. 285, 105 § 135 DOWER. [part r. new easement imposed oa lands, not assigned to her.^ Where the property is such that the dower cannot, without loss, be set out by metes and bounds, it is then permitted that a certain share in the income or occupation and enjoy- ment of the land should be set apart for her, while the property is held by her in common with the tenant of the freehold. '■' In making the assignment, the extent of her one-third interest in the land is determined by the market and productive value, instead of the mere quantity of land. She is entitled to that part of the estate which would yield her one-third of the rents and profits received from the entire estate.^ And if the land is incumbered, the dower being subject to the incumbrance, the value of the land will be estimated by a deduction of the amount of the in- cumbrance from the total value of the land.* If the land is held by the heir or devisee, the value of the land or income is estimated at the time when the dovver is assigned, thus giving her the benefit of any increase, including any improvements by the heir, as well as subjecting her to the loss by any natural depreciation in the value of the land after the death of her husband.^ If the depreciation is the result of a willful waste by the heir, she has her right of action for. damages against him ; but it does not affect ^ Price V. Price. 54 Hun, 349. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 286, 287; Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 402; Stevens e. Stevens, 3 Dana, 371. And where the property consists of mines, dower may be assigned b^ a parol agreement to divide the profits, and to give her one-third of them. Billings v. Taylor, 10 Pick. 460; Coates ». Cheever,! Cow. 478; Lenfers v. Henke, 37 111.405; 24 Am. Rep. 263. •i Leonard i;. Leonard, 6 Mass. 533; Coates ». Cheever, 1 Cow. 476; McDaniel v. McDaniel, 3 Ired. 61; Smith v. Smith, 5 Dana, 179. * Piatt's Appeal, 56 Conn. 672. ^ Powell V. Monson, 8 Mason, 368; Parker v. Parker, 17 Pick 236; Cattin V. Ware, 9 Mass. 209; Davis v. Walker, 42 N. H. 482; Thompson . Swetland, 10 Iowa, 51; Woodbury u. Ludcly, 14 Allen, 1; Howe i;. Adams, 28 Vt. 544; Ross w. Hellyer, 26 Fed. Kep. 413; Foster v. Leland, 141 Mass. 187: Reifenstahl v. Osborne, 66 Iowa, 567 ; Wilson v. Daniels (Iowa 1890), 44 N.W. 1246 ; Feldes v. Duncan, 30 111. App. 469; Hutch v. Holly, 77 Tex. 220; Milburn Wagon Co. v. Kennedy, 75 Tex. 212; Smith?;. Mattingly (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 719; McAlpine e. Powell (Kan. 890), 24Pac. 1353; Langston v. Maxey, 74 Tex. 155; Graves V. Campbell (Tex. 1889), 12 S. W. 238; s. c. 74 Tex. 576; Welborne ». Downing, 73 Tex. 527. 3 Little V. Baker (Tex. 1889), 11 S. W. 549; Welborn u. Downing, 73 Tex. 527. - Kauffman v. Fore, 73 Tex. 308. 5 Tomliusonu. Swinney, 22 Ark. 400; Holden v. Finney, 6 Cal. 234; Walters v. People, 18 111. 194; Austin v. Swank, 9 Ind. 112; Wood a. Lord, 51 N. H. 454; Vetz u. Beard, 12 Ohio St. 431; Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367; Burch ». Mouton, 37 La. An. 725; Scheuber «. Hallow, 64 Tex. 166; Leake «. King, 85 Mo. 413; Dennis t). Omaha Bank, 19 Neb. 675; Jones v. Bobbins, ,74 Tex. 615; Duffy u. Willis, 99 Mo. 432; Rein- stein «. Daniels, 75 Tex. 640; Nichols u. Nichols, 62 N. H 621- Rollins 132 CH. VI. J HOMESTEAD ESTATES. § 164 from the homestead, it matters not for how long a time, constitute an abandonment.^ It is always a question of fact for the jury whether there has been an abandonment.^ The statutes sometimes provide that the abandonment must be manifested by certain acts, or a written acknowledgment under which circumstances, abandonment cannot be proven in any other way."* The fact that the husband abandons the homestead has been held not to affect the wife's right to the homestead exemp- tion, although she accompanies him, on the ground that her departure from the homestead, under those circumstances, is presumptive involuntary.* -u. O'Farrell, 77 Tex. 90; Davis Sew. M. Co. u. Whitney, 61 Mich. 518; Persiful v. Hind (Ky. 1889), 11 S.W. 15 ; Black v. Black's Adm'r (Ky. 1889), 12 S. W. 147; Graves v. Campbell, 74 Tex. 576; C. B. Carter Lumber Co. ■V. Clay (Tex. 1889), 10 S. W. 293; see Durland v. Seller (Neb. 1889), 42 N. W. 741. - 1 Leake v. King, 85 Mo. 413; Keyes v. Scanlan, 63 Wis. 345; Persiful V. Hind (Ky. 1889), 11 S. W. 15; Woolcut u. Lerdell, 78 Iowa, 668. " Feldes w. Duncan, 30 111. App. 409; Kutch v. Holly, 77 Tex. 220; Smith V. Mattingly (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 719; Bowman v. Watson, 66 Tex. 295; Jones v. Blumenstein, 77 Iowa, 361; Marshall v. Appelgate (Ky. 1889), 10 S. W. 805. 3 Tipton V. Martin, 71 Cal. 325. ^ Collins V. Baytt, 3 Pickle, 334 ; overruling Levison v. Abrahams, 14 Lea, 336. But see Graves v. Campbell (Tex. 1889), 12 S. W. 238 ; 74 Tex. 576. 133 CHAPTBK yn. ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. Section I. — Estates for years. II. — Estates at will, and tenancies from year to year. III. — Estates at sufferance. SECTION I. Section 171. History o£ estates for years. 172. Definition. 173. Term defined. 174. Interesse termini. 175. Terms commencing ira/u{«ro. 176. The rights of lessee for years. 177. How created. 178. Form of instrument. 179. Continued — Distinction between present lease and con- tract for a. future one. 180. Acceptance of lease necessary. 181. Relation of landlord and tenant. 182. Assignment and subletting. 183. Involuntary alienation. 184. Disposition of terms after death of tenant. 185. Covenants in a lease, in general. 186. Continued — Express and implied covenants. 187. Implied covenant for quiet enjoyment. 188. Implied covenant foi rent. 189. Implied covenant against waste. 190. Covenants running with the land. 191. Conditions in leases. 192. Rent reserved — Necessity of consideration. ; 193. Rent reserved — Condition of forfeiture. 194. How relation of landlord and tenant may be determined. 195. What constitutes eviction. 196. Constructive eviction. 196a. Partial eviction. 197. Surrender and merger. 198. How surrender may be effected. 199. Right of lessee to deny lessor's title. 200. EfEect of disclaimer of lessor's title. 201. Letting land upon shares. 134 CH. VII. J ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 171 § 171. History of estates for years. — Under the feudal system, the smallest interest which could be granted out of lands, having the characteristics of an estate, was a freehold. Such are the estates, which have been treated in the pre- ceding pages. But there obtained at that time a custom of granting by contract to tenants the possession of the lands for a stipulated period, in consideration of some rent paid or service performed by the tenant. The tenant acquired no estate or vested interest in the land, which would give to him the possessory afctious necessary for the protection of such interests. If he was evicted by the landlord or by any other person, he had only his action for damages against the landlord for the breach of his contract. He could not recover possession as in the case of a freehold.* But subsequently the writ of ejectment was invented for his protection, by which he could recover possession of tiie land, with damages for its detinue, and this form of action substantially remains to this day.^ But these estates, as well as the other tenancies considered in the following sections, are generally considered and treated as chattel interests in lands, having more the characteristics of a bail- ment, than of a freehold estate in real property. The tenant is never said to be seized of the land. The actual seisin, if acquired by virtue of his possession, is held by him as a quasi-bailee of the remainder-man.* This general proposition is, however, often limited by statutory enact- ments, which give to estates for years of a certain duration, fixed by statute, all the characteristics of a freehold estate.* Such leaseholds, by force of these statutes, assume the character of a freehold estate, so far as the certainty of its duration will permit. 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 433, 436; Maine's Anc. Law, 275. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 435, 436; Goodlittle v. Tombs, 3 WUs. 120; Campbell v. Loader, 3 H. & C. 627. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 435 ; 1 Cruise Dig. 224. < 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 463; Walker Am. Law, 279. 135 § 173 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAET I. § 172. Definition. — An estate for years is one granted for a certain definite period of time, by the owner of the freehold, who in this connection is called the lessor, to one called the lessee, to hold and enjoy during the time stipulated and under the conditions agreed upon. The word years is used simply as a unit of time, and an estate for years, technic- ally, may be for any period of time, a month, a week, etc.^ § 173. Term defined.— Since the estate is to last for a definite period of time, having a precise beginning and end, it has acquired the technical designation of a term, from the Latin terminus.^ But the period need not be definitely fixed by the contract of the parties, which creates the estate. Under the maxim, id certum est quod certum reddi potest, the contract or lease would be valid, if it contained sufficient means of ascertaining its duration. A lease, therefore, for so many years as J. S. shall name, or to A. during his minority, would be a good term, while a lease for so manj-^ years as A. shall live, would not be good as a term, since there is no way in which the duration of the term can be ascertained until its expiration.^ It has, however, been keld to be a good lease where the lessee was given the pos- session as long as a certain building was not completed.* 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 436; Brown v. Bragg, 22 Ind. 122; Gould v. School Dist., 8 Minn. 431 ; Dixon v. Ahem (Nev. 1890), 24 Pac. 337; Shaw ». Hill (Mich. 1890) , 44 N. W. 422 ; Bnel ». Buel (Wis. 1890) , 45 N . W. 324 ; State V. Staiger (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 357. 2 1 Washb. on Keal Prop. 438; Williams on Real Prop. 388. 3 Co. Lit. 45 b ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 441 ; Dunn v. Cartright, 4 East, 29; Doe v. Dickson, 9 East, 15; West. Transp. Co. v. Lansing, 49 N. Y. 508; Horner v. Leeds, 25 N. J. L. 106; Delashmanc. Barry, 20 Mich. 292; Russell B. McCartney, 21 Mo. App. 544; Spies v. Voss, 9 N. Y. S.632, On the principle that the number of years can be ascertained by com- putation, it has been held that a devise or grant of lands, to pay debts out of the rents and profits, is treated as an estate for years. 1 Cruise Dig. 323; Batchelder v. Dean, 16 N. H. 268. See, also, ante, sect. 60. * D'Arcy v. Martyn, 63 Mich. 602. See, also, Sutton v. Hiram Lodge, 83 Ga. 770 (for the space of twenty years, or during our (lessee's) natural lives). 136 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 174 And if a lease is given for a time certain the validity is not affected by an additional stipulation that the tenant's pos- session thereafter is to continue at the will of the lessor.^ § 174. Interesse termini. — The lessee does not acquire an estate in the land until he has entered into possession. His interest is simply a right of entry, and is called an interesse termini. Until possession is acquired, he cannot maintain any action against strangers in respect to the land. Before the entry, the right of possession and the right to bring such actions are in the lessor.^ It has also been held at common law that the lessee cannot, before entry, main- tain an action of ejectment. But under the present theory in regard to this action, it is equivalent to common-law entry, and can be maintained by any one who has a good title and an immediate right of entry .^ The interesse termini, however, is so far a vested interest as to be capable of descent to the personal representatives, or of bequest like other chattel interests. It can also be assigned'or released.* But a delay on the part of the lessee to convert his interesse termini into an actual estate, does not suspend his liability on the covenants of his lease, unless such de- lay is occasioned by the fault of the lessor.^ But it is the 1 Myers v. Kingston Coal Co., 126 Pa. St. 582. 2 Co. Lit. 46 b; 4 Kent's Com. 97; Doe v. Walker, 5 B. & C. Ill; Wheeler v. Monteflore, 2 Q. B. 142 l Wood v. HubbelJ, 10 N. Y. 487; Sennett v. Bucher, 3 Pa. St. 392; 1 Wasbb. on Real Prop. 442, 443. And -although the words " bargain and sell " in a lease, founded upon actual and valuable consideration, will create a use, which will be executed into a legal estate by the Statute of Uses, the same rule in respect to the necessity of entry into possession applies. 2 Sand . Uses, 66 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 443. See Harrison v. Blackburn, 17 C. B. (n. s.) 678. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 443, 444; Gardner v. Keteltas, 3 Hill, 332; Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305. 4 Co. Lit. 46 b, 338 a; 4 Kent's Com. 97; Doe v. Walker, 5 B. & C. Ill ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 444. s 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 445; Salmon v. Smith, 1 Saund. 203, note 1; Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305; Lafarge v. Mansfield, 31 Barb. 345; JVIechan. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 2 Ililt. 650; Maverick o. Lewis, 3 McCord, 216; 137 § 175 ESTATES LESS THAN EREEHOLD. [PAET I. duty of the lessor to deliver the possession to the tenant ; aud if the leased property is in the possession of a third person, who refuses to give it up, it is the lessor's duty to oust him ; and until he does this he breaks his covenant for quiet en- joyment and is liable in damages to the lessee.^ § 175. Terms cominencing in future. — Since a term of years is a contract for the delivery aud detention of the possession, and does not affect the seisin of the reversioner, it may be made to commence at any time in the future, as well as in the present, provided it does not offend the doc- trine of perpetuities, by vesting in possession at a time beyond a life or lives in being, and twenty-one years there- after.^ Sometimes a lease contains a covenant for renewal. Where it is a covenant for an indefinite renewal, it has been held to be a void agreement within the doctrine of per- petuity.^ Whether this rule would be adopted generally, is a matter of some doubt. Where the covenant for re- newal is on the part of the lessor and the lessee does not expressly bind himself to accept such a renewal, the per- formance or non-performance of the covenant is at the option of the lessee, and he cannot be compelled to accept a renewal.* Unless the term does take effect in possession, the lessee has only an interesse termini.^ Rice V. Brown, 81 Me. 66. But see Reed v. Beck, 66 Iowa, 21, where it was held that, where a mine was rented under a contract to pay a certain sum per ton, and a guaranty that the royalty should not fall short of a given amount, no rent was due until mining had begun. 1 Cohn V. Norton, 67 Conn. 480. 2 ■Williams on Real Prop. 388; Cadell v. Palmer, 10 Bing. 140; Wild v. Traip, 14 Gray, 333; "Whitney ». Allaire, 1 N. Y. 311; Field o. Howell, 6 Ga. 423. 3 Reed v. Campbell, 43 N. J. Eq. 406 ; Morrison v. Rossignol, 5 Cal. 64. •• Brucer v. Fulton National Bank, 79 N. Y. 154; 35 Am. Rep. 506. » 1 "Washb. on Real Prop. 439; 4 Kent's Com. 97; Doe v. Walker, 5 B. & C. 311. Berridge v. Glassey, 112 Pa. St. 442; 56 Am. Rep. 322; Illi- nois Starch Co. v. Ottawa Hydraulic Co., 28 111. App. 272; s. c. 125 111. 237. If the premises, in a lease commencing mfuturo, are destroyed be- 138 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 175 It is sometimes stated without any qualification or ex- planation, which is at all satisfactory to a rational mind, that leaseholds can, and freeholds cannot, be created to commence in the future, and the difference in the operation of this rule on the two kinds of estates is ordinarily ascribed to some feudal distinction. But the rational explanation of the matter is the following : A lease is not a conveyance of an estate, but only an executory contract for the transfer of an estate for years, and differs in no material respect from the operation of an executory contract for the sale of a freehold estate. The difference arises at common law in the modes of executing these two executory contracts of sale. The lease is executed by the lessee taking possession of the land, without any formal transfer of it to him by the lessor. But at common law an executor}' contract for the sale of a freehold could only be executed by a liveiy of seisin, which from its very nature could not take place until the time arrived when the grantee's estate was to begin. To be strictly accurate in speech, neither the leasehold nor the freehold can be created to commence in the future, but it is practically accurate to say that a leasehold can be so created, inasmuch as the executory lease is self-executing. The necessity at common law for the livery of seisin in the execution of an executory sale of a freehold is the only ob- stacle in the way of applying the same statement to the sale of freeholds infuturo. As soon as a conveyance of the legal title to freeholds was devised, whereby the exec- utory bargain and sale of a freehold became self-executing, we then find that freeholds, as well as leaseholds,, can be created to commence in the future.* fore the time arrives for it to vest in possession, the tenant ia under no liability for rent. The very subject-matter of the contract, being destroyed, the contract becomes an impossible one, and the parties are relieved of their liability. Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 B. & S. 826: Wood v. Hubbell, ION. Y. 487. 1 See post, § 777. 139 § 177 ESTATES LESS THAN FEEEHOLD. [PAKT I. § 176. The rights of lessee for years.— -As a general proposition, the lessee is entitled to all the rights of free- holders, which arise out of actual possession, including those of estovers, fixtures, and the modes of enjoyment of the land.^ But the estate for years can be regulated by agree- ment of parties to an almost unlimited extent, and the rights of the parties under a lease are as variant as the contracts. There are few if any rights which might be Considered as invariable incidents of leaseholds. § 177. How created. — A contract is the basis of every tenancy for years. A permissive occupation of the land is not such a tenancy as would support a claim for rent.'^ At common law an estate for years could have been created by a parol contract. But under the English Statute of Frauds, all leases for more than three years must be put in writing and signed by the parties ; otherwise, they shall have only the force and effect of estates at will.* Although the stat- utes declare such parol leases to have only the force and efiect of estates at will, yet in those States in which the doctrine of tenancies from year to year is recognized, they would be construed to be tenancies from year to year, if the tenant enters into possession and pays, rent, and in all the States, such tenants would have a right to the statutory notice to quit before an action of ejectment can be main- tained against them.* But mere possession, without an 1 Kutter V. Smith, 2 Wall. 497; Davis v. Baffum, 51 Me. 162; Dingleyu. Buffum, 57 Me. 382; Preston u. Brlg?s, 16 Vt. 124; Riddle v. Llttlefleld, 33 N. H. 510; Freer u. Stotenbur, 33 Barb. 642 ; Dubois v. Kelly, 10 Barb. 490; Mason «. Fenn, 13111. 529. See aiiJe, sects. 69-82. 2 Collyer v. Collyjir, 113 N. Y. 442. s 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 446, 447. * Schneider ». Lord, 62 Mich. 141; Tanton v. Van Alstlne, 24 111. App. 405; Quinlan v. Bonte, 25 111. App. 240; Talamo v. Spitzmiller, 120 N. Y. 37; Clayton v. Blakeley , 8 T. R. 3 ; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 22 Conn. 425; Peoples. Rickhert, 8 Cow. 226; McDowell v. Simpson, 3 Watts, 129; Drake u. Newton, 3 N. J. Ill; Kerr v. Clark, 19 Mo. 132; Ridgeley v. Stillwell, 28 Mo. 400; Dunn v. Rothermel, 112 Pa. St. 272; Utah Loan & 140 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 177 actual payment of rent, will not impose upon the tenant the obligations of a tenant from year to year; and he is at liberty to escape liability for rent by abandoning the pos- session.^ It is not necessary that such leases should be under seal in order to be valid, ^ The statutes of the differ- ent States are similar in their general provisions, but there is a diversity in respect to the length or duration of those leases, which will be valid without writing ; ^ while in some, again, the writing is required to be under seal, or in other words, to be a deed.* But if only one of the parties signs the lease, and the tenant enters into actual possession of the premises, the party signing cannot relieve himself of liability on the lease by showing that the lease had not been duly executed by the other party. This is true whether the party failing to sign be the lessor or lessee.^ In Maine it is held that the signature of the lessor and T. Co. V. Garbut (Utah, 1890), 23Pac. 758; Condert e. Cohn, 118 N. Y. 309; N. B. 48; Rosenblatt v. Perkins (Or. 1889), 22 Pac. 598. But see Unglish V. Marvin, 45 Hun, 45. And as long as possession continues under a parol lease.wliich is void under tbe Statute of Frauds, the rights of the parties will be governed by the terms of the original letting. Doe v. Bell, 5 T. E. 471 ; Barlow v. Wainvvright, 22 Vt. 88 ; Currier v. Barker, 2 Gray, 224; Quinlan v. Bonte, 25 111. App. 240. 1 Capper v. Sibley, 55 Iowa, 754. 2 Allen V. Jaquish, 21 WendJ 635; Olmstead v. ISTiles, 7 N. H. 526; Den V. Johnson, 15 N. J. L. 116; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 447. 3 The English statute has been re-enacted in Pennsylvania, New Jer- sey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana. In Florida, leases for two years and under may be by parol. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wis- consin, the term Is one year; while in Maiae, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Vermont, all parol leases create tenancies at will. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 484, note. * The provisions of the State statutes requiring a sealed instrument in the grant of a leasehold, are not uniform. Generally it is provided that only leases of a certain duration should be sealed. See Taylor's L. & T., sect. 34; Bratt v. Bratt, 21 Md. 683; Chandler v. Kent, 8 Minn. 526. « Zink V. Bohn (N. Y. 1889), 3 N. Y. Super. 4; Toan v. Pline, 60 Mich. 385. 141 § 178 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. j_PART I. the seal of the lessee bind both parties to the lease. i If the lease is executed by an agent, according to the En- glish law, and that of some of the States, the authority must be given in writing, while in other States, the writing not being under seal, a parol power of attorney will be suf- ficient.^ Whenever a lease is reduced to writing, parol evidence is inadmissible to vary or add to the terms of the lease as set forth in the writing.^ § 178. Form of instrument. — In the execution of a lease, a general form of deed, more fully explained here- after, is usually followed, and certain terms and forms of expression are used. But any form of deed, and any terms or mode of expression will be sufficient for the creation of an estate for years, which shows the intention of the lessor to transfer to the lessee the possession of the land during a certain determinate period of time.* If the lease is deliv- ered as ail escrow, no title passes to the tenant until the condition has been performed.^ The words of grant usu- ally employed are " grant," "demise," and "farm-let." " Do lease, demise, and farm-let," signify generally the creation of a present vesting term, and not a future or con- tingent one, but tliis implication may be controlled by the other provisions of the lease.* The lease must, of course, 1 Rice V. Brown, 81 Me. 56. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 448, note. The English rule has been adopted in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin; Cheesebroush v. Ringrel, 72 Mich. 438. 3 Stevens v. Pierce (Mass. 1890), 23 N. E. 1006; McLean v. Nicoll, 43 Minn. 169; Snead v. Tiejer (Ariz. 1890), 24 Pac. 324; Kline y. McLain, 33 W. Va. 32; Pike v. Leiter, 26 111. App. 531; Leiter o. Pike, 127 111. 287; Stoddard v. Nelson, 17 Or. 418. ^ Wells u. Sheerer, 78 All. 142; Dunck Co. v. Webber (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E, 1082; Collyer ?), Collyer, 113 N. Y. 442; Houston v. Smythe, 66 Miss. 118; Oliver 17. Moore, 53 Hun. 472; Rice v. Brown, 81 Me. 56. ^ Gorsuch 17. Rutledge, 70 Ind. 272. « So. Cong. Meet. House v. Hilton, 11 Gray, 409; White b. Livingston, 10 Cush. 259; Putnam v. Wise, 1 Hill, 244; Jackson v. Delacroix, 2 142 r CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 179 describe the land which is leased with sufficient accuracy to admit of its identification.^ But an agent of the lessor may under parol authority^ supply the deficiency of the description.* And if the tenant enters into possession under the lease, he cannot object to his liability under the covenant on account of the deficiency of the description.* § 179. Continued — Distinction between present lease and contract for future one. — It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the instrument is a present lease, or only a contract for a future one. If it is a present lease, the parties will be hound by its implied, as well as express, provisions, and their force and effect cannot be altered by parol evidence, showing the intentions of the parties to have been different.® Whereas, if the instrument was only a contract for a future lease, it is not the final repository of the wishes of the parties, and it can be altered or amended to effectuate their intention.^ But in the absence of mutual agreements for alterations or amendments, neither party can insist on the insertion into the lease of terms and condi- tions, which are not imposed on the parties by law.' The ordinary rule of construction is that where the agreement leaves nothing further to be done by the parties, and con- tains directly, or by reference to other papers or records, all the provisions that are necessary to a valid lease, the Wend. 438; Walker v. Fitts, 24 Pick. 181; Dingman v. Kelly, 7 Ind. 717; Doe v. Eies, 8 Bing. 182; Doe ». Beajamin, 9 A. & E. 650. " Shall hold and enjoy " have also been held to be words of present demise. Doe o. Ashburner, 5 T. R. '168 ; Moshier v. Reding, 12 Me . 135 ; Wilson v. Martin, 1 Denio, 602; Watson v. O'Hern, 6 Watts, 362; Moore v. Miller, 8 Pa. St. 272. 1 Cluett V. Sheppard (111. 1890), 23 N. E. 582. 2 See^osJ § 789. 3 Bulkley v. Devlne, 270 111. App. 145; s. c. 127 111. 406. 4 Bulkley v. Devine, 127 111. 406. = Kline v. McLaln, 33 W. Va. 32. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 453. ' Hayden v. Lucas, 18 Mo. App. 325. 143 § 180 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAET I. instrument will be treated as a present demise.^ And even where a fuller lease is stipulated for, although this clause standing alone would give to the agreement the character of a contract for a lease, yet if there are proper words of present demise, the covenant for a future lease will be treated merely as a covenant for further assurance, and the agreement will take effect as a present demise. ^ And where the agreement admits of either construction the acts and declaration of the parties may be introduced, as indications of their intention and their understanding of the agreement.* Entry into possession and payment of rent would create a tenancy under a written instrument, which otherwise would be construed to be only a contract for a future lease.* § 180. Acceptance of lease necessary. — In order that the lessor may be divested of his possession and of his 1 Kabley v. Worcester Gas Co. 102 Mass. 394; Shaw v. Farnsworth, 108 Mass. 35r. See Weed u. Crocker, 13 Gray, 219; Hallett v. Wylie, 3 Johns. 47; Jackson v. Delacroix, 2 Wend. 433; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. T- 44; Morgan v. Bissell, 3 Taunt. 65; Haven v. Wakefield, 39 111. 509. 2 Alderman v. Neate, 4 M. & W. 719 ; Jackson ij. Kisselbrack, 10 Johns. 336 ; Whitney v. Allaire, 1 N. Y. 305 ; The People v. Gillis, 24 Wend. 201 ; Jackson v. Myers, 3 Johns. 395; Bacon v. Bowdoin, 22 Pick. 401 ; Jackson V. Eldridge, 3 Story, 325; Aiken v. Smith, 21 Vt. 272. In Buell v. Cork, 4 Conn. 238, it was held to be a contract for a lease, because the consent of a third person was required to make a valid lease ; and In Jackson v. Delacroix, 2 Wend. 433, where the instrument contained a statement that alterations were expected to be made in the terms, it was held to be a contract for a future lease. See Poole v. Bently, 12 East, 168; Jones V. Eeynolds, 1 Q. B. 517; Doe v. Benjamin, 9 A. & E. 644; Chapman «. Towner, 6 M. & W. 100. In Thornton v. Payne, 5 Johns. 74, the court say: "In every case decided in the English courts where agreements have been adjudged not to operate by passing an interest, but to rest in contract, there has been either an express agreement for a future lease, or construing the agreement to be a lease inprcesenti would work a for- feiture, or the terms have not been fully settled, and something further was done." The presumption is always in favor of its being a present lease, instead of a contract for a future lease. 3 Chapman v. Black, 4 Bing. N. C. 187; Alderman v. Neate, 4 M. & W. 704: Doe v. Ashburner, 5 T. R. 163. * Chenny o. Newberry, 67 Cal. 125. 144 CH. VII. ] ' ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 182 rights incident to possession, and the lessee be bound by the terms of the lease, acceptance by the latter must be shown. Where it operates entirely to his benefit, his acceptance may be presumed ; while in other cases it may be inferred from acts, such as entry into possession and the like, as well as established by words of formal acceptance.^ § 181. Relation of landlord and tenant. — As soon as a lease has been delivered and accepted by parties compe- tent to contract,^ a relation is established between the lessor and lessee which is known as that of landlord and tenant. A privity of estate and a tenure are established, which bind the parties to each other in respect to the duties imposed by the law and the implied covenants. This obligation exists no longer than does the relation of landlord and. tenant, while the obligation imposed and created by the^ express terms and provisions of the instrument rest upon privity of contract, and survive the dissolution of such rela- tion.^ The lessee, however, does not become liable on his covenant to pay rent until the lessor has put him into pos- session of the premises.* § 182. Assignment and subletting. — Unless restrained by a covenant or changed by statute, the lessee can assign his term or grant a sublease of the same without let or hindrance of the lessor.^ And a restriction against assign- 1 Maynard v. Maynard, 10 Mass. 466; Hedge v. Drew, 12 Pick. 141; Kramer v. Cook, 7 Gray, 650; Jackson v. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Cas. 114; Jackson v. Bodle, 20 Johns. 184; Jackson v. Richards, 6 Cow. 6l7. 2 See post, sects. 791, 792, 793, 812-814, for a discussion of the sub- jects, delivery and competency of parties. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 468, 469. *Kean v. Kolks'chneider, 21 Mo. App, 538. 5 King V. Aldborough, 1 East, 597; Roe v. Sales, 1 M. & Sal. 297; Tay- lor's L. & T. 22 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 507, 508 ; Cottee v. Richardson, 7 Ex. Rep. 143; Brown v. Powell, 25 Pa. St. 329; Shannons. Burr, 1 Hilt. 39 ; Den ». Post, 35 N.J. L. 285 ; Robinson v. Perry, 21 Ga. 183; Crommelin v. Thless, 31 Ala. 421. 10 145 § 182 ESTATES LESS THAN FEEEHOLD. [PAET I. ment does not prevent a subletting, and vice versa. The restriction must apply expres-^ly to both in order to restrain both.^ The assignment or sublease is subject to the same requirements of the Statute of Frauds, as the original lease. 2 An assignment is effected, whenever the entire term is disposed of, leaving nothing in the lessee by way of a reversion. And a grant will be considered and treated as an assignment, whether it be in the form of a new lease, or merely a transfer of the old lease. The reservation of a different rent does not make the transfer a subletting.^ The decisive question is, whether there is a reversion left in the lessee; and a giant of a portion of the premises for the entire term would be an a-signment, and not a sublease of such portion.* But if the whole, or only a part, of the premises be demised for a term of shorter duration than that of the lessee, it is a subletting. And the most inconsiderable reversion, such as the last day of the term, would be suiBcient to give the grant the char- acter of an under-lease.^ It has been held and like- 1 Greenaway v. Adams, 12 Ves. 400; Beardman v. Wilson, L. R. 4C. B. 57; Lynde ii. Hougli, 27 Barb. 415; Den v. Post, 25 N. J. L. 285; Pield c. Mills, 33 N. J. L. 254; Hargrave v. King, 5 Ired. Eq. 430. Tak- ing boarders is neither a subletting nor an assifinment according to a late case. Stanton v. Allen (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 878. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 508 ; "Williams on Real Prop. 402, 3 Sexton V. Chicago Storage Co., 129 III. 318. * Palmer v. Edwards, Dougl. 187, note; Parmenter c. Webber, 8 Taunt. 593; Boardman v. Wilson, L. R. 4 C. B. 56; Wollaston v. Hake- well, 8 M. & G. 323; Plush v. Diggs, 6 Bligti (x. s.), 31; Pollack?). Stacy, 9 Q. B. 1033; Sanders v. Partridge, 108 Mass. 558; Lynde v. Hough, 27 Barb. 145; Patten v. Deshon, 1 Gray, 325; Sands v. Hughes, 53 N. Y. 293; Bedford v. Terhune, 30 N. Y. 457. But see Fulton v. Stuart, 2 Ohio, 369, and McNeil ». Kendall, 128 Mass. 245; 35 Am. Rep. 373, where transfer of a part of premises for the whole term was considered a subletting. s Posts. Kearney, 2 N. Y. 394; Collins v. Hasbrouck, 56 N. Y. 157; 15 Am. Law Rep. 407; Astor v. Miller, 2 Paige, 68; Pingrey v. Watkins, 15 Vt. 479; Martin v. O'Conaor, 43 N. Y. 522; Linden v. Hepborn, 3 Sandf. 668; Patten v. Deshon, I Gray, 325; Parmenter v. Webber, 8 Taunt, 593; Pollock v. Stacy, 9 Q. B. 1033; Derby v. Taylor, 1 East, 502; Sexton V. Chicago Storage Co., 129 111. 318. 146 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 182 wise denied, that the reservation of a right of entry for breach of a condition would be such a reservation of a reversion, as to make the demise a subletting. The better opinion is that a right of entry will have no such effect, if the whole term has been granted. ^ If the demise is an assignment, the assignee enters into the privity of estate with the original lessor and becomes thereby liable to him on the covenants of the original lease, which run with and bind the land. But his liability only continues during the continued maintenance of this privity of estate, and does not extend to breaches occurring before assignment to him or after his alienation of the teim.^ But he cannot escape liability for rent meiely by abandonment of the possession. Nothing but alienation or a complete surren- der to the lessor would relieve the assignee from the pay- ment of rent.* The fact that the original lease contains a 1 That the reservation of a right of entry uponfailure to pay rent malies the transfer a subletting, see Kearney v. Post, 1 Sandf. 105; Martin ». O'Connor, 43 Barb. 522; Linden v. Hepburn, 3 Sandf. 670. Sexton v, Chicago Storage Co., 129 111. 318. In the following cases the rule is denied. 2 Prest. Conv. 124, 125; Palmer ». Edwards, Dougl. 187, note; Doe V. Bateman, 2 B. & Aid. 168; Lloyd v. Cozens, 3 Ashm. 138; Davis V. Morris, 36 N. Y. 575; Smiley v. Van Winkle, 6 Cal. 605. See Bedford V. Terhune, 30 N. Y. 457; Sanders v. Partridge, 108 Mass. 558; Stewart V. LonglslandK. R. Co., 102N. Y.601 (55 Am.Rep. 844). In anote to King w.WilsoD, 5 Man. & R. 157, note, it is stated that there is "neither principle nor authority, to preclude such term or from making an underlease for a period commensurate in point of computation with the original term." 2 Stevenson v. Lambard, 2 East, 575; Burnett v. Lynch, 5 B. & C. 589; University of Vermont v. Joslyn, 21 Vt. 52; Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick. 125; Graham v. Way, 38 Vt. 19; Davis v. Morris, 36 N. Y. 576; Jackson V. Davis, 6 Cow. 129 ; McKeon v. Whitney, 3 Denio, 452 ; Benson v. BoUes, 8 Wend. 175; Barroilhet v. Battele, 7 Cal. 450; Grandin v. Carter, 99 Mass. 16; Sanders v. Partridge, 108 Mass. 556; Walton v. Cronly, 14 Wend. 62; Quackenboss v. Clark, 12 Wend. 557; Armstrong v. Wheeler, 9 Cow. 89; Patten v. Deshon, 1 Gray, 329; Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Cal. 287; Salisbury ». Shirley, 66 Cal. 223; Donelson o. Polk, 64 Md. 501; Oswald V. Mollett, 20 111. App. 449; Reynolds v. Lawton, 8 N. Y. S. 403; Washington Nat. Gas Co. v. Johnson, 123 Pa. St. 576; Congregational Soc. V. Eix (Vt. 1889), 17 Atl. 719. ^ Dewey v. Payne. 19 Neb. 540. 147 § 182 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAET I, condition against assignment without consent of lessor does not make assignee's liability depend ajDon such consent ; the lessor may waive the performance of the agreement.^ Actual entry into possession is not necessary to attach such liability to the assignee during the time that the term is vested in him, except that in some States actual entry is required in order to render the assignee liable on the cove- nant for rent.^ Where the assignment is by way of a mortgage, actual entry is always necessary.^ If the assign- ment is in violation of a condition, the lessee cannot be compelled to assume the obligations of a tenant, if he abandons the possession or repudiates the tenancy.* If the demise be only a sub-lease, the privity of estate between the lessee and the original lessor is still maintained, and the sublessee is only liable to the intermediate lessor on the covenants in the lease between them, although he takes his title subject to the right of the original lessor to effect a forfeiture of the estate for the breach of the lessee's covenant 1 Sexton V. Chicago Storage Co., 129111. 318. 2 Felch V. Taylor, 13 Pick. 130; Bagley v. Freeman, 1 Hilt. 196; Smiti V. Brinker, 17 Mo. 148. In New York, entry Into possession is neces- sary, to render liable on covenant for rent. Damainville v. Mann, 32 N. Y. 197. O'Rourke v. Brown, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 384; O'Rourte v. H. P. Cooper & Co. 84 N. Y. Super. Ct. 389. In Massacliusetts the assignee is liable for rent without entry, it the assignment is by 'deed. Sanders v. Partridge, 108 Mass. 556; Guienzberg v. Claude, 28 Mo. App. 268. In Illinois entry is never necessary. Babcock v, Scoville, 56 111. 466. 3 Williams v. Bosanquet, 1 Brod. & B. 238; Felch v. Taylor, 13 Pick. 133 ; Pingrey v. Watkins, 15 Vt. 488 ; Graham v. Way, 38 Vt. 24; McMurphy 11. Minot, 4 N. H. 251; Walton v. Cronly, 14 Wend. 63; Astor v. Hoyt. 5 Wend. 603; Astor v. Miller, 2 Paige, 68; McKee v. Angelrodt, 16 Mo. 283. In Maryland, entry is not necessary. Mayliew v. Hardisty, 8 Md. 479. See also, Calvert v. Bradley, 16 How. (U. S.) 593; Johnson v. Sher- man, 15 Cal. 287; Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223; Donelson v. Polk, 64 Md. 501; Oswald v. Mollett, 29 111. App. 449; Reynolds v. Lawton, 8 N. Y. S. 403; Washington Nat. Gas Co. v. Johnson, 123 Pa. St. 576; Con- gregational Soc. V. Rix (Vt. 1889), 17 Atl. 719. * Hynes v. Ecker, 34 Mo. App. 650. But see contra, Chautauqua As- sembly V. Ailing, 46 Hun, 582. 148 •CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 182 of rent. 1 And a reservation of rent by the intermediate lessor, if it is an assi<>;nment, will not give him a right to distrain for it. His remedy is an action to recover on the covenant.'^ In order that the assignee may be protected against any ouster by the original lessor, for failure of the lessee to pay the rent due to him, it has been held that, before the lessee can recover of his assignee, he must show that the lessor's claim has been satisfied. The assignor or original lessee is not released from his express covenant to pay rent, and hence he may still be required to pay the rent, notwithstanding the lessor's acceptance of the assignee as a tenant. But if he was required to pay it, the assignor could recover it of the assignee, on the principle of sub- rogation.^ And if the rent reserved in the second lease be larger than what is reserved in the first, the parties may, by agreement, provide that the lessee shall recover only the difference, while the sublessee pays the original rent to the lessor.* Without express agreement, the lessor cannot sue the sublessee for rent. There is neither privity of estate nor privity of contract between them to sustain the action.® But if the original lease is surrendered to the lessor, without prejudice to under-lessees, the lessor may recover subse- quently accruing rent from the sublessees.^ • 1 Hulett V. Stoctwell, 27 Mo. App. 328; In re Strasbiirger's estate, 56 Hun, 164; Otis v. Conway, 114 N. Y. 13. * Hicks V. Bowling, 1 Ld. Eaym. 99 ; Parmenter v. Webber, 8 Taunt. 593; Bedford v. Terhune, 30 N. Y. 458; Davis v. Morris, 36 N. Y. 674. 2 Lehman v. Dreyfus, 37 La. An. 587 ; Farrington ». Kimball, 126 Miss. 313; 30 Am. Rep. 680. * Wollaston v. Haliewell, 3 M. & G. 323; Smith v. Mapleback, 1 T. E. 441. 6 Halford v. Hatch, Dongl. 187; Grandin v. Carter, 98 Mass. 16; Dart- mouth College V. Clough, 8 N. H. 22; McFarlan v. Watson, 3 N. Y. 286; see Foster v. Keid (Iowa, 1889), 42 N. W. 649. " Beal V. Boston, etc.. Car. Co., 125 Mass. 157 ; 28 Am. Eep. 216 ; Bailey -». Eichardson, 66 Cal. 416; Appleton v. Ames (Mass. 1889), 22 N. E. 69; Otis V. Conway, 114 N. Y. 13. 149 § 183 ' ESTATf:S LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PART I. § 183. Involuntary alienation. — A leasehold estate is also subject to sale under execution, and under the bank- rupt and insolvent laws passes to the assignee, like other personal property, for tlie satisfaction of the lessee's debts.^ And such assignees become liable on the covenants of the lease, if they accept the assignment, and exercise the rights of ownership over it.^ But the assignees have the right within a reasonable time to elect whether they shall accept or reject the lease. The mere fact that the lease is properly included in the assignment will not render them liable on the covenants.^ But the assignee's rejection of the lease does not release the lessee's liability under the lease, even though the lessor should enter into possession, in conse- quence of the abandonment of the premises.* Involuntary alienation may be prevented, if it is explicitly stated in the lease, that such a mode of alienation will work a forfeiture of the term.* But a simple restriction against alienation does not apply to involuntary alienation. Nothing short of an actual and voluntary transfer of the lessee's estate will ordinarily be considered a breach of a condition or covenant a«rainst assignment.* 1 Williams on Real Prop. 404; Williams on Pers. Prop. (9th ed.), 66. 2 White V. Hunt, L. K. 6 Excb. 32; Quackenboss v. Clarke, 12 Wend. 665; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 523, 524. 3 Smyttie v. North, L. R. 7 Exch. 242; Carter v. Wame, 4 C. & P. 191,; Copeland o. Stephens, 1 B. & Aid. 593; Pratt v. Levan, 1 Miles, 368; Blake ». Sanderson, 1 Gray, 332; Journegy v. Brackley, 1 Hilt. 448; Kea- drick V. Judas, 6 Caints, 25; Carter u. Hammett 18 Barb. 608; Sparhawk V. Broome, 6 Bian. 256; Dorrauce v. Jones, 27 Ala. 630. * Stewart v. Sprague, 76 Mich. 184. " Eoe V. Galliers, 2 T. K. 133 ; Davis v. Eyton, 7 Bing, 164. See Doe o. Hawks, 2 East, 481; Doe v. Clark, 8 East, 185; Doe v. David, 5 Tyrw. 125; Cooper v. Wyatt, 5 Madd. 482; Yaruold v. Moorehouse, 1 S. & Myl. 346. " Philpot V. Hoare, 2 Atk. 219; Doe v. Bevan, 3 M. & S. 353; Doe v. Carter, 8 T. U. 300; Lear v. Leggett, 1 Russ. & M. 690; Smith v. Putnam, 3 Pick. 221 ; Jackson v. Corlis, 7 Johns. 531 ; Mooro v. Pitts, 63 N. Y. 85; Collins V. Hasbrouck, 56 N. Y. 157; 15 Am. Rep. 407; Hargrave v. King, 6 Ired. Eq. 43f); Muukwitz u. Uliiig, 64 Wis. 380; Farnum o. Hefner, 79 150 CH. VII. j ' ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 185 § 184. Disposition of terms after death of tenant. — A term, like other personal pioperty, can be bequeathed, or if the tenant dies without making any disposition, it de- scends to the executor or administrator, who takes it and dis[)()ses of it like any other chattel, unless the restriction airainst alienation expressly includes the personal represent- atives in such prohibition.^ And the right to devise a lease- hold is not taken away by a general condition in restraint of alienation, although it may be by express limitation.^ § 185. Covenants in a lease in general. — In strict, technical lanj:uaire, a covenant is any agreement which is executed under the solemnity of a seal; but in this con- nection it is used to signify the agreements, which appear in a lease, and which bind the parties thereto, whether the ease is under seal or not.^ And it may be said gene- rally, that unless the performance of a covenant by one part}'' to the lease is made, expressly or by necessary im- plication, to depend upon the performance of some other covenant by the other party, covenants in leases are in- dependent of each other, and the breach of one covenant by one party is no bar to his action against the other party for the breach of another covenant.* Cal. 575. But see contra, HoUiday v. Achle, 99 Mo. 273. But a volun- tary assignment under thi: bankrupt and insolvent laws is not an involun- tary alienation. See 1 Pars. Con. 506. 1 Taylor's L. & T., sect. 408; Seers v. Hind, 1 Ves. jr. 295; Keating v. Condon, G8 Pa. St. 75; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 679; Ilellwig v. Bachman, 26 111. App. 165; Jacqiiat u. Bichman, 26 111. App. 169. 2 Fox V. Swann, Styles, 483; Berry v. Taunton, Cro. Eliz. 331; Dum- por V. Symmons, lb. 816; Ciiarles v. Byrd, 29 S C. 544. 3 Hayne v. Cummings, 16 C. B. (N. s.) 426. Wo reference is made here to the common-lavy fornri of the action to be used in the enforcement of covenants in leases. The action of covenant would lie only in the case of an agreement under seal, signed and sealed by the covenantor. See Goodwin v. Gilbert, 9 Mass. 510; Pike v. Brown, 7 Cush. 133; Johnson ■». Mussey, 45 Vt. 419; Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 15 Conn. 431; Gale ». Nixon, 6 Cow. 445; Manle v. Weaver, 7 Pa. St. 329. * Strohmey er ». Zeppenf eld, 28 Mo . App . 268 ; Butler" ti. Manney , 52 Mo . 497. 151 ^ 186 ESTATES LESS THAN TEEEHOLD. [PAET I. § 186. Continued — Express and implied covenants. — Covenants may be express or implied. There is apparently no restriction upon the number and character of the express covenants which may be inserted in a lease. The parties may by them change altogether their common-law liability under the lease and substitute for the general rule of law express limitations and obligations.^ Implied covenants are those which arise by construction of law from the employ- ment of certain words and forms of expression, such as " grant," " lease," " demise," etc.^ An important distinc- tion exists between express and implied covenants in respect to the effect of assignment of the lease upon the liability of the lessee. He remains bound by all the express covenants contained in the lease. His liability under them rests upon express personal obligation. But the liability under an implied covenant arises from the privity of estate created between the parties by the possession of the lessee under the lease. The lessee's liability, therefore, on implied covenants determines with the destruction of the privity of estate by assignment or otherwise.^ But acceptance of the ' Washb. on Real Prop. 505. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 487. Bnt the tendency of modern decisions is against implying covenants, which might have been expressed, and this is particularly the case where the deed appears to contain all the stipulations and conditions which the parties intended. See Aspden v. Austin, 5 Ad. & El. (n. s.) 684; Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall. 423. It has been held that the covenant for quiet enjoyment is implied from the use of any operative words. Mack v. Patchin, 42 N. Y. 167; 1 Am. Rep. 506. But, generally, " lease " and " demise " are the only words whicti will raise implied covenants. See Tone o. Bruce, 8 Paige, 597; Mayor v, Mabie, 14 N. Y. 160; Maule u. Ashmead, 20. Pa. St. 482; Lovering v. Lovcring, 13 N. H. 518 ; Hamilton v. Wright, 28 Mo. 199 ; Wake ». HaUi- gan, 16 111. 507; Playter». Cunningham, 21 Cal. 2.^3. 8 Auriol V. Mills, 4 T. R. 98; Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 241 b; Way V. Reed, 6 Allen, 364; Kimpton v. Walker, 9 Vt. 199; Kunckle v. Wynick, 1 Dall. 305; Walker v. Physick, 5 Pa. St. 193; Waldo «. Hall, 14 Mass. 486; Sutliffet). Atwood, 15 Ohio St. 186; Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 250; Blair «. Rankin, 11 Mo. 440; Post ». Jackson, 17 Johns. 239; Quacken- boss V. Clark, 12 Wend. 556; Ghegan v. Young, 23 Pa. St. 18; Howland 152 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD . § 187 assignee as a tenant by the original lessor is necessary in order to absolve the lessee from his liability for rent under an implied covenant.^ The following covenants are usually implied in every lease. § 187. Implied covenant for quiet enjoyment. — This is a covenant for the quiet enjoyment of the premises by the lessee. It is not an absolute covenant for the protection of his possession against the acts of the whole world. It extends only to the acts of the landlord and of strangers asserting a paramount title. The lessor does not warrant against the acts of strangers who do not claim a superior title. ^ But in order that his own acts may constitute a breach of the covenant, they must amount to an eviction.^ A mere fugitive trespass by the lessor does not work a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.^ But a land- lord is guilty of neither trespass nor eviction when he enters for the purpose of making repairs.^ When the covenant of V. Coffin, 12 Pick. 125; Bailey v. Wells, 8 Wis. 141; Lodge v. White, 30 Ohio St. 5G9; 27 Am. Rep. 492; Whetstone v. McCartney, 32 Mo. App. 430; Guinzburg v. Claude, 28 Mo. App. 258. 1 Auriol V. Mills, 4 T. K. 98; Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 240; Fletcher -». McFarlane, 12 Mass. 43; Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256; Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223. 2 Morse v. Goddard, 13 Mete. 177; Boss v. Dysart, 33 Pa. St. 452; Moore v. Webber, 71 Pa. St. 429; 10 Am. Rep. 708; Edgerton v. Page, 1 Hilt. 333; Dexter?;. Manley, 4 Cush. 24; Sherman v. Williams, 113 Mass. 481; 18 Am. Eep. 522; Mack u. Patohin, 42 N. Y. 167; 1 Am. Eep. 506; Schilling ». Holmes, 23 Cal. 230; Brangerc. Manciet, 30 Cal. 626; Lovering V. Lovering, 13 N. H. 518: Wade v. Halligan, 16 III. 507; Hamilton D.Wright, 28 Mo. ] 99 ; Schuylhill, etc., E. E. v. Schmoele, 57 Pa. St. 273 ; Barneycastle V. Walker, 92 N. C. 198; Duncklee v. Webber (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 1082; McAlester v. Landers, 70 Cal. 79. There is an implied covenant for quiet enjoyment in the grant of an incorporeal, as well as of a corporeal, hereditament. Mayor v. Mabie, 13 N. Y. 157. To support the implied covenant, the lease must be a valid one. Webster v. Conley, 46 111. 17. 3 See Post § 844. * Avery v. Dougherty, 102 Ind. 443. 5 International Press Ass'n v. Brooks, 30 111. App. 114; White v. Thurber, 55 Hun, 447. 153 § 189 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PART I. quiet enjoyment is broken, the obligation to payment of rent is suspended, and the presumption in ordinary cases is, that the tenant suffers no damage, the rent being an equiv- alent of the use. If the lessee claims damage, he must show it.^ § 188. Implied covenant for rent. — The covenant for rent is implied from the very reservation iu the lease of a certain stipulated sum. This implied covenaut is, of course, separate and distinct from any express contracts the lessor may enter into.^ § 189. Implied covenant against waste. — By the very acceptance of the lease, the lessee assumes an implied obli- gation to use the premises in a husbandlike manner, and to keep the buililings and other structures in repair; and a failure on his p;irt to do so, subjects him to an action of waste. ^ And where the lessor is obliged by the law to repair, in a case where the lessee has covenanted to repair, either expressly or liy implication, the lessor can recover of the lessee in an appropriate action for the expense of such repairs.* For although the landlord is not under obligation to tenant for repair, if the tenant does not repair, and injury results to third persons, the landlord has been held liable.^ Where the leased premises consisted of ' Larkln v. Misland, 100 N. Y. 213; Duncklee v. Webber (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 1082. 2 Kimpton v. Walber, 9 Vt. 198; Van Rensselaer v. Smith, 27 Barb. 140; Royer v. Ake, 3 Pa. St. 461 ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 492. 3 Thorndike v. Burrage, 111 Mass. 532; Nave v. Berry, 22 Ala. 382; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 492; Fenton v. Montgomery, 19 Mo. App. 156; Hoyleman v. Kanawha, etc., Ry. Co., 33 W. Va. 489. See ante, sects. 72-80, as to what acts constitute waste. < Hull V. Burns, 17 Abb. N. C. 317. 5 Marshall v. Cohen, 44 Ga. 489; 9 Am. Rep. 170; Riley v. Simpson, 83 Cal. 217; Catts v. Simpson, 83 Cal. 217; s. c. 23 Pac. 294; O'SuUivan e. Norwood. 14 Daly, 286; Torale v. Hampton, 28 111. App. 142; s. c. 129 111. 379 ; Folsom v. Lewis (Ga. 1890), 11 S. E. 606; O'Neill v. Kinker, 8 N. Y. S. 154 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN EKEEHOLD. § 189 a part of a tenement or other building, the general stair- way and walls, and roof, are not included within the lease, so as to impose upon the lessee the duty of keeping them in repair. The lessor is liable for any damage which may result from such sources ; not as lessor, but in general, as owner of the property.* And in order that the lessor may in such a case be held liable, it need not be shown that he had knowledge of the need of repairs.^ The lessor, in the absence of an express covenant, is not bound to make repairs upon the leased premises. But if he does undertake to make such repairs, he is bound by an implied covenant to do it in a workmanlike manner, without injury to the lessee.^ The lessor, however, is not liable on his 554; HuDgerford v. Bent, 55 Hunt 3; Timlin v. Standard Oil Co., 54 Hun, 44. But see contra, Kalis v. Shattock, 09 Cal. 593; Ahem v. Steele, 115 N. Y. 203. 1 Ward V. Fogan, 28 Mo. App. 116; O'Sullivan v. Norwood, 14 Daly, 286; Fisher v. Jansen, 30 111. App. 91; s. o. 128 lU. 549: McGuire v. Joslyn, 10 N. Y. S. 384; DoUard v. Roberts, 8 N. Y- S. 432; Lindsey v. Leighton, 150 Mass. 285; Brennan v. Lachat, 14 Daly, 197; Sawyer t;. McGillicuddy, 81 Me. 318. But see contra, Quinn v. Perham (Mass. 1890), 23 Mass. 736. 2 Lindsey v. Leighton, 150 Mass. 258. 3 Gott V. Gaudy, 22 Eng. Law & Eq. 173; Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall. 423; Leavitt v. Fletcher, 10 Allen. 121; Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 478; Elliott ». Allien, 45 N. H. 36; Doupe v. Gerrin, 45 N. Y. 119; 6 Am. Eep. 47; Post v. Vevter, 2 E. D. Smith, 248; Estep v. Estep, 23 Ind. 114; Dester v. King, 8 N. Y. S. 489; Bumes v. Fuchs,28 Mo. App. 279; Simons V. Seward, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 406; Cantrell u. Fowler^CS. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 934; Butler v. Gushing, 46 Hun, 521; Weinstein v. Harrison, 66 Tex. 546; McLean v. Wander (Pa.), 19 Atl. 749; s. c. 26 W. N. C. 24; Wisdom V. Newberry, 30 Mo. App. 241; Perez v. Rayband, 76 Tex. 191; Little v. Macadaras, 29 Mo. App. 332; s. c. 38 Mo. App. 178; Gregor v. Cady, 82 Me. 131. There is no implied covenant on the part of the landlord, that the premises are in a tenantable condition. Jaffe v. Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398, 16 Am. Kep. 438; Fisher v. Lighthall, 4,Mackey, 82 (54 Am. Rep. 258); Lucas ». Coulter, 104 Ind. 81; Blake v. Ranous, 25 111. App. 486; Stevens v. Pierce (Mass. 1890), 23 N. E. 1006. Butsee Snyder v. Gordon, 45 HuQ, 538. Bat if the lessor knew at the time when the lease began that the premises were not in a healthy condition, he ■will be liable on an implied covenant Maywood v. Logan (Mich.), 43 N. W. 1052; Leonard, ■;;. Arm- Strong (Mich. 1889), 41 N. W. 695; contra, Wassonu. Petlis, 117N. Y. 118. 155 § 189 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PART I. covenant to repair for its breach, unless he has been notified or learns of the need of repairs and fails to respond within a reasonable time after such notice.^ But if the person injured be a social or business visitor of the tenant, or a boarder or sub-tenant, the lessor is not liable for the injury unless he was under a covenant to repair.^ The lessor or lessee may enter into express covenants for the repair of the premises under all circum- stances, and an unqualified covenant of this kind will obligate the covenantor to repair, whatever may have caused the damage.^ But the implied covenant of the lessee extends only to repairs made necessary by the negli- gence of the lessee. If he uses the land in a husbandlike manner, he is not liable to repair any damage done by the elements or by strangers without his fault.* The lessee cannot hold the lessor liable for improvements made by the former, unless the landlord has expressly assented to the im- provements being made at his expense.^ 1 Thomas v. Kingsland, 12 Daly, 315; O'Connor v. Gourand, 14 Daly, 64; Alperir v. Earle, 55 Hua, 211. 2 O' Sullivan v. Norwood, 14 Daly, 286; Sterger v. Van Siclen, 7 N. T. S. 805; Fisher o. Jansen, 30 111. App. 91; s. c. 128 111. 549; Wilson v. Treadwell, 81 Cal. 58; Donaldson v. Wilson, 60 Mich. 86. " Walton V. Waterhouse, 2 Saund. 422; Abby v. Billups, 35 Miss. 618; Phillips V. Stevens, 16 Mass. 238; Leavitt v. Fletcher, 10 Allen, 121; Warner v. Hitchins, 5 Barb. 666; Hoy v. Holt, 91 Pa. St. 88; 36 Am. Rep. 558; Gibbon v. Eller, 13 Ind. 128; Bailey v. Lindsay, 35 Mo. App. 675; Mcintosh v. Rector, etc., St. Phillip's Church, 120 K. Y. 71. But where an ordinance of a city, passed subsequently, pro- hibits the erection of wooden buildings, the covenantor in a cove- nant to rebuild a woodenbuilding is thereby released from the obligation to perform. Cordes v. Miller, 39 Mich. 581 ; 33 Am. Law Rep, 430. And a covenant to erect a new building does not, by Implication, include the rebuilding of it after destruction by fire or otherwise. Cowell v. Lum- ley, 39 Cal. 151; 2 Am. Rep. 430. « Wells V. Castles, 3 Gray, 323 ; Leavitt v. Fletcher, 10 Allen. 121 ; Post V. Vetter, 2 E. D. Smith, 248; Warner v. Hitchins, 6 Barb. 666; Elliott D. Ailiin, 45 N. H. 36 ; Gibson u. Eller, 13 Ind. 128 ; Bold v. O'Brien, 12 Daly, 160; Carroll v. Rigney, 15 R. I. 81; Sheer v. Fisher, 27 111. App. 464. ^ Pearson v. Sanderson, 128 111. 88. 15(3 CH. VII. J ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 190 § 190. Covenants running with land. — If the covenant is beneficial only to the owner of the land, whether he be the tenant of the freehold or of the term, and relates to the preservation or improvement of the land, it runs with the land, passes to the assignee of the lessor or lessee, as the case may be, and can be enforced by him.^ But the lessor may, in the sale of the reversion, reserve to himself the enforcement of any of the covenant which would other- wise run with the land.^ A covenant is said to run with the land, so as to bind assignees, when it relates to the manage- ment and conduct of the land, or where its performance forms a part of the original consideration upon which the lease rests. * The usual covenants running with the land are those for quiet enjoyment ;* to insure f to repair;® to pay rent;'^ 1 Spencer's Case, 5 Eep. 16 ; 1 Smith's Ld. Cas. 139; Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 B. & C. 110; Patton v. Deshon, 1 Gray, 325; Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick. 125; Van Rensselaer o. Hays, 19 N. Y. 81 ; Van Rensselaer v. Smith, 27 Barb. 151 ; Nicholl v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. 12 N. Y. 131; Streaper v. Fisher, 1 Rawle, 161; Cook v. Brightly, i6 Pa. St. 445; Scott v. Lunt, 7 Pet. 606; Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Crawford u. Chapman, 17 Ohio, 449; Plumleigh v. Cook, 13 111. 669. In Illinois, the assignee of the covenan- tor's estate cannot sue on the covenant in his own name unless the covenantee has attorned to him. Fisher v. Deering, 60 111. 114. And at no time has it been permitted of the assignee to sue for breaches of the covenant occurring before assignment. Lewis v. Ridge, Cro. Eliz. 863; Gibbs V. Ross, 2 Head, 437; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 498. 2 Payne v. James (La., 1890), 7 So. 457. 8 Morse v. Aldrich, 19 Pick. 749; Plggot v. Mason, 1 Paige Ch. 412; Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. 136; DeForrestw. Byrne, 1 Hilt. 43; Jackson V. Langhead, 2 Johns. 75; Wooliscroft v. Norton, 16 Wis. 204; Black- more V. Boardman, 28 Mo. 410; Gordon v. George, 12 Ind. 408; Chautua- qua Assembly v. Ailing, 46 Hun, 582. i Campbell v. Lewis, 3 B. & Aid. 392 ; Williams v. Burrell, 1 C. B. 438; Shelton ». Codman, 3 Cush. 318; Markland v. Cramp, 1 Dev. & B. 94. 6 Vernon v. Smith, 5 B. & Aid. 1. 6 Spencer's Case, 6 Rep. 16; 1 Smith Ld. Cas. 139; Demarest v. Wil- lard, 8 Cow. 206 ; Pollard v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 210 ; Taffe v. Harteau, 66 N- Y. 398; 15 Am. Rep. 438. ' Graves v. Potter, 11 Barb. 592; Main v. Feathers, 21 Barb. 646; Dem- arest V. Willard, 8 Cow. 206; Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick. 126; Hurst v. Rodney, 1 Wash. C. Ct. 375. 157 § 191 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PART I. to pay taxes ;i to renew the lease. ^ A covenant for lessor to pay for improvements passes to the assignee of the lessee, but whether it binds the assignee of the reversion has been decided both in the affirmative,^ and in the negative.* Cove- nants which relate to a subject-matter not in esse, as for the erection of a new building upon the premises, do not run with the land so as to bind assignees, unless they are expressly named therein.^ On the other hand, if the cove- nant be of a collateral nature, i. e., to the land, it is a per- sonal obligation, and does not run with the land. And if it is incapable in law of attaching to the estate, it will not bind or inure to assignees, even though they are expressly named.* § 191. Conditions in leases. — In connection with the covenants in a lease, it may be provided that the breach of the covenant will work a forfeiture of the estate, and give the covenantee the right of entry upon the land. But the breach of a covenant will not work a forfeiture, unless the right of entry is expressly reserved.' Nor will a covenant to 1 Astor V. Miller, 2 Paige, 68 ; Host v. Kearney, 2 N. Y. 394. 2 Pigsot V. Mason, 1 Paige, 412; Renond v. Daskam, 34 Conn. 512; Blaclsmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420. But see "West. Transp. Co. v. Land ing, 49 N. Y. 499; Kolasky v. Mickles, 120 N. Y. 535. 3 Ecke V. Fetzer, 65 Wis. 55. ^ Hunt V. Danlorth, 2 Curt. 592. See next note. ^ Spencer's Case, 5 Rep. 16; 1 Smith Ld. Cas. 189; Congleton v. Pattl- aon, 10 Bast, 138; Sampson v. Easterly, 9 B. & C. 505; Tallman v. Coffin, 4 N. Y. 134; Masury v. South worth, 9 Ohio St. 340; Bean v. Dickerson 2 Humph. 126; Hanson v. Meyer, 81 111. 321 ; 25 Am. Rep. 282. 6 Spencer's Case, 5 Kep. 16; 1 Smith's Ld. Cas. 139; Keppell v. Bailey, 2 Mylne & R. 517; Masury v. South worth, 9 Ohio St. 340. See VyvyanB. Arthur, 1 B. & C. 410; Aiken v. Albany R. R., 26 Barb. 289; Winton's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 387. ' Doe V. Jepson, 3 B. & Aid. 402; Jones v. Carter, 15 M. & W. 718; Clark V. Jones, 1 Denlo, 516; Delancey v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9; Wheeler v. Earl, 5 Cush. 31; Dfti v. Post, 25 N. J. L. 292; Dennisoa v. Reed, 3 Dana, 586; Brown v. Bragg, 22 Ind. 123; Pickard v. Kleis, 56 Mich. 604. But the presumption of law is always against the attachment of a condi- tion; the condition must be clearly expressed, in order to attach to the covenant. Doe v. Phillips, 2 Bing. 13; Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174; 158 CH. VII. J ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 191 pay rent in advance operate as a condition precedent unless expressly declared to be a condition. ^ The attachment of a condition of forfeiture to a covenant docs not, however, interfere with a resort to the ordinary remedies on the cove- nant.^ Like all other conditions, they can only be reserved to the landlord and his assigns, and they alone can take advantage of the breach. If they elect to waive the for- feiture, the estate continues with all the obligations attached thereto.^ And if the lessor conveys the absolute title to the reversion, with the merger of the leasehold in the fee the conditions become extinguished.* The subject of estates upon condition is treated more specifically in a sub- sequent chapter, to which reference must be made to ascertain in detail the effect of a breach of a condition. ^ Wheeler v. Dascorabe, 3 Cush. 285; Burnes v. McCubbin, 3 Kan. 226; Langley V. Boss, 55 Mich. 163. And conditions are always liberally con- strued la favor of the covenantor or tenant, and strictly against the grantor. Doe v. Bond, 5 B. & C. 855; Pillot v. Boosey, 11 C. B. (n. s.) 885; Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174; Mattice». Lord, 30 Barb. 38; Palethorp V. Berguer, 52 Pa. St. 149; Mackubin v. Whetcroft, 4 Harr. & McH. 135; Lawrence v. Knight, 11 Cal. 298. ^ Hilsendegen v. Scheich, 55 Mich. 468. 2 See ]\owe v. Williams, 97 Mass. 165. 3 Morton v. Woods, L. E. 4 Q. B. 303; 18 Am. Law Rep. 625; Shum- way V. Collins, 6 Gray, 231; Way v. Reed, 6 Allen, 364; Bemis v. Wilder, 100 Mass. 446; Clark D. Jones, 1 Denio, 517; Mcintosh v. Rector, etc., St. Phillips Church, 120 N. Y.; Wills Appeal, 30 Pa. 222; Creveling v. West End Iron Co., 61 N. J. L. 34. An express license to break the cove- nant will constitute an absolute waiver of the condition, and the cove- nantee cannot enter for any subsequent breach. Dumpor's Case, 4 Rep. 119; Cart Wright I). Gardner, 6 Cush. 281; Bleecker a. Smith, 13 Wend. 630; Murray v. Harway, 56 N. Y. 343; Dickey v. McCullough, 2 Watts. & S. 88; Chipman v. Emeslc, 5 Cal. 49. And so will a prayer for a manda- tory injunction. Chautauqua Assembly v. Ailing, 46 Hun, 582. But a mere acquiescence in the breach, or a failure to enter for it, will not dis- charge the condition. Doe v. Bliss, 4 Taunt. 735; Ireland v. Nichols, 46 N. Y. 418; Mcintosh v. St. Phillips Church, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. 291. Unless the tenant should be able to claim the protection of an estoppel. Young V. Gay, 41 La. An. 758. See post, sect. 278. ^ St. Phillips Church v. Zion Presb. Church, 28 S. C. 297. ' Sect. 277 as to assignment of conditions. 159 § 192 ESTATES LESS THAN EEEEHOLD. [PAET I. § 192. Rent reserved — Necessity of consideration. — Authorities are not required for the statement that a lease without consideration cannot be enforced as long as it remains executory. But as soon as it becomes executed by the transfer of possession to the lessee, the lease is as valid and the relation of landlord and tenant is as definitely established, as if it had been given for. a valuable consideration of some sort.^ Although not neces- sary to the validity of a lease, it is customary and usual to reserve a rent to be paid by the lessee, and its payment is enforced by the insertion of an express covenant, or such a covenant is implied from. its reservation. The rent may consist of anything of value, things or service.^ The cov- enant for rent passes with the assignment of the reversion to the assignee.^ But if there has been a prepayment of the rent in good faith to the original lessor, before it was due, the validity of the payment as a quittance of the liability for rent is in nowise affected by the assignment of the reversion before the actual accrument of such rent. The lessor's receipt for the rent is a good defense to an action for the same by the assignee.* If the reversion be divided up, and portions of the same are assigned to differ- ent parties, the rent will be apportioned between them.^ 1 Allen B. Koepsel, 77 Tex. 505. 2 Gilpin V. Adams (Col. 1892), 24 Pac. 566. 5 Scott 17. Lunt, 7 Pet. 590; Kempton v. Veker, 9 Vt. 198; Gale v. Edwards, 52 Me. 365; Van Rensselaer v. Smith, 27 Barb. 140; Main v. Feathers, 21 Barb. 646; Eoyer v. Ake, 3 Pa. St. 461; Howland v. Coffin, 12 Pick. 125; Burden v. Thajer, 3 Mete. 76; Keay v. Goodman, 16 Mass. 1; Demarest v. Willard, 8 Cow. 206; Hurst v. Rodney, 1 Wash. C. Ct. •375; YorkB. Jones, 2 N. H. 454; Kimball v. Pike, 18 N. H. 420; Johnston V. Smith, 3 Pa. St. 496 ; Van Rensselaer v. Gallup, 5 Denio, 450 ; Parley v. Craig, 1 N. J. L. 262 ; Wilson v. Delaplaine, 3 Harr. 499; Snyder v. Eiley, 1 Spears, 272; Gibbs v. Ross, 2 Head, 437; Austin's Appeal (Pa. 18901, Atl. 492 ' Dreyfus v. Hirt, 82 Cal. 621. « Montague v. Gay, 17 Mass. 439; Mellis v. Lathrop, 22 Wend. 121 p Burns ». Cooper, 31 Pa. St. 428; Reed v. Ward, 22 Pa. St. 144; Peck o. 160 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 192 The same rule of apportionment prevails where the rever- sion descends to, and is partitioned between, two or more heirs. ^ In such cases it is questionable, if the assignee of a part of the reversion can sue for his aliquot share of the rent in his own name, without joining with the others.^ But the reversioner may sever the right to the rent from the reversion. He may assign them to different parties, or he may assign one and retain the other, and the holder of the rent may sue on the covenant even though he has no reversion in him.^ But in the assign- ment of the rent without the reversion, the lessor cannot divide it up among several without the consent of the Northrup, 17 Conn. 217; Sampson v. Grimes, 7 Blackf. 176; Breeding v. Taylor, 13 B. Mon. 477. The apportionment is never made between sev- eral successive holders of the reversion according to the length of hold- ing. Whoever owns the reversion when the rent is due receives the entire sum. Burden v. Thayer, 3 Mete. 76; Bank of Pennsylvania v. "Wise, 3 Watts, 394; Martin v. Martin, 7 Md. 368; Anderson v. Bobbins, 82 Mo. 422 ; see ante, sect. 67. ^ Jaques v. Gould, 4 Cush. 484; Cole v. Patterson, 25 Wend. 456; Bank of Pennsylvania v. Wise, 3 Watts, 394; Keed v. Ward, 22 Pa. St. 144; Crosby v. Loop, 13 111. 625. If the administrator collects the rent fall- ing due after the death of the ancestor, he holds it as trustee for the heirs and the widow. Mills v. Merryman, 49 Me. 65; Drinkwater v. Drinkwater, 4 Mass. 358; Robb's Appeal, 41 Pa. St. 45; King v. Ander- son, 20 Ind. 386. 2 See Martin v. Crompe, 1 Ld. Eaym. 340; Wall v. Hinds, 4 Gray, 256; Porter v. Bleiler, 17 Barb. 155; Decider v. Livingston, 15 Johns. 479; Eyerson v. Quackenljush, 26 N. J. L. 254. But see Jones v. Felch, 3 Bosw. 363. But the assignees may, and should, sue in their own names. The rent passes as a vested interest in land, and is not a chose in action. Demarestc. Willard, 8 Cow. 200; Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 N. Y. 99; Ryerson v. Quackenbush, 26 N. J. L. 254; Dixon v. Niccolls, 39 111. 384; Abercrombie v. Redpath, 1 Iowa, 111; Crosby v. Loop, 13111. 625. 3 Co. Lit. 47 a ; Baker v. Gostling, 1 Bing. N. C. 19 ; Allen v. Bryan, 5 B. &C. 572; Patten v. Deshon, 1 Gray, 325; Huntu. Thompson, 2 Allen, 342; Kendall v. Garland, 5 Cush. 74; McMurphy v. Minott, 4 N. H. 251; Mof- fattw. Smith, 4 N. Y. 129; Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 N. Y. 99; Van Rensselaer v. Read, 26 N. Y. 577; Ryerson v. Quackenbush, 26 N. J. L. 254; Crosby v. Loop, 13 111. 625; Dixon v. Niccolls, 39 111. 384; Ala. Gold Life ins. Co. v. Oliver, 78 Ala, 158 ; Toan v. Pline, 60 Mich. 385 ; Trulock V. Donahue, 76 Iowa, 758. See ante, sect. 67. 11 IGl § 194 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAET I. lessee by attornment, although a devise of a part may be good without attornment.' § 193. Kent reserved — Condition of forfeiture. — It is also often provided that the estate shall he subject to forfeiture if the rent is not paid. But in order that non- payment of rent may work a forfeiture of the lease, the common law requires that a demand should be made of the lessee for the precise amount of rent, on the day when it falls due, at a convenient time before sunset, and on the land, at the most prominent place upon it, — usually the front door of the dwelling-house, if there be any. A de- mand at an improper place, or at the wrong time, would not give the lessor right of entry for forfeiture of the estate. - But the parties may by agreement do away with any of the requirements, or even render a previous demand unnec- essary; in which case, the right of entry accrues immedi- ately upon the breach of the covenant.'' § 194. How relation of landlord and tenant may be terminated The relation of landlord and tenant, and therewith the liability upon the covenants of the lease, can only be terminated by eviction, release or surrender of the 1 Ards u. Watkins, Cro. Eliz. 637; Ryerson v. Quackenbush, 20 N. J L. 254. See ante, sect. 67. = Doe V. Windlass, 7 T. R. 117; Doe v. Paul, 3 C. c& P. 613; Conner v. Bradley, 1 How. (U. S.) 211; M'Murphy v. Miaott, 4N. H. 251; Mc- Questess v. Marsran, 34 N. H. 400; Bradstreet «. Clark, 21 Pick. 389; Kimball v. Rowland, 6 Gray, 22-1:; Chapman v. Harney, 100 Mass. 354; Ordway v. Remington, 12 R. I. 319; 34 Am. Rop. 646; Jackson v. Kipp, ■ 3 Wend. 230; Jackson v. Harrison, 17 Johns. 66; Academy of Musics. Hackett, 2 Hilt. 232; M'Cormick u. Connell, 6 Serg. & R. 151; Tate v. Crowson, 6 Ired. L. 66; Phillips v. Doe, 3 lud. 132; Meni v. Rithbone, 21 Ind. 462; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 63 Ind. 415; 30 Am. Rep. 229; Chapman V. Wright, 20 111. 120: Chapman v. Kirby, 49 111. 121 ; Byrane v. Rogers, 8 Minn. 282. > » Doe V. Masters, 2 B. & C. 490; Fifty Associates v. Howland, 5 Cash. 214; Byrane v. Rogers, 8 Minn. 282. ir,2 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 194 premises.^ Fear of an eviction is no ground for refusing to pay rent or to perform the other covenants of the lease .^ The destruction, total or partial, of the premises, or their becoming untenantable, from any cause except the acts of the lessor, will not relieve the parties from their covenants.^ Nor is the lessor's performance of his covenant to repair a condition precedent to the tenant's liability on his covenant for rent.* The covenants for rent, repair, and restoration in good condition, afip still binding. Destruction by tiro or inevitable accident is no ground of defense, unless excep- tions to that effect are inserted in the lease, or the State statute changes the liabilities of the parties.^ 1 Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall. 224; Fuller ». Ruby, 10 Gray, 290; Baino. Clark, 10 Johns. 424; Gates v. Green, 4 Taige Ch. 355; Dyer v. Wight- man, 66 Pa. St. 427. 2 Pickett V. Anderson, 45 Ark. 177. ' Burns v. Fuchs, 28 Mo. App. 279; Simons v. Seward, 54 N. Y. Super. Co. 406; Cantrell v. Fowler (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 934; Weinstein v. Har- risoQ, 66 Tex. 546; McLean v. Wunder (Pa.), 19 Atl. 749; Turrer «. Mantonya, 27 111. App. 500; Reliable Steam-Power Co. v. Solidarity Watch Co., 10 N. Y. S. 525; Dexter v. King, 8 N. Y. S. 489; Smith v. McLean, 23 111. App. 451; s. c. 123 1)1. 210; Daly v. Wise, 7 N. Y. S. 902. * Newman v. French, 45 Hun, 65. 5 Hill V. Woodman, 14 Me. 38; Kjamer v. Cook, 7 Gray, 550; Phillips V. Stevens, 16 Mass. 238; Wells v. Castles, 8 Gray, 325; Hallet v. Wylie, 3 Johns. 44; Graves u. Beedan, 29 Barb. 100; Joffe v. Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398 ; 15 Am. Rep. 438 ; Dyer i). Wightman, 66 Pa. St. 427 ; Smith v. Aukrim, 13 Serg. & R. 39; Peterson u. Edmonson, 5 Harr. 378; White v. Molyneaux, 2 Ga. 124; Ward v. Bull, 1 Fla. 271; Nave v. Berry, 22 Ala. 382; Linn v. Ross, 10 Ohio, 412; Davis v. Smith, 15 Mo. 467; Niedelet v. Wales, 16 Mo. 214; Beach i;. Farrish, 4 Cal. 339; Cowell v. Lumley, 39 Cal. 151; 2 Am. Bep. 430. If the tenant has covenanted " to repair and deliver up " he would have to rebuild in the ease of destruction by fire. Bullock v. Doramitt, 5 T. R. 650; Hoy v. Holt, 91 Pa. St. 88; Maggort v. Hansbar- ger, 8 Leigh, 536; Nave v. Berry, 22 Ala. 382. And where the lessor had insured the premises, in the absence of .a covenant, he is not obliged to apply it to the reconstruction of the building, in case of loss by Are. He may refuse, and still recover rent of the tenant. Magaw v. Lambert, 3 Pa. St. 444; Bussman v. Ganster, 72 Pa. St. 289; Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall. 424; Moffatt v. Smith, 4 N. Y. 126; Pope o. Garrard, 39 Ga. 477; Masury «. Southworth, 9 Ohio St. 348. But now, as already stated in the text, the common law has in most of the States been changed so that 163 § 195 ESTATES LESS THAN EKEEHOLD. [PAET I. § 195. What constitutes eviction. — ^"Evictions are of two kinds, — actual or constructive. Actual eviction is where the tenant is actually ousted of his possession of the prem- ises, either by a stranger under a paramount title, or by acts of dispossession by the lessor. ^ But a disturbance of the possession by a stranger without claim of paramount title will not be an eviction.^ Nor will the dispossession in the exercise of the right of eminent domain be such an eviction as will relieve the lessee from the liability on his covenant for rent. It gives, however, an action for dam- ages against the public for land so confiscated,^ Nor would dispossession by the public enemy abate the rent.* if the premises are destroyed by Are or other casualty, so far as to render them untenable, the tenant will be absolved from his liability for rent. See Graves «. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 502; Coogan v. Parker, 2 S. C. 255; 16 Am. Rep. 659; Ripley v. Wightman, 4 McCord, 447; Coleman v. Haight, 14 La. An. 564; Whittaker u. Hawley, 25 Kan. 674; 37 Am. Rep. 277; Leavetti;. Fletcher, 10 Allen, 121; Stow v. Russell, 36 111. 35; Alger ». Kennedy, 49 Vt. 109; Smith o. McLean, 22 111. App. 351; s. c. 128111. 210; Chesebrough v. Pingree (Mich. 1889) , 40 N. W. 747. But a tempo- rary uninhabitableness due to a partial destruction of the buildings by Arc, will not in any case be an action, if the landlord exercises reasona- ble diligence in restoring the premises to a good condition. Conn. Mut., etc., Ins. Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. of CI. 195; Bonnecaze v. Beer, 27 La. An. 531; McClenahau v. New York, 102 N. Y. 75; Spalding v. Munford, 37 Mo. App. 281. 1 Robinson v. Deering, 56 Me. 358; Russell, v. Fabyan, 27 N. H. 643; Boardraan ri. Osborn, 23 Pick. 295; Fitchburg Co. ». Melvin, 15 Mass. 268; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 46 N. Y. 372. 2 Wells V. Castles, 3 Gray, 326 ; Schuylkill, etc., R. Co. v. Schmoele, 57 Pa. St. 273; Moore v. Webber, 71 Pa. St. 429; 10 Am. Rep. 705; Pal- mer V. Wetmore, 2 Sandf. 316; Royoe v. Suggenhiem, 106 Mass. 205; 8 Am. Rep. 322; Hazlett w. Powtll, 30 Pa. St. 293. ' Parks 11. Boston, 15 Pick. 198; Patterson v. Boston, 20 Pick. 159; Polts ». Huntley, 7 Wend. 210; Workman;;. Mifflin, 30 Pa. St. 362; Peck u. Jones, 70 Pa. St. 85; Foote v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio, 408; McLarren ». Spalding, 2 Cal. 510. In Missouri and elsewhere a different rule is laid down, aud if a part of the premises is appropriated to public use, the rent is re- duced ioprotanto. Biddle u. Hussman, 23Mo. 597; Kingland ». Clark, 24 Mo. 24; Leiter V. Pike, 127111.287; see Gillespie v. Thomas, 15AVcnd.4G8. * Clifford V. Watts, L. R. 5 C. P. 568; Wagner v. White, Harr. & J. 564; Schilling v. Holmes, 23 Cal. 230; contra, Bavley v. LaWrence, 1 Bay, 499 164 CH. VII. J ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 196 § 196. Constructive eviction. — Constructive eviction results when the lessor, by his own act or by his own pro- curement, renders the enjoyment of the premises impossible, or diminishes such enjoyment to a material degree.^ In short, any acts of omission or commission, or breaches of the lessor's covenants which destroy the premises, or ren- der them useless or less enjoyable, may operate as a con- structive eviction.^ It is, however, not a constructive eviction if the lessee of a mine exhausts the ore before the termination of his tenancy, unless the lessor has expressly covenanted that the mine contained a given quantity of ore, and the amount mined fell short of that quantity.' It is, however, a constructive eviction where the covenant of the lessor that the premises are suitable for certain uses is broken. The lessee in such a case is absolved from liability for rent.* Slight acts of trespass, which do notby their material interference with the enjoyment of the prem- ises compel the tenant to abandon the possession, is not a constructive eviction. The lessor is liable for them, how- ever, like any other trespasser.^ It is also no ground for 1 Thus, the renting of a part of a house to prostitutes is a constructive eviction of the tenant of the other part of the house . Dyett v. Pendleton, S Cow. 727; but see contra, Dewett v. Pierson, 112 Mass. 8; 17 Am. Eep. 58. Erections by the lessor, or with his consent, so near the premises as to seriously diminish the enjoyment, would constitute a constructive eviction. Eoyce v. Guggenheim, 100 Mass. 201; SAm.Eep. 322;Sherman ^). Williams, 113 Mass. 481; 18- Am. Eep. 522; Wrights. Lattin, 38 111.293. ^Tallman v. Murphy, 120 N. Y. 345 ; Eiley v. Pettis Couuty, 96 Mo. 318; Halligan v. Wade, 21 111. 479: Bentley v. Sill, 35 111. 414; Hayner v. Smith, 63 111. 430; 14 Am. Eep. 124; Edgerton v. Page, 20 N. Y. 281; St. John V. Palmer, 5 Hill, 699; Bennett v. Bittle, 4 Eawle, 339; Pier v. •Carr, 69 Pa. St. 326; Martin v. Martin, 7 Md. 376; Lawrence v. French, •25 Wend. 443; Fuller u. Euby, 10 Gray, 290; Wilson v. Smith, 5 Yerg. 399; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209; Alger v. Kennedy, 49 Vt. 109; 24 Am. Rep. 127; Lawrence v. Burrell, 17 Abb. N. C.312; Jacljsoni!. Odell, 12 Daly, 345; Bradley v. De Goicouria, 12 Daly, 393. 8 Clark V. Midland Blast Furnace Co., 21 Mo. App. 68. 4 Young V. Collett, 63 Mich. 331. * Edgerton v. Page, 20 N. Y. 281 ; Gardner v. Ketelas, 3 Hill, 330 ; Elliott 165 § 196a ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAKT I. claiming exemption from liability in consequence of the emission of gases and odors from an adjacent building.^ And to relieve the tenant from liability for rent on account of a constructive eviction, he must abandon the possession of the premises. Eetention of possession will keep alive his liability on the covenants, even though his enjoyment of the premises is taken away altogether.^ § 196a. Partial eviction. — In the case of partial evic- tion, if it results from the acts of strangers, in violation of the lessor's covenant for quiet enjoyment, the tenant will be relieved from the covenant for rent to the extent of the eviction, while he remains liable to the lessor for the re- mainder.' But if it be by procurement of the lessor, the entire rent is suspended during the continuance of such eviction and the lessee may elect to abandon the premises, thus terminating the tenancy and his liability for rent altogether.* If the partial occupation is retained V. Aiken, 45 N. H. 35; Bennett v. Bittle, 4 Eawle, 339; Briggs o. Hall, 4 Leigh, 485; "Wilson v. Smith, 5 Yerg. 399; Day v. Watson, 8 Mich. 535. See Hayner o. Smith, 63 111. 430; 14 Am. Kep. 124. 1 Franklin v. Brown, 53 N. Y. Snpr. Ct. 474; Sutphin v. Seebas, 12 Daily, 139 ; Franklin v. Brown, 118 N. Y. 110. 2 Edgerton D.Page, 20 N. Y. 281; Hurlbutc. Post, 1 Bosw. 28; Dyette. Pendleton, 8 Cow. 727; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209; Koyce v. Guggen- heim, 106 Mass. 201; 8 Am. Eep. 322; Lounsberry v. Snyder. 31 N. T. 514; Alger v. Kennedy, 49 Vt. 109; 24 Am. Eep. 127, and cases in preced- ing note. Young w. Collett, 63 Mich. 231. 3 Morrison v. Chadwick, 7 C. B. 283; Hegeman o. Arthur, 1 E. D. Smith, 147; Lawrence v. French, 25 Wend. 443; Blair ■o. Claxton, 18 K. Y. 529; Dyett U.Pendleton, 8 Cow. 727; Martin v. Martin, 7 Md. 373. * Lewis V. Paign, 4 Wend. 323; Christopher v. Austin, 11 N. Y. 216; Edgertou v. Page, 20 N. Y. 281; Shumway v. Collins, 6 Gray, 227; Leish- man v. White, 1 Allen, 489; Eeed «. Reynolds, 37 Conn. 469; Colburn o. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262; 19 Am. Eep. 415; Eoyce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201 ; 8 A.m. Rep. 322 ; Smith u. Stigleman, 58 111. 141 ; Wilson -o. Smith, 5 Yei^. 379; Pier v. Carr, 69 Pa. St. 326; Schilling v. Holmes, 23 Cal. 230. But neither total nor partial eviction will prevent the lessor from recovering rent already due, wben the eviction takes place. Giles v. Comstock, 4 N. Y. 270; Kessler v. McConachy, 1 Eawle, 435. 166 CH. VII. j ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 197 under an agreement with the lessor that the rent should be proportionately reduced, there can be no claim for complete exemption from liability on the ground of par- tial eviction, even where the time of dispossession is con- tinued beyond what had been expected. ^ In all cases of eviction the tenant is exempt from the payment of rent from the last pay-day prior to such eviction ; but the liability for rent revives if the tenant, after the eviction, should resume possession of the premises.^ If the eviction is only partial, the resumption of possession will not render the tenant liable for the intermediate rent for the part which he continued to occupy during the continuance of such evic- tion.^ § 197. Surrender and merger. — If the tenant gives up his term to the immediate reversioner, he is said to sur- render his estate, and the estate is merged or becomes lost in the reversion; the effect of which is to extinguish all liability on the covenants of the lease.* But if an estate intervenes between the two estates, neither surrender nor merger will take place.^ In order to prevent a merger of the term in the reversion, it is a common custonl, in England, to have the term conveyed to trustees, and con- 1 Kella V. Miles, 38 Hun, 6. 2 Morrison v. Chadwick, 7 C. B. 283; Cliatterton v. Fox, 6Dner, 64; Fitchburgh v. Melvin, 15 Mass. 268; Boardman v. Isborn. 23 Pick. 295; Russell V. Fabyan, 27 N. H. 543 ; Colburn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262 ; 19 Am. Rep. 415; Royce v. Guggenlieim, 106 Mass. 201; 8 Am. Rep. 322; Martin v. Martin, 7 Md. 378; Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. 538; Smitt V. Stigleman, 58 111. 141. 3 Upton V. Greenlees, 17 C. B. 30; Fuller v. Ruby, 10 Gray, 285; Leishman v. White, 1 Allen, 489; Lawrence v. French, 25 Wend. 443; Christophers. Austin, 11 N. Y. 215; Anderson v, Chicago Ins. Co., 21 111. 601. 4 Co. Lit. 388 a; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 552; Curtis ©.Miller, 17 Barb. 477; Greider's Appeal, 5 Pa. St. 422; BaUey v. Wells, 8 Wis. 158; Smiley v. Van Winkle, 6 Cal. 605. « 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 553; Burton v. Barclay, 7 Bing. 745; Will- iams on Real Prop. 413, 415; Springer's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 274. 167 § 198 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PART I. ditioned to follow the reversion into whosesoever hands the latter may come. This was called a term, attendant upon the inheritance, and may be done whenever there is fear of incumbrances which will affect the reversion while they are subject to the term.^ Nor will merger — i. e., the dis- solution of the term in the reversion — take place where the two come together into the possession of one person by act of the law, — as, where the husband has a term of years in his own right, and a term of years in his wife, or tenancy by curtesy through the freehold of his wife. They will continue to exist uninfluenced by their union in the one person.^ Where two terms come together in one person, the first will merge in the second, even though the first be for a longer period ; unless the second is created by way of remainder, when no merger will result. In the lat- ter case, the person becoming possessed of both will have the benefit of both in succession.^ § 198. How surrender maybe effected. — As a general proposition, a surrender which will operate as an extinguish- ment of the lessee's liability for rent and on the other cove- naUts of the lease, requires the same formalities of execution, under the Statute of Frauds, as are necessary in the crea- tion of the lease. A lease in writing, therefore, can, as a general rule, only be terminated by a surrender in writing; 1 Williams on Real Prop. 16, 417, 2 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 554; Williams on Real Prop. 415; 3 Prest. Conv. 276; Jones v. Davies, 5 Hurlst. & N. 766; Doe ». Pett, 11 Ad. & El. 848; Clift v. White, 19 Barb. 70. 3 Co. Lit. 273 b; 3 Prest. Conv. 201; 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 553, 554; Hughes v. Eobotham, Cro. Eliz. 303; Stephens v. Bridges, 6 Madd. 66; Chamberlain . Dpnlap, 8 N. Y. S. 126. This doctrine of merger is applicable to all classes of estates, and provides for the dissolution of the Inferior in the greater estate. The superiority of estates in this con- nection is determined by their legal value, and not their pecuniary or market value. Thus, an estate for one thousand years is less than, and becomes merged in, a life estate, when the two come together in one person. 168 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FEEEIIOLD. § 198 and if the lease was required to be under seal, the sur- render must be also.^ But if the lessee takes a new lease, the enjoyment of which is incompatible with the continu- ance of the old lease, ^ or if the lessee abandons the pos- session, and the lessor actually enters into possession, or leases the premises to other parties, such acts will be suffi- cient to work a surrender of the premises, soi far, at least, as to relieve the tenant from liability on his covenants/ ' Ward u. Lumley, 5 Hurlst. & N. 88; Hesseltine v. Seavey, 16 Me, 212; Brady v. Peiper, 1 Hilt. 61; Jackson v. Gardner, 8 Johns. 404; Allen «. Jaqaish, 21 Wend. 628; M'Kinney v. Reader, 7 Watts, 123; Kiester v. Miller, 25 Pa. St. 481; Bailey v. Wells, 8 Wis. 141; Breher v. Reese, 17 111. App. 545. But the lessee's surrender will in nowise affect the rights of third parties, such as sublessees. They will still hold their rights or interests in the estate ; but after such a surrender, they must perform their covenants to the surrenderee. He can, for example, compel the sub- lessee to pay the rent to him. Adams v. Goddard, 48 Me. 212; Beal w. Boston, etc. Car. Co., 125 Mass. 157; 28 Am. Rep. 216; Piggott i>. Strat- ton, 1 Johns. Ch. 355; McKenzie v. Lexington, 4 Dana, 129; Hessel v. Johnson, 128 Pa. St. 173. 2 Lyon V. Eeed, 13 M. & W. 304; McDonnell v. Pope, 9 Hare, 705; Shepard w. Spaulding, i Mete. 416; Brewer «. Dyer, 7 Cush. 339; Livingston «. Potts, 16 Johns. 28; Van Rensselaer v. Penniman, 6 Wend. 569; Coe v. Hobby, 72 N. Y. 141; 28 Am. Rep. 120; Bailey v. Wells, 8 "Wis. 141; Hoag v. Carpenter, 18 111. App. 555; Stuebben «. Granger, 63 Mich. 306. And where the second lease is parol, while the first is written, the acceptance of the second will constitute a surrender of the first, if the second lease is valid under the Statute of Frauds. Thomas ». Cook, 2 B. & Aid. 119; Smith v. Niver, 2 Barb. 180; Bedford v. Terhune, 30 N. Y. 463. But there will be no surrender where the second lease Is irom one of the two original lessors (Sperfy u. Sperry, 8 N. H. 477; Chamberlain v. Dunlap, 8 N. Y. S. 125), or the release of the first is executed by one of the two original lessees. Baker v. Pratt, 15 111. 568. 3 Dodd V. Acklom, 6 Mann & G. 673 ; Walker v. Richardson, 2 M. & W. 891; Hesseltine v. Seavey, 16 Me. 212; Randall v. Rich, 11 Mass. 494; Brewer c. Dyer, 7 Cush. 337; Talbot v. Whipple, 14 Allen, 180; Bedford «. Terhune, SON. Y. 462; Hegeman v. McArthur, 1 E. D. Smith, 149; Brady o. Peiper, 1 Hilt, 61; Baker v: Pratt, 15 111. 568; Statesbury v. Vail, 13 N. J. L. 390; M'Kinney v. Reader, 7 Watts, 123; Wool ». Wal- bridge, 19 Barb. 136; Van Rensselaer o. Freeman, 6 Wend. 569; Cline v. Black, 4 McCord, 431; Schniler ii. Ames, 16 Ala. 73; Wallace v. Kennelly, 47 N. J. L. 242. In Fifty Associates v. Grace, 125 Mass. 161 (28 Am. 169 § 199 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PART I. But an abandonment of possession by the tenant will not work a surrender of the premises, unless it is assented to by the lessor, and such acceptance must be shown by word or acts, — such, for example, as entry into possession.^ A surrender may also be made to operate in futuro? § 199. Right of lessee to deny lessor's title. — As a consequence of the tenure existing between landlord and tenant, if one person accepts a lease from another, and enters into possession under the lease, he is estopped from denying the lessor's title, by setting up a title in himself or in a third person adverse to the right of the lessor to grant the original lease, in any action for the recovery Eep. 218), it was held that where the lease is expressly non -assignable, and the lessor assents to an assignment and a different use of the premises, this assent, together with acceptance of rent from the assignee, is in effect the creation of a new tenancy, and the original lessee is no longer liable on his covenant for rent. See also Bailey v. Delaphine, 1 Sandf. 5; Logan v. Anderson, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 101; Levering v. Langley, 8 Minn. 107. But the mere oral agreement to sub- stitute another ia the place of the tenant will not have the effect of a surrender, unless the agreement has been carried into effect, and evidenced by some act, — such as acceptance of rent from the new tenant. See Brewer v. Dyer, 7 Cush. 337; Whitney u. Myers, 1 Dner 266; Vandekaro. Reeves, 40 Hun. 430; Wallace v. Kennelly, 47 N. J. L. 242; Kedney v. Bohrbach, 14 Daly 54. But see, contra, Ballou v. Carton, 8 N. T. S. 15; Winant ». Hines, 14 Daly 187. 1 Thomas v. Cook, 2 B. & Aid. 119; Whitehead v. Clifford, 3 Taunt. 318; Hegemano. McArthur, 15 N. Y. 149: Elliott v. Aiken, 45 N. H. 86; Stobie V. Dills, 62 111. 432; Matthews v. Taberner, 39 Mo. 115; States- bury V. Vail, 13 N. J. L. 390; Lucy v. Wilkins, 33 Minn. 441; Boyle v. Teller, 132 Pa. St. 66; Spies c. Voss; 9 N. Y. S. 532; Koehler v. Scheider, 10 N. Y. S. 101. 2 Allen V. Joquish, 21 Wend. 628 ; but an acceptance of notice that the tenant is to quit at a future time, without acceptance of, or entering into, possession, when the tenant abandons the premises, is not such a surrender as will relieve the tenant from liability on his express covenant for rent. Johnstone v. Huddlestone, 4 B. & C. 922; Jackson v. Gardner, 8 Johns. 404; Schiefelin v. Carpenter, 15 Wend. 400. 170 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 199 of the rent, or of the possession.' And this principle is applied to any land, the title to which the tenant may have acquired by purchase or by disseisin during the continu- ance of the term, and which he occupied and used in connection with the leased land, whether adjacent or at a distance, unless the presumption of holding for the benefit of the landlord is rebutted by strong and clear evidence of a contrary intention.^ This estoppel, however, exists only during the continu- ance of the term, and the tenant, if he has acquired a superior title, may enforce it against the lessor, after he 1 Cooke V. Loxley, 5 T. R. 4; Delaney v. Fox, 2 C. B. (n. s.) 768; Blight's Lessee v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 548; Willison o. Watkins, 3 Pet. 43; Gray v. Johnson, 14 N. H. 414; Russell v. Fabyan, 27 N. H. 529; Longfellow v. Longfellow, 54 Me. 249; Boston v. Binney, 11 Pick. 8; Coburn v. Palmer, 8 Cush. 124; Towne v. Butterfleld, 97 Mass. 106; Tuttle V. Reynolds, 1 Vt. 80; Vernam v. Smith, 15 N. Y. 327; People v. Stiner, 45 Barb. 56; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 47; Brown v. Dysinger, 1 Rawle, 408; Miller v. McBrier, 14 Serg. & R. 382; Bedford v. Kelly, 69 Pa. St. 493; Darby v. Anderson, 1 Nott & M. 369 ; Funk's Lessee .■B. Kincald, 6 Md. 404; Terty v. Ferguson, 8 Port. (Ala.) 500; Pope v. Harkins, 16 Ala. 322; Caldwell v. Harris, 4 Humph. 24; Ryerson v. Eldred, 10 Mich. 22; Moore v. Beasley, 3 Ohio, 294; Hodges v. Shield, 18 B. Mon. 830; Hamit v. Lawrence, 2 A. K. Marsh, 366; Alwood v. Mansfield, 33 111. 458 ; McCartney v. Hunt, 16 111. 76; Parker !>. Raymond, 14 Mo. 535; St. Louis v Morton, 6 Mo. 476; Thrall v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Neb. 295; 25 Am. Rep. 488; Tewksbury v. MagrafE, 33 Cal. 237; Franklin v, Merida, 35 Cal. 558; Wells v. Sheerer, 78 Ala. 142; Morris v. Apperson (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 441; Oliver v. Gray,"42 Kans. 623; KiUoren v. Mur- tauch, 64 N. H. 51 ; Palmer ». Nelson, 76 Ga. 803; Doherty v. Matsell, 119 N. Y. 646. But the tenant is not estopped from setting up a tax- title purchased by him during the tenancy, unless he Is under obligation to pay the taxes. Weichelsbaum o. Carlett, 20 Kan. 709; Bettison v. Budd, 17 Ark. 646; Haskell v. Putnam, 42 Me. 244. The mere taking of a lease does not estop the lessee. Entry into possession Is necessary to create the estoppel. Chattle v. Pound, 1 Ld. Raym. 746; Nerhath c. Althouso, 8 Watts, 427. " Doe V. Jones, 15 M. & W. 580; Doe v. Rees, 6 C. & P. 610; Doe v. Tidbfiry, 14 C. B. 304; Kingsmillc. Millard, 11 Exch. 813; Dixon v. Baty, L. R. 1 Exch. 259; Lisburne v. Davies, L. R. 1 C. P. 260; Doe w. Murrell, 8 0. & P 134. See contra, Holmes v. Turner's Falls, etc., Co., 150 Mass. 535 (23 N. E. 305). 171 § 199 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAET T. has delivered up possession to him at the expiration of the le;ise.^ And during the continuance of the lease, if the tenant has been evicted by a stranger under the claim of a paramount title, the tenant may attorn to such claimant, and deny the lessor's right to recover the rent or the pos- session. But in order to be able to set up such a defense, he must give his lessor notice of the claim, and the eviction must be actual ; although ho need not vrait to be actually put out of possession before attorning to the stranger claimant.^ He may also show that the lessor's title has since been determined, and that he has acquired the title to the reversion, although such determination of the lessor's title is not a good defense, if the reversion is held by a 1 Accidental Death Ins. Co. u. Mackenzie, in C. B. (n. s.) 870; Wilson •». Watkins, 3 Pet. 43; Longfellow v. Longfellow, 54 Me. 249; Page v. Kinsman, 43 N. H. 331; Russell v. Pabyan, 27 N. H. 529; Greene v. Munson, 9 Vt. 40; Hall v. Dewey, 10 Vt. 593; Jackson v. Vincent, 4 Wend. 633; Delancey v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9; Sharps v. Kelly, 5 Denio, 431; Porter v. Mayfleld, 21 Pa. St. 264; Elliott v. Smith, 23 Pa. St. 131; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496; Wilson v. Weathersby, 1 Nott & M. 373; Williams ». Garrison, 29 Ga. 503; Doe v. Reynolds, 27 Ala. 276; Kussell -V. Erwin, 38 Ala. 50; Wilson v. Smith, 6 Terg. 379; Dnke v. Harper, 6 Yerg. 280; Brown u. Keller, 32 El. 156; Wall v. Goodenough, 16 111. 416; Hodges v. Shields, 18 B. Mon. 832; Deane v. Gregory, 3 B. Mon. 619; Stout v. Merrill, 35 Iowa, 47; Bonds v. Smith, 109, N. C. 333; Outtun V. Dulin (Md. 1890), 20 Atl. 134; Robinson v. Hall (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 441. And disclaimer of tenancy, with abandonment of possession, will have the same effect. Puller c. Sweet, 30 Mich. 237; 18 Am. Rep_ 122; Arnold v. Woodward (Col. 1890), 23 Pac. 444. 2 Mayor t). Whitt, 5 M. & W. 571; Simers v. Salters, 3 Denio, 214: Whalin v. White, 25 N. Y. 465; Morse v. Goddard, 13 Mete. 177; George V. Putney, 4 Gush. 354; Hilbourne v. Fogg, 99 Mass. 1 ; Towne v. Butter- fleld, 100 Mass. 189; Ryers v. Parwell, 9 Barb. 615; Lawrence v. Miller, 1 Sandf. 576; Stewart v. Roderick, 4 Watts & S. 188; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496; Perrin v. Calhoun, 2 Brev. 248; Devacht v. Newsam, 3 Ohio, 57; Lowe u. Emerson, 48 111. 160; Bailey v. Moore, 21 111. 165; Casey?). Gregory, 13 B. Mon. 506; Lunsford v. Turner, 6 J.J. Marsh, 104; Wheelock v. Warschauer, 21 Cal. 216; Voss v. King, 33 W. Va! 236; Thomas «. Black (Del. 1890), 18 Atl. 771; Hibbard a. Rarasdell, 118 N. Y. 38; Ratcliff v. Belfort Iron Co., 87 ICy. 559. See O'DonneU v. Mclntyre, 118 N. Y. 156. 172 OH. VII. J ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. - § ^ 99 stranger, unless the lessee has been actuiiUy or constructively evicted.^ He may also show that he has been induced to accept the lease through misrepresentation or fraud, or that the lessor was not in possession at the creation of the lease .^ The same doctrine of estoppel applies to the assignees, devisees and heirs of the lessor. The lessee cannot dispute the title of the original lessor, but he may deny the validity of the assignment, the devise or the descent.' And in case of assignment, he may dispute the original lessor's present title, by setting up the title of the assignee to whom he has attorned.* 1 Walton V. Waterhouse, 2 Saund. 418 n; Stack v. Seaton, 26 Mann & K. 729; Jackson v. Rowland, 6 Wend. 666; Despard v. Wallbridge, 1 E. D. Smith, 374; Hoag v. Hoag, 35 N. Y. 471; George v. Putney, 4 Cush. 355; Hilbourn v. Fogg, 99 Mass. 11; Lamson v. Clarkson, 113 Mass. 348; 18 Am. Rep. 498; Kimball v. Lockwood, 6 R. I. 138; Pierce u. Brown, 124 Vt. 105; Daffer v. Wilson, 69 Pa. St. 316; Elliott v. Smith, 23 Pa. St. 131; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496; Giles v. Ebsworth, 10 Md. 333; Stout V. Merrill, 35 Iowa, 47; Tewksbury «. Magrafe, .<53 Cal. 237; Franklin w. Palmer, 50 111. 202; Tllghman v. Little, 13 111. 241; Pope v. Haskins, 16 Ala 323; Camley «. Stanfleld, 10 Tex. 546; Wild's Lessee v. Serpen, 10 Gratt. 415; Magill v. Hinsdale, 6 Conn. 46; Horner u. Leeds, 25 N. J. L. 106; Stedman v. Gassett, 18 Vt. 346; Wolf v. Johnson, 30 Miss. 513; Beall u. Davenport, 48 Ga. 166; 15 Am. Rep. 656; Pickett u. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177 (55 Am. Rep. 545); Ehyne v. Guevara (Miss. 1890), 6 So. 736; Hibbard v. Ramsdell, 118 N. Y. 38. 2 Accidental Death Ins. Co. v. McKenzie, 10 C. B. (n. s.) 871; Clee v. Seaman, 21 Mich. 297; Franklin v. Merida, 35 Cal. 558; Tewksbury v- Magi'aff, 33 Cal. 237; Jackson u. Spear, 7 Wend. 401 ; Alderson v. Miller, 15 Gratt. 279; Hockenbury v. Snyder, 2 Watts &S.240; Thayer «. Society, etc., 20 Pa. St. 60; Miller v. Bonsadon, 9 Ala. 317; Tison v. Yawn, 15 Ga. 491; Killorenu. Murtaugh, 64 N. H. 51; Voss v. King, 33 W. V. 236; Hammons u. McClure, 85Tenn. 65; Crockett i;. Althouse, 33 Mo. App. 404. s Tuttle V. Reynolds, 1 Vt. 80; Rtissell v. Allard, 18 N. H. 225; Despard u. Smith, 15 N. Y. 377; Blantin v. Whittaker, II Humph. 313; Funk's Lessee o. Kincaid, 5 Md. 404; Beall v. Davenport, 48 Ga. 165; 15 Am. Rep, 656. DelaneyB. Fox, 2 C. B. (sr. s.) 778; Stedman v. Gassett, 18 Vt. 346; Kimball ». Lockwood, 6 R. L. 138; Mass. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 10 Mete. 126; Welch v. Adams, 1 Mete. 49^; MaglU w. Hinsdale, 6 Conn. 464; Pierce . Brown, 24 Vt. 165 ; Pope v. Haskins, 16 Ala. 323 ; Beall «, Daven- port, 48 Ga. 165; 15 Am. Rep. 666; Clafflini;. Brockmeyer, 33 Mo. App. 92. 173 § 200 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAliT I. § 200. Effect of disclaimer of lessor's title. — If the lessee illegally denies the lessor's title to the land, it is vir- tually an act of disseisin. But it will not work a rupture of the relation of landlord and tenant except at the option of the lessor. If he so elects, he may consider the lease as forfeited, and treat the lessee as a disseisor. Otherwise the relation of landlord and tenant continues, with all the attending liabilities and duties.^ The Statute of Limita- tions will not run against the lessor's title, until due notice has been given to the lessor of the claim of adverse posses- sion, and will ripen into a good title only when the lessor fails within the statutory period to exercise the rights of an owner over the land. The payment of rent, whether vol- untary or involuntary, will be a sufficient acknowledgment of the tenure and the lessor's title to prevent its being barred by the Statute of Limitations.^ And if the lessee has the superior title, the lessee's possession under the lease, it matters not how long it is continued, will not ope- rate under the Statute of Limitations to bar the lessee's title. In such a case, the lessor cannot be considered to have the seisin in law.' 1 Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 31 Vt. 110; Greene v. Munson, 9 Vt. 37; Jackson v. Vincent, 4 Wend. 633; Delancey v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9; Jackson v. Collins, 11 Johns. 5; Stearns v. Godfrey, 15 Me. 148; Eus- soU V. Fabyan, 34 N. H. 223; Newman v. Rutter, 8 Watts, 5; Wild's Lessee u. Serpen, 10 Grant, 405; Wadsworthville School v. Meetze, 4 Rich. 50; Doe v. Reynolds, 27 Ala. 376; Montgomery v. Craig, 3 Dana, 101; Fusselraau v. Worthiugton, 14 111. 135; Arnold v. Woodward (Col. 1890), 23 Pac. 444; Tobin v. Young (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 121; W'illison V. Watklns, 3 Pet. 43. No notice to quit is required before ejectment. Sims V. Cooper, 106 Ind. 86. 2 Willison V. Watkins, 3 Pet. 49; Zeller v, Eckhert, 4 How. 289; Greene v. Munson, 9 Vt. 37; Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 31 Vt. 110; Bedford v. McElheron, 2 Serg. & R. 49; McGionis V. Porter, 20 Pa. St. 80; Colvia v. Warlord, 20 Md. 39G; Jackson V. Wheeler, 6 Johns. 272; Whaley v. Whaley, 1 Speers, 225; Deane v. Gregory, 3 B. Mon. 619; Lee v. Netherton, 9 Yerg. 315; Duke v. Har- per, 6 Yerg. 280. 3 Smythe v. Henry, 41 Fed, Rep. 705. 174 CH. VII.] ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 201 § 201. Letting land upon stares. — It is quite common in this country for the owner of land to let it to persons for the purpose of cultivating it, with the agreement that the parties should each have a share in the crops. Such contracts create between the parties different relations, according to their intentions, as expressed in their agree- ments. If the intention appears to be, that the land-owner shall lease the land to the farmer and that his share of the crop shall be received in lieu of, or as, rent, the relation of landlord and tenant is created. Under these circumstances the tenant has sucla a vested interest in the land, as that he may convey by a recorded deed the future crops, and the grantee's title will prevail against an attachment by his creditors.* The tenant is in possession of the land, and the landlord has no vested interest in the crop, as a crop. His rights in, or to, any part of the crop attach only upon a division and delivery of the same,^ and the landlord has no action against the tenant for the delivery of his share of the crop until demand has been made of the tenant for such delivery.^ If the tenant abandons the farm while the crop is growing, and rescinds his agreement thereby, he loses 1 Walworth v. Jenness, 58 Vt. 670; Yates v. Kinney, 19 Neb. 275. 2 Aiken v. Smith, 21 Vt. 181; Caswell v. Dlslrich, 15 Wend. 379 Hersliell, v. Bushnell, 37 Conn. i3; Burns ». Cooper, 31 Pa. St. 420 Einehart v. Olwine, 5 Watts &, S. 457; Dockham v. Parlser, 9 Mo. 137 Butterfield v. Baker, 5 Pick. 522; Munsell v. Carew, 2 Cush. 50; New- comb V. Earner, 2 Johns. 421; Hatchell v. Kinsbrough, 4 Jones (N. C.), 163; Hoskins v. Ehodes, 1 Gill & J. 266; Boss v. Swaringer, 9 Ired. 481; Alwood V. Euckman, 21 111. 200; Dixon v. Niccolls, 39 111. 384; Wells v. Preston, 25Cal. 39; Blake v. Coats, 3 Greene (Iowa), 548; Whaley v. Jacobson, 21 S. C. 51 ; Jordan v. Bryan, 103 N. C. 59; Pelton v. Draper, 61 Vt. 364. And until division, they may be attached by creditors as the property o£ the lessee. Kelly w. Weston, 20 Me. 232; Deaver ». Bice, 4 Dev. & B. 431; Boss v. Swaringer, 9 Ired. 481. In some of the States it is provided by statute that the lessor will in such cases have a lien on the undivided crop for his rent. Hopper v. Haines, 71 Md. 64. The parties may also expressly provide for a lien. Ko61eg v. Phelps (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 350. 5 Johnson v. Shank, 67 Iowa, 116. 175 § 201 ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. [PAKT I. all his interest in the growing crop undep the law of emble- ments.^ But if one is employed to work a farm, with the understanding that the crop shall be divided between him and the land-owner, and there is no apparent intention of leasing: the lands^and taking the share for rent, the farmer has no estate in the land beyond a license to go upon it for the purposes of cultivation ; the land-owner is in possession of the land, and must maintain all suits for trespass and other injuries to the land. The parties are tenants in com- mon of the crop to the amount of their respective shares, from the time of planting until a division and settlement is made ; ^ and the share of each in the crop is at all times, after planting, subject to the claims of creditors.^ A third relation may exist between the parties, viz. : that of em- ployer and employee, where the farmer is given his share of the crop, not as a partner or tenant in common, but 1 Kiplinger v. Meets, 61 Mich. 341; Pelton o. Draper, 61 Vt. 36i. 2 Tanner v. Hills, 48 N. Y. 362 ; Bradish v. Schenk, 8 Johns. 151 ; Put- nam V. Wise, 1 Hill, 234; Foote v. Colvin, 3 Johns. 216; Chandler v. Thurston, 10 Pick. 205 ; Daniels v. Brown, 34 N. H. 454 ; Moulton v. Rob- inson, 27 N. H. 550; Aiken v. Smith, 21 Vt. 181; Bsdon v. Colbnrn, 28 Vt. 631; Jordan v. Staples, 57 Me. 455; Guest v. Opdyke, 30 N. J. L. 544; Steel V. Prick, 56 Pa. St. 172; Ferrell v. Kent, 4 Gill, 209; Lowe v. Mil- ler, 3 Gratt. 205; Moore v. Spruill, 13 Ired. 55; Alwood v. Ruckman, 21 111. 200; Creel o. Kirkhara, 47 HI. 344; Williams v. Nolen, 34 Ala. 167; Piquet B. Allison, 12 Mich. 330; Walker w. Pitts, 24 Pick. 191; Delaney V. Boot, 99 Mass. 550; Smyth v. Tankersley, 20 Ala. 212; Walls v. Pres- ton, 25 Cal. 59; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 48 Hun, 142; Adams v. State, 87 Ala. 89; Woodward t). Conder, 33 Mo. App. 147. If the farmer is a minor the presumption is against a tenancy of the land, and he will be held to be a tenant in common with the land-owner of the crop. Loomis v. O'Neal, 73 Mich. 582. The tenant may in such a case assign his Interest in the crop. Aiken v. Smith, 21 Vt. 182. But see Kelly v. Watson, 20 Me. 232; Brown v. Lincoln, 47 N. H. 469; Harris v. Prink, 49 N. Y. 21. If the land -owner ejects the farmer before the crop is ripe for the harvest, the latter's right in the crop is not thereby disturbed. He can sue the land -owner for his share in trover or replevin. Loomis o. O'Neal, 73 Mich. 582. » Sohell ». Simon, 66 Cal. 264; Stickney ». Stickney, 77 Iowa, 699; Hoppenn v. Haines (Ind. 1889), 18 Atl. 29. 176 CH. VII. J ESTATES LESS THAN FREEHOLD. § 201 as wages. Whenever that relation was intended by the parties the farmer has no title to any part of the crop until his share has been set apart for him,^ and he may be discharged for cause. His rights in the contract are of a personal nature, and cannot be assigned to another, at least while the contract remains executory.^ It is very often difficult to determine which of these relations such a contract creates. The only guide is the intention of the parties, and no general rules can be given except those above presented, unless, it may perhaps be added, that it seems to be a presumption of law that the relation is one of landlord ancWt|||B£.nt. unless the contrary intention appears.* If the farmer' snbuld purchase the reversion to the land under a judgment against the owner, the claims of such owner, under the contract for working the land on shares, would pass to the purchaser as an appurtenant, and would become merged in the farmer's general ownership of the land.* 1 Hammock ». Creekmore, 48 Ark. 264 • Hendricks ». Smith (Ark, 1890) ^ 12 S. W. 781. s Jeter ». Penn, 28 La. An. 230. * Birmingham v. Rogers, 46 Ark. 254. ■* Culverhouse v. Worts, 32 Mo. App. 419. 12 177 SECTION n. ESTATES AT WILL AND TENANCIES FROM TEAR. TO TEAK. Section 212. Estates at will. ' 21:3. How estates at will may be determined. 214. Estates at will diitinguished from tenancy from year to year. 215. Tenancy at will — "What now include.l under tliat term. 21G. Tenancy at will — Arising by implication of law. 217. Qualities of tenancies from year to year 218. Wliat notice is required to determine tenancy from year to year. 219. How notice may be waived. § 212. Estates at will. — Estates at will are those es- tates which are determinable at the will of either party, and arise only upon actual possession being taken by the tenant.' The tenant at will has no interest in the land which he can convey to others. The relation and tenure of landlord and tenant exist between the original parties to the demise, but it does not pass to the tenant's assignee. The landlord may treat such assignee as a disseisor, unless he accepts rent accruing subsequent to the assignment. By acceptance of rent the assignment would be confirmed, and the assio'nee recognized as tenant.'^ The estate of the les- sor of a tenant at will is not strictly a reversion, for the interest of the tenant is "a mere scintilla of interest, which a landlord may determine by making a feoffment upon the land with livcrj^ or by a demand of possession." A remainder cannot be limited upon an estate at will.^ ' Co. Lit. 55 a, 57 a ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 581 ; 2 Prest. Abst. 26 ; Pollock ».Kittrell, 2 Tayl. 152.' * Co.Lit.57a; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 582; Cunningbamu. Houlton, 55Me. 33; Cunningham II. Horton, 57 Jle. 422; Kingt). Lawson, 98 jMass. 309; Hil- bourn v. Fogg, 99 Mass. 12 ; Holbrook v. Young, 108 Mass. 85 ; Reckhow v. Schanck, 43N. Y. 418. s 1 Wa^lib. on Real Prop. 584 ; I3all r. C'uUimorc, 2 Cromp. Jl. & R. 12a 178 CII. VII. J ESTATES AND TENANCIES. § 213 The tenant, however, is entitled to estovers, and also to emblements, when the tenancy is determined by the land- lord.^ And he will also be liable in damages for the com- mission of waste, although the technical action of waste might not lie.^ § 213. How estates at will may be determined. — An estate at will may be determined by any act of either party which indicates an intention to put an end to the ten ancy, or which is inconsistent with the continuance of the relation of landlord and tenant.^ The death of either pai'ty determines the estate. If the lessor dies, the estate becomes a tenancy at sufferance, and the lessee's personal representatives, in case of his death, have no right to pos- session under the tenancy.* The tenancy will, however, survive, if only one of two or more lessees dies." Any as- signment or conveyance of the reversion, whether voluntary or involuntary, will destroy the tenancy.* The assignment or conveyance by the tenant will have the same effect, as soon as the landlord has received notice of it. Until notice, 1 Co. Lit. 55 b; Washb. on Real Prop. 584 ; Davis?;. Thompson, 13 Me. 209; Brown v. Thurston, 56 Me. 126. 2 Co. Lit. 57 a; Campbell v. Proctor, 6 Me. 12; Daniels v. Pond. 21 Pick. 369; Phillips v. Covert, 7 Johns. 1. » Turner v. Doe, 9 M. &W. 643; Doe v. Prince, 9 Bing. 356; Walden v. Bodley, 14 Pet. 162 ; Davis v. Thompson, 13 Me. 209 ; Esty v. Biiker, 50 Me. 325; Moore o. Boyd, 24 Me. 242; Kising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 281 ; Curl v. Lowell, 19 Pick. 25; Pratt v. Parrar, 10 Allen, 519; Clark v. Wheelock, 99 Mass. 15; Alton o. Pickering, 9 N. II. 491; Holly v. Brown, 14 Conn. 255; Jackson v. Aldrich, 13 Johns. 60; Den v. Howell, 7 Ired. 496; Hildreth v. Conant, 10 Mete. 298; Curtis v. Galvin, 1 Allen, 215. * James v. Dean, 1 1 Ves. 391 ; Morton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Q. B. 806 ; Reed v. Eeed, 4S Me. 388; Kobie v. Smith, 21 Mp. 114; Howard v. Jrerriam, 5 Cush. 563; Ferrin v. Kenney, 10 Mete. 294; Cody ii. QuHternian, 12 Ga. 386; Man- chester V. Doddridge, 3 Ind. 3C0. 5 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 586 ; Co. Lit. 55 b. ' Doe V. Thompson, 6 Eng. Law & Eq. 487 ; Hill v. Jordan, SO Me. 867; Morse «. Goddard, 13 Mete. 177; Howard v. jMerriam, 5 Cush. 563; Stedman V. Gas.sett, 18 Vt. 346 ; Hemphill v. Tevis, 4 Watts & S. 535; Groustra v. Bourges, 141 Mass. 71. _ § 214 ESTATES AND TENANCIES. [PAKT I. the landlord may continue to treat the lessee as his tenant .'^ The estate at will in the cases above enumerated would be wholly determined, immediately upon the commission of the act, or occurrence of the event. But the tenant is allowed a reasonable time thereafter, within which to move his effects from the premises ; and where he is entitled to em- blements, he may still enter upon the land for the purpose of cultivating and harvesting the crops. ^ No notice to quit is ever required to determine the estate at will; this was the early common-law rule, and still obtains as an invari- able incident of estates strictly at will.^ § 214. Estate at will tlistinguislietl from tenancy from year to year. — In consequence of the many hardships re- sulting from the uncertain tenure of estates at will, and the too often arbitrary and sudden determination of them by lessors, it became at an early day a rule of law that, where rent was reserved and paid by the lessee, the lessor could 1 Co. Lit. 67 a; Pinhorn v. Souster, 20 Eng. Law &Eq. 501; Kelly ». "Waite, 12 Mete. 300 ; Cooper v. Adams, 6 Cush. 87 ; Sprague v. Quin, lOS Mass. 554 ; Cole v. Lake Co., 54 N. H. 277 ; Den v. Howell, 7 Ired. 496. The tenancy may also be determined by the tenant's disclaimer of holding under his lessor. Woodward v. Brown, 13 Pet. 1 ; Bennock v. Whipple, 12 Me. 346 ; Kussell V. Pabyan, 34 N. H. 223 ; Towne v. Butterfield, 99 Mass. 105 ; Boston w.Binney, 11 Pick. 1 ; Charaberlin v. Donahoe, 45 Vt. 55; Sharps v. Kelly, & Denio, 431; Harrison v. Middleton, 11 Gratt. 527; Duke v. Harper, 6 Yerg. 280; Parrow o. Edmundson, 4 B. Mon. 605; Fusselman u. Worthington, 14r 111. 135; Sampson v. Schaeffer, 3 Cal. 196. 2 Co. Lit. 56 b ; Doe v. McKaeg, 10 B. & C. 721 ; Turner o. Doe, 9 M. & W. 647 ; Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. 43 ; Rising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 282. s Hall V. Burgess, 5 B. & C. 332; Elliott v. Stone, 1 Gray, 571; Stone ». Sprague, 20 Barb. 509 ; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 46 ; Chilton n. Niblett, 8 Humph. 404; Brown v. Keller, 32 111. 152. No notice is required where the tenancy is determined by the tortious acts of the tenant. Larned v. Clark, 8 Cush. 29; Tuttlei). Reynolds, 1 Vt. 80; Jackson v. Deyo, 3 Johns. 422; Ross- I). Garrison, 1 Dana, 35 ; Clemens v. Bromaeld, 19 Mo. 118. And, likewise, there is no notice required where the tenancy at will is an estate upon condi- tion or limitation, and the condition is broken, or the limitation expires. El- liott V. Stone, 1 Gray, 576 ; Ashlev v. Warner, 11 Gray, 45 ; Bolton v. Landers^ 27 Cal. 105. 180 ■CH. VII.] ESTATES AND TENANCIES'. § 214 not terminate the tenancy without giving' due notice of his intention to do so.^ Tenancies at will, where no rent was reserved, could be terminated immediately upon notice.^ And it was obviously equitable that, in the institution of such a rule, notice to the lessor should be required in case the tenant should wish to determine the estate.^ In this way, by a course of judicial legislation, arose a class of estates which are for an uncertain period, but which differ from the common-law estates at will, in that they are ten- ancies for an uncertain number of fixed periods of time, their duration being regulated by the manner of paying the rent, i. e., by the month, quarter or year, and which con- tinue to exist as long as the required notice to quit is not given by either of the parties. These estates are called tenancies from year to year.' The tests by which it is determined whether an estate for an uncertain period is a tenancy from year to year, and not one at will, are the reservation of rent and the necessity of giving notice in 1 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 683, 586, 697; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429; Doe V. Watts, 1 T. R. 83; Doe v. Porter, 3 T. E. 13; Kingsbury v. Collins, 4Bing. (13 E. C. L. E.) 202; Izon v. Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. (35 E. C. L. E.) 50U 2 Kighly V. Bnlkly, Sid. 338 ; Bessell v. Landsberg, 7 Ad. & E. 638 ; Johnstone v Huddlestone, 4 Barn. & Cress. 923; Cooke v. Neilson, 10 Burr. 41; Pugsley v. Aikin, 11 N. Y. 494; Currie v. Perley, 24 N. H. 225; Hall V. Wadsworth, 28 Vt. 410; Morehead v. Watkins, 5 B. Mon. 228; Holliday ii. Achle, 99 Mo. 273. 3 Eight V. Darby, 1 T. B. 159; Hamerton v. Stead, 3 B. & C. 478; Hall V. Wadsworth, 28 Vt. 410; Lock wood w. Lock wood, 22 Conn. 425; McDowell V. Simpson, 3 Watts, 129; Lesley v. Randolph, 4 Rawle, 123; Jackson v. Salmon, 4 Wend. 327; Webber v. Shearman, 3 Hill, 647; Pugsley t). Aikin, 11 N. Y. 494; Patton ». Axley, 5 Jones L. 440; Crom- melin v. Thless, 31 Ala. 419; Hunt v. Morton, 18 111. 75; Squires v. Huff, 3 A. K. Marsh. 17; Den v. Drake, 14 N. J. L. 523; Godard w. Railroad Co., 2 Rich. L. 346; Ridgley v. Stillwell, 28 Mo. 400. A deflnite tenancy from year to year, and does not require any notice to quit. Cobb v. Stokes, 8 East, 358; Preble v. Hay, 32 Me. 456; Dorrill u. Johnson, 17 Pick. 263; Allen u. Jacquish, 21 Wend. 628; Jackson «). McLeod, 12 Johns. 182; Den v. Adams, 12 N. J. L. 99; Lesley i). Randolph, 4 Rawle. 125; Logan V. Herron, 8 Serg. & R. 459 ; Walker v. Ellis, 12 lU. 470. 181 § 214 ESTATES AND TENANCIES. [PART I. order to determine the tenancy. If the rent is reserved, and notice to quit is required, it is a tenancy from year to year, and the length of the fixed, indeterminable period of the tenancy is governed by the time of paying the rent.^ But it is always within the power of the parties, by express agreement, to give to the estate the characteristics of a ten- ancy at will, even though the rent is reserved. And if in such a case the tenancy is determined by the lessor between the interval of payment of the rent, the landlord can only recover rent accruing up to the last pay-day. ^ The term " year " in the tenancy from year to year is here used as a unit of time, and under the term tenancy from year to year are included tenancies from month to month, quarter to quarter, and the like, in the same manner as an estate for years includes an estate for one month. ^ Mr. Washburn seems to exclude these estates from the tenancies from year to year, and calls them tenancies at will, in which notice to quit is required.* There is no necessity for this distinction, and the classification here employed seems to bring out ^ Richardson v. Landridge, 4 Taunt. 128 ; Doidge v. Bowers, 2 M. & W. 365; Rich v. Bolton, 46 Vt. 84; 14 Am. Rep. 615; Lockwood v. Lock- wood, 22 Conn. 425; Jackson v. Bradt, 2 Caines, 169; McDowell v. Simpson, 3 Watts, 129; Doe v. Baker, 4 Dev. 220; Crommelin v. Thiess, 31 Ala. 419; Hunt v. Morton, 18 111. 75; "Williams v. Deriar, 31 Mo. 1; Shipman v. Mitchell, 64 Tex. 174. In Maine and Massachusetts the doctrine of tenancies from year to year has never been adopted; and although notice Is now required to determine those tenancies which, in other States, would come under the name of tenancies from year to year, they are not recosnized there as having the characteristics of durability, which are given to them elsewhere. See Moore v. Boyd, 24 Me. 242; Withers v. Larrabee, 48 Me. 513; Rising v. Stannard, 17 Mass. 282; Furlong u. Leary, 8 Cash. 409; Walker ». Furbush, 11 Cush. 366; Bunton v. Richardson, 10 Allen, 260; Hillbourn u. Fogy, 99 Mass. 1 2 Richardson v. Landgridge, 4 Taunt. 128; Doe v. Cox, 11 Q. B. 122; Cameron v. Little, 62 Me. 530; Elliott v. Stone, 1 Gray, 571; Harrison v. Middleton, 11 Gratt. 527; Sullivan u. Enders, 3 Dana, 66; Withnell v. Petzold, 17 Mo. App. 669. 3 See Anderson v. Prindle, 23 Wend. 610. * 1 Waohb. on Real Prop. 598, 599, 610. 182 CH. VII. ] ESTATES AND TENANCIES. § 21»> more prominently the distinctive features of estates at will, aud tenancies from year to year. § 215. Tenancy at will — What now Included under that term. — As ttie law now stands, an express tenancy at will can only arise under two circumstances: first, where land is leased for an indefinite period, and no rent is reserved for its, use and occupation, i and, secondly, where there is rt^nt reserved, and, l)y the express agreement of the parties, the tennncy is to have the characteristics of a tenancy at will. Parlies may agree to waive the right to notice. ^ § 216. Tenancy at will — Arising by implication of law. — When a tenant en'ers upon the land for some other purpose than to create the relation of landlord and tenant, and his entry is under, and in pursuance of, a grant to him of a larger and more definite interest until such interest is vested in him, the law treats andconsiders his possession as that of a tenant at will. Such would be the case where one is per- mitted to enter into possession under a contract for the pur- chase of the land, or for a future lease of the same.^ The ' Hichardson v. Landgridge, 4 Taunt. 128; Doe »; Wood, 14 M. & W. 682; G.irrfird v. Tuck, 8 C. B. 231; BlX «. CoUett, 1 Kuss. & Ey. 498; Melllng ». Leak, 16 C. B. 652; Gould v. Thompson, 4 Mete. 224; Jackson V. Pierce, 2 Johns. 226 ; Bedford v. Terhune, 30 N. Y. 465; Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill and J. 456. And where tenant is in possession without agreement as to paying rent or the length of his holding, and he refuses to pay rent, the tenancy is strictly one at will, although he has been in possession fourteen years, and the six months' notice required in cases of tenancies from year to year is not necessary to terminate his tenancy. Rich V. Bolton, 46 Vt. 84; 14 Am. Eep. 315; Dunne v. Trustees, etc., 36 111. 518. 2 Hichardson v. Landgridge, 4 Taunt. 128; Doe v. Davies, 7 Exch. 89; Cufllip B. Randall, 4 Modern, 9; Harrison u. Middleton, 11 Gratt. 527; Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired. 362; Sullivan v. Enders, 3 Dana, 56. s Hamerton «. Steiid, 3 Barn. &, Cress. 478; Howard v. Shaw, 8 M. & W. 118; Doe v. Chamberlain, 5 M. & W. 14; Gould v. Thompson, 4 Mete. 224; White v. Livingston, 10 Gush. 589; Silsby v. Allen, 43 Vt. 177; Jackson v. Miller 7 Cow. 747; Jackson v. Bradt, 2 Gaines, 169; Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 32; Freeman v. Headley, 33 183 § 216 ESTATES AND TENANCIES. [PAET I. tenant would not be liable for rent for the time he has occupied the laud, unless there is an express agreement to that effect.^ But he will render himself liable for rent, if he retains possession after the executory contract, under which he entered, has come to an end, as well as where he surrenders his right of purchase and continues to hold pos- session, with the intention to become a tenant.^ And he will also be liable in an action for damages for use and oc- cupation during the pendency of the contract, if the failure of such contract is the result of his own refusal or inability to fulfill his obligations under it.^ The rent is recovered in such a case, not on any implied contract to pay for the use and occupation in the event that the tenant fails to perform his part of the contract, but on the theory that, his posses- sion being given with a view to the tenant's performance of the contract, his failure to perform makes his holding a trespass ab initio; or the rent may be asked for as damages suffered from the tenant's breach of the contract of sale.* N. J. L. 523; Den v. Edmondston, 1 Ired. 152; Jones v. Jones, 2 Kich.' 542; Carson v. Baker, 4 Uev. 220; Danne v. Trustees, 39 111. 583; Dean «. Comstock, 32 111. 180; Glascock v. Kobards, 14 Mo. 350; Manchester v. Doddridge, 3 Ind. 360; Cole v. GUI, 14 Iowa, 629; Jennings o. McComb, 112 Pa. St. 518; Watson v. Pugh, 51 Ark. 218. 1 Wlnterbottom v. Ingham, 7 Q. B. 611; Howard v. Shaw, 8 M. &W. 118; Dennett v. Penobscot Company, 57 Me. 425; Cunningham u. Holton, 55 Me. 33; Woodbury o. Woodbury, 47 N. H. 11; Hough v. Birge, 11 Vt. 190; Little v. Pearson, 7 Pick. 301 ; Dakin v. Allen, 8 Cash. 33 ; Vanderheuvel v. Storrs, 3 Conn. 203 ; Sylvester v. Ralston, 31 Barb. 286; Doolittle v. Eddy, 7 Barb. 74; Hasle v. McCoy, 7 J. J. Marsh, 319; Bell V. Ellis, 1 Stew. & P. 294; McKillsauk v. Bullington, 87 Miss. 535; Coffman v. Huck, 24 Mo. 496. 2 Barton u. Smith, 66 Iowa, 75. 3 Howard v. Shaw, 8 M. & W. 118; Tancred v. Christy, 12 M. & W. 324; Gould v. Thompson, 4 Mete. 228; Clough o. Hosford, 6 N. H. 231; Halli;. West. Transp. Co., 34 N. Y. 291; Dwight v. Cutler, 3 Mich. 566; Hogsett V. Ellis, 17 Mich. 367; Wright ». Roberts, 22 Wis. 161; Pinero v. Judson, 6 Bing. 206. ^ Burdett«. Caldwell, 9 Wall. 293; Chamberlain o. Donahue, 44 Vt. 59; Clough v. Hosford, 6 N. H. 231 ; Kistland v. Pounsett, 2 Taunt. 145; Bancroft v. Wardwell, 13 Johns. 489; Smith o. Stewart, 6 Johns. 46; Van- 184 ■CH. VII.j ESTATES AND TENANCIES. § 217 111 a similar manner is the vendor liable as tenant at will for use and occupation, if he retains possession of the land, after the contract of purchase has been executed and the deed of conveyance delivered. If the vendor retains possession with consent of the vendee, the action will be on an implied contract for rent, while he would be liable in trespass for damages, if such holding was without the permission of the grantee.^ § 217. Qualities of tenancies from year to year. — As a consequence of the rule requiring a certain notice of the intention to terminate the estate, before such termination can take place, the tenant was held to be possessed of a fixed and indefeasible estate for a definite period, the length of which is controlled by the character and the terms of the contract for rent (if it be a yearly rental, this estate is for one year, and if the rental be monthly, it is for one month), together with an indefinite obligation to continue the rela- tion of landlord and tenant, until it is determined by the proper notice from either of the parties.^ The tenant's es- tate survives the death of the tenant and goes to his personal representatives. It is also capable of assignment,^ and the tenant may maintain his action for trespass quare clausum derhuevel v. Storrs, 3 Conn. 203; Bell v. Ellis, 1 Stew. & P. 204; Brewer V. Conover> 18 N. J. L. 216; Johnson u. Beauchamp, 9 Dana, 124. But see Forbes v. Smiley, 56 Me. 174; Boston v. BInney, H Pick. 9; Gould v. Thompson, 4 Mete. 228; Hull v. Vaughan, 6 Price, 157. 1 TeWiU. Jones, 13 M. & W. 14; Carrier ii. Earl, 13 Me. 216; Nichols v. "Williams, 8 Cow. ,13. But see contra, Preston v. Hawley, 101 N. Y. 586. 2 Hamerton v. Stead, 3 B. & C. 478; Roe v. Lees, 2 W. Bl. 1173; Eich ■V. Bolton, 46 Vt. 84; 14 Am. Eep. 615; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 22 Conn. 425; Jackson v. Bradt, 2 Caines, 169; The People v. Darling, 47 N. Y. 666; Xesley v. Randolph, 4 Rawle, 123; 4 Dev. 220; Williams v. Deriar, SI Mo. 1; Secor v. Pestana, 35 111. 528. 3 Doe V. Porter, 3 T. H. 13; Batting v. Martin, 1 Camp. 317; Cody v, Quarterman, 12 Ga. 386; Pugsley v. Aikin, 11 N. Y. 494; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 604; 2 Prest. Abst. 25. See Morton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Q. B. S06; Witt V. Mayor of New York, 6 Robt. 447. 185 § 218 ESTATES AND TENANCIES. [PART I. fregit against all intruders, including the landlord. -"^ Nor is it determined by the grant of the reversion by the lessor.^ In other words, the estate of the tenant from year to year cannot be determined, nor can the tenant relieve himself from liability for rent, except by giving a notice, having the requisites both as to length and the time of giving it, of his intention to determine the tenancy- § 218. What notice is required to determine tenancy from year to year. — The length of time required to be obi^erved in giving notice is regulated by statute, and gener- ally varies with the length of the periods between the pay- ments of rent. If it be a yearly rental, the English rule, which is followed in some of the States, requires six months' notice f while in some other States, a shorter time, usually three months, is required.* If the rental be for a period less than one year, as by the quarter, the month, etc., then, as a "general rule, the notice must be for as long a time as the periods of payment.^ If the statute requires notice, but the length of the notice is not stipulated, it is held that a reasonable notice must be given.* And the parties may J Moore v. Boyd, 26 Me. 242; Cuaningham v. Holton, 55 Me. 33; Dick- inson V. Godspeed, 8 Gush. ll'J; French v. Fuller, 23 Pick. 107; Clark v. Smith, 25 Pa. St. 437: Cunningham v. Horton, 57 Me. 422. 2 McDonald v. Hanlon, 79 Cal. 442. 3 Doe V. Watts, 7 T. R. 83; Bessell v. Landsberg, 7 Q. B. 638; Barlow V. Wain Wright, 22 Vt. 88; Jackson v. Bryan, 1 Johns. 322; Den v. Drake, 14 N. J. L. 523; Den v. Mcintosh, 4 Ired. 291; Moorehead v. Watkins, 5 B. Mon. 228; TrousUale v. Darnell, 6 Yerg. 431; Hunt v. Morton, 18 111. 75. But see Secor v. Pestana, 35 111. 528. 4 Currier v. Perley, 24 N. Y. 219; Logan v. Herron, 8 Serg. & R. 459; Floyd V. Floyd, 4 Rich. 23. s 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 610; Taylor's L. & T. 50; Doe v. Hazell, 1 Esp. 94; Sanford v. Harney, 11 Cu-h. 93; Haucliet v. Whitney, 1 Vt. 311; Cunningham v. Horton, 57 Me. 422; Burns v. Bryant, 31 N. Y. 453; Lloyd V. Cozins, 2 Ashra. 131; Godard v. S. C. E. R., 2 Rich. 346; Secor v. Pes- tana, 35 111. 528; Gruenewald v. Schaales, 17 Mo. App. 324. « Ludington v. Garloch, 9 N. Y. S. 24; Payton v. Sherburne, 15 E. I. 213. 186 CH. VII.] ESTATES AND TENANCIES. § 218 always by special agreement control the length and oiher provisions of the notice, the special agreement providing a substitute for the required notice.^ The notice must not only be given for a certain length of lime before the estate is to terminate, but the estate can only be determined at the expiration of the time during which tlie tenant m;iy lawfully hold, i. e., at the end of each rental period; it can only be determined at the end of the year, quarter, or month, according as the tenancy is respectively a yearly, quarterly, or monthly rental.^ This notice must be sufficiently clear in its terms as to the time when the tenancy is to expire;^ and must, as a general rule, be served upon the tenant per- sonally, although it may be left at the tenant's dwelling- house, with a servant or other person of discretionary age,' who appears to be in charge of the premises.* There may, of course, always be a surrender of the tenancy, with the consent of both parties, at any time during the tenancy, and without any previous notice.^ And so, likewise, the 1 Woolsey v. Donnelly, 5 N. Y. S. 238 (1889). 2 Doe V. Morphett, 7 Q. B. 577; Cunningham v. HoltOD, 55 Me. 33; Hanchet v. Whitney, 1 Vt, 311; Currier v. Earlier, 2 Grav, 224; Sanford V. Harvey, U Cash. 93; Oakes v. Monroe, 8 Cush. 285; Burns v. Bryant, 31 N. Y. 453; Godard v. S. C. R. E., 2 Rich. 346; Lloyd v. Cozens, 2 Ashm. 131; Waters v. Ynung, 11 R. I. 1; 23 Am. Rep. 409; StefEens o. Earl, 40 N. J. L. 128; 29 Am. Rep. 214; Woodrow v. Michael, 13 Mich. 190; Drey v. Doyle, 28 Mo. App. 249; Wilson v. Rodeman, 30 S. C. 210; Adams ■;;. City of Cohoes, 53 Hun, 260. 3 Mills V. Goff, 14 M. & W. 72; Hanchet v. Whitney, 1 "Vt. 311 ; Carrier V. Barl^er, 2 Gray, 224; Huyser v. Chase, 13 Mich. 1C2; Woodrow v. Michael, Ibid. 190; Granger v. Brown, 11 Cu.sh. 191; Doe v. Morphett, 7 Q. B. 577; Doe v. Smith, 5 A. & B. 350; Doe v. Willsiuson, 12 A. & E. 743. 4 Doe V. Dunbar, 1 Mood & M. 10; Jones v. Marsh, 464; Hat.stato. Packard, 7 Cush. 245; Walker v. Sharpe, 103 Mass. 154; Birdsall v. Philips, 17 Wend. 464; Schilling v. Holmes, 23 Cal. 231; Bell v. Bruhii, 30 111. App. 300. If left upon the premises, without being placed in the hands of some responsible person, it will only be a good notice to quit, if it actually reaches the tenant. s Gallagher v. Reilly, 10 N. Y, S. 536; Ladington v. Garlock, 9 N. Y. S. 24. 187 § 219 ESTATES AND TENANCIES. [PART I. notice is not required where the lease by its terms termin- ates upon the breach of a condition. ^ § 219. How notice may be waived. — Such notice, when it fulfils all the requirements of the law, puts an end to the tenancy, unless the landlord accepts rent accruing after the expiration of the notice. Such acceptance of rent will gen- erally constitute a waiver of the notice, and the tenancy becomes re-established.^ But in all such cases it is a matter depending upon the intention of the parties, and the receipt of such rent is open to explanation, and the evidence is ad- missible to show that the landlord had no intention of waiv- ing the notice, provided the tenant also had knowledge of that fact.' An express agreement to waive the notice and to permit the tenant to remain in possession is in effect a revival of the original tenancy with all its terms, conditions and limitations, which is equally binding upon both parties.* 1 Scott V. Willis, -122 Ind. 1; Witte v. Quenn, 38 Mo. App. 681. 2 Doe V. Palmer, 16 East, 53; Tuttle v. Bean, 13 Mete. 275; Farson v. Goodale, 8 Allen, 202; Norris v. Morrill, 43 N. H. 218; Collins v. Canty, 6 Cush. 415; Prindle v. Anderson, 19 Wend. 391; Kimball v. Eowland, 6 Gray, 224. 3 Doe V. Humphries, 2 East, 237; Goodrightu. Cordwent, 6 T. E. 219; Kimball v. Eowland, 6 Gray, 224 ; Prindle v. Anderson, 19 Wend. 391. * Supple V. Timothy, 124 Pa. St. 375. 188 SECTION III. TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE, Section 225. Tenancy at sufferance, what is. 226. Incidents of tenancy at sufferance. 227. How the tenancy is determined. 228. The effect of forcible entry. § 225, Tenancy at Sufferance, what is. — When one, who has come lawfully into the possession of lands under an agreement with the owner, retains such possession, after his right to it is determined, he is said to be a tenant at suf- ferance. His estate is an unlawful one ; he has, in fact, no right to possession, but yet is not a trespasser. ^ And yet he has so far a vested interest in the land that any crop which he might plant and harvest during the continuance of the tenancy is his, free from the claims of the rever- sioner, and liable to execution for the debts of the former.^ Such are all persons who continue in possession, after the determination of their particular estate, by and under which they originally acquired possession. Tenants for years after the expiration of their terms, tenants pur autre vie after the death of the cestui que vie, sublessees after the determination of the original lease and the like, are all tenants at sufferance.^ But in the case of a tenancy from year to year, the tenancy at sufferance only begins at the expiration of the current rental period and after giving the 1 2 Bla. Com. 150; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 616; Co. Lit. 57 b; Wil- liams on Heal Prop. 389; Doe v. Hull, 2 D. & K. 38; Russell v. Fabyan, Si N. H. 218; Uridias v. Morrell, 25 Cal. 35. ' 2 Walcott V. Hamilton (Vt. 1889), 17 Atl. 39. = Co, Lit. 57 b; 2 Bla. Com. 150; Simkin v. Ashhnrst, 1 Crompt. M. & R. 261 ; Benedict v. Morse, 10 Mete. 223; Creech v. Crockett, 6 Cash. 133 ; Jackson V. Parkhurst, 5 Johns, 128; Hyatt v. Wood, 4 Johns. 150; Living- ston V. Tanner, 12 Barb. 481; Smith v. Littlefleld, 51 N. Y. 543; Perine v, Teague, 66 Cal. 446; Sutton v. Hiram Lodge, 839a, 770. 189 § 225 TENANCY AT SUFFEKANGE. [PART I. required legal notice. ^ In order that a tenancy at suf- ferance may arise, the estate, under which possession was orii^inally gained, must have been created by the agreement of the piirties. If one enters into the possession by the act or authority of the law, as, for example, a guardian, and retains possession after the law ceases to authorize it, he is a trespasser and not a tenant at sufferance.^ And a tenancy at snfferance would only exist, where the holding over is not in pursuance of an agreement between the par- ties. Such an a£;reemt'nt would chani^e the relation from a tenancy at sulferance to one at will or from year to year.^ And if the parties have not expressly agreed upon any other terms, the presuin[)tion is that the holding over is to be on the terms of the original lease.* A notice of the landlord, before the termination of the lease, that an advance in rent would be asked, if the tenant held possession after his term is at an end, will have the same effect as an ex- press agreement in changing the liability of the tenant.® And although an agreement in the original lease, to pay rent for the time that the tenant continues in possession after the expiration of his term, or after the demand for payment of rent, will not tnke away from such holding over the character of a tenancy at sufferance,^ yet the actual pay- ment and receipt of rent, in pursuance of such an agree- ment or without any previous agreement, will make the holding a tenancy at will, or one from year to year, accord- ing to the attending circumstances.' 1 Thomas v. Black (Del. 1890), 18 Atl. 771. 2 C I. Lit- 57 b; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 618; Merrill v. Bullock, 105 Ma^s. 491. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 618, 619. * Miller v. Ridiiely, 19 111. App. 306'; Vogely v. Robinson, 20 Mo. App. 199; McBrier v. Mar.shall, 126 Pa. St. 390. ^ Tliorpe V. Philbin, 22 State Rep. 27; 3 N. Y. S. 939. ' Condon v. Barr, 47 N. J. L. 113; Adler v. Mendelson, 74 Wis. 464. » Russell V. Fabyan, 34 N. H. 223; Edwards v. Hale, 9 Allen, 462; Em- mons V. Scudder, 115 Mass. 367; Schuyler v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 309; Finney 190 CH. VII. J TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE. § 226 § 226. Incidents of tenancy at sufferance. — Unlike all other tenancies, it does not rest upon privity of contract. It is created by implication of law, for the purpose, perhaps the sole purpose, of establishing between the owner and the person holding over the tenure, usually existing between landlord and tenant. As a consequence of this tenure, a tenant at sufferance cannot, in an action by the reversioner for the recovery of the possession, deny the title of his lessor, or set up in defense a superior title which he has ac- quired by purchase. 1 Nor can the tenant give to his holding the character of adverse possession, so as to bar the lesscir's claim under the Statute of Limitations.^ It has been stated that the statute may run against the landlord in an estate for years, where the tenant gives actual notice by word or deed that he is claiming adverse possession, and that the statute will run from the tinle that such notice is given. Such, presumal)]y, is the law also in respect to tenancies at sufferance. The tenure existing between the lessor and his tenant at sufferance, is identical, in character and scope, with that between landlord and tenant for years. For the details of the doctrine, reference may be had to the chapter on estates for years. ^ The tenant at sufferance has, how- ever, no estate which he may assign, and if he attempts an assignment, his assignee upon entry into possession becomes a trespasser or disseisor, and has neither the rights nor the obligations of a tenant at sufferance,* unless by the ac- V. St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177; Hunt v. Bailey, lb. 257; Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 148; Quinlanu. Bonte, 25II1. App. 240;Drey u. Dojle, 28 Mo. App. 249, Hoffman v. Olark, 63 Mich. 175. See O'Brien v. Troxell, 76 Iowa, 760. 1 Jaclison V. McLeod, 12 Johns. 182; Griffin v. Sheffield, 38 Miss. 390; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 618, 619. 2 I "Washb. on Keal Prop. 620; Doe v. Hull, 2 D. & R. 38. See Ed- wards V. Hale, 9 Allen, 464; Gwynn v. Johns. 2 Gill & J. 173. ' See ante, sect. 200. * Nepeau v. Doe, 2 M. & W. 911; Thunder v. Belcher, 3 East, 451; Reckhow v. Schanck, 43 N. Y. 448; Layman v. Throp, 11 Ired. 352; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 261. § 228 TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE. [PART I. ceptance of rent and other recognitions of a tenafacy, the relation of landlord and tenant is impliedly established be- tween the assignee and the lessor, when the assignee will become a tenant at will or a tenant from year to year, according to the attending cii'cumstances.-^ § 227. How the tenancy is determmed. — The tenancy is determined by the entry of the lessor upon the land, and then the quondam tenant is a trespasser, and may be treated as such.^ And although the tenant at sufferance is not lia- ble for rent ("except by statute'), yet he is liable to the lessor in an action for the mense profits.^ But he is liable for neither rent nor mesne profits, if he holds over only for the time which is reasonably necessary to remove his goods.' § 228. The effect of forcible entry. — A statute was passed in the reign of Eichard II., forbidding entries upon land in support of one's title " with strong hand or a mul- titude of people, but only in a peaceable and easy manner," ' De Pere Co. u. Eeyneu, 65 Wis. 271. 2 Until entry is made, tlie land-owner cannot treat the tenant at suff- erance as a trespasser. 2 Bla. Com. 150; Co. Lit. 57 b; Carl ». Lowell, 19 Pick. 27; Butcher v. Butcher, 7 B. & C. 399; Newton v. Harland, 1 Mann. & G. 644; Rising v. Stanard, 17 Mass. 282. The successful issue of an action of ejectment is equivalent to an entry. No notice to the tenant at sufferance is required to terminate his estate, or to bring an ejectment, unless a statute expressly requires it. Hollis v. Pool, 3 Mete. 350; Mason ». Denison, 11 Wend. 612; Smith v. Littlefleld, 61 N. Y. 643; Howard v. Carpenter, 22 Md. 25; Young v. Smith, 28 Mo. 65; Bennett v. Eobinson, 27 Mich. 32. 3 Cofran v. Shephard, 148 Mass. 582. * Sargent I). Smitli, 12 Gray, 426; Merrill u. Bullock, 105 Mass. 490; Cunningham u. Holton, 55 Me. 33: Stockton's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 63; Hogsett V. Ellis, 17 Mich. 368; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 619, 620; Mc- Cabev. Evers, 9 N. Y. S. 541; Hammond v. Eckhardt, 9 N. Y. S. 508; Shanahan v. Shanahan, 55; N. Y. Super. Ct. 339; Johannes, v. Kiel- gast, 27 111. App. 576; Lathrop v. Standard Oil Co. (Ga. 1889), 9 S. E. 1041. = Adler v. Mendelson, 74 Wis. 464. 192 OH. VII.] TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE. § 228 and providing for the punishment of such offenses by indictment and arraignment in the criminal courts. Similar statutes have been passed in mo&t, if not all, of the States of this country. The question has been mooted from an early period, whether it was the purpose of the statute to take away the common-law right to recover one's lawful posses- sion by force of arms, or simply to provide a punishment for the breach of the public peace thereby occasioned. Although thei'e are decisions and some authorities, which maintain that the statute has this double effect, and that such forcible entry would lay the lawful owner open to civil actions for trespass, and for assault and battery, "^ yet the weight of authority both in the courts of England and of this country is certainly in favor of confining the opera- tion of the statute to a criminal prosecution for the prohib- ited entry. The decisions cited below maintain that the plea of libernum tenementum is a good plea to every action of trespass quare dausum fregit, and even if the tenant is forcibly expelled and suffers personal injuries therefrom, no civil action for any purpose will lie, unless the force used was greater than what was necessary to effect his expulsion.^ 1 Keederc. Pardy, 41 111. 261, Doty i». Burdick, 83 111. 473; Knight ». Knight, 90 111. 208 ; Dustin v. Cowdry, 23 Vt. 631 ; Whittaker u. Perry, 38 Vt. 107 (but see contra, Beecher v. Parmelee, 9 Vt. 352; Mussey v. Scott, 32 Vt. 82). See Moore v. Boyd, 24 Me. 247. 2 Harvey u. Brydges, 13 M. & W. 437; Davis v. Burrell, 10 C. B. 821; Hilbourne v. FoRg, 99 Masa. 11; Churchill v. Hulbert, 110 Mass. 42; 15 Am. Rep. 678; Clark v. Kelliher, 107 Mass. 406; Stearns v. Sampson, 59 Me. 568; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 239; 12 Am. Rep. 80; Livingston V. Tanner, 14 N. Y. 64; The People v. Field, 52 arb. 198; s. c. 1 Lans. 242; Estes u. Kedsey, 8 Wend. 500; Kellam v. Jansom, 17 Pa. St. 467; Zell V. Reame, 31 Pa. St. 304; Todd v. Jackson, 26 N. J. L. 625; Walton V. Fill, 1 Dev. & B. 507; Johnson v. Hanahan, 1 Strobh. 313; Tribble v. Frame, 7 J.J. Marsh. 699; Krevet u. Meyer, 24 Mo. 107; Fuhr v. Dean, 26 Mo. 116. The exercise of sufficient force after a peaceable entry to eject a tenant, is lawful, and cannot sustain an action for assault and battery. Stearns v. Sampson, 59 Me. 568; 8 Am Rep. 442. 13 193 CHAPTEK yilL JOINT ESTATES. Section I. — Classes of joint estates. II. — Incidents common to all joint estates. III. — Partition. Section 235. Joint estates, what are. § 235. Joint estates, what are. — After discussing the various estates which might be created in lands, in respect to their dui'ation, it is necessary to inquire into their quali- ties, in respect to the number of owners. From this stand- point, estates are divided into two classes, — estates in severalty and joint estates. An estate in severalty is, as the name implies, one which is held and enjoyed by one to the exclusion of all the world. ^ Joint estates are all other estates, the title to which is vested in two or more persons. These are again subdivided into joint tenancies, tenancies in common, estates in coparcenary, tenancies by the en- tirety and partnership estates. SECTION I. CLASSES OF JOINT ESTATES. I. — Joint-tenancjr. II. — Tenancjr in common. III. — Estates in coparcenary. IV. — Estates in entirety. V. — Estates in partnership. Section 236. .Toint-tenancy, wlmt is. 237. Incidents of joint-tenancy. 238. Doctrine of survivorship, — liow right of survivorship is de- stro}'ed. 239. Tenancy in common, what is. ' 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 6-12 ; 2 Bla. Com. 179. 194 CH. VIII. J JOINT ESTATES. § 237 Section 240. Joint estates, when tenancies in common. 241. Tenancy in coparcenary. 242. Estates in entirety. 243. Estates in entirety In a joint-tenancy, or tenancy In com- mon. 244. Tenancy In common between Iiusband and wife. 245. Estates in partnerslilp. 246. Several interests of partners. § 236. Joint-tenancy, what is. — A joiat-tenancy is an estate held by two or more persons jointly, so that during the lives of all they are equally entitled to the enjoyment of the land, or its equivalent in rents and profits; but, upon the death of one, his share vests in the survivor or sur- vivors, until there be but one survivor, when the estate be- comes one in severalty in him, and descends to his heirs upon his death. ^ There may be a joint-tenancy in any one of the estates before explained, in fee, for life, or for years and the like. 2 But for a reason which will be made clear by a sub- sequent paragraph,^ a joint tei\ancy can only be created by purchase. It cannot be acquired by descent.* §237. Incidents of a joint-tenancy. — It is said that for the creation of a jbint-tenancy, the four unities of estate must be present, viz. : unity of interest, title, time, and possessioh.^ All the tenants must have the same interest in the land in respect to the duration of the estate. One cannot be tenant for life, while another is tenant in fee. By unity of title is meant, that all must acquire their interests by the same title. One cannot hold by one deed, and an- other by a second deed. The estate must vest at the same time, otherwise there will be no unity of time. Two per- 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 642; 1 Brest. Est. 130; 2 Bla. Com. 179, 183. 2 1 Waslib. on Real Prop. 642, 643; 2 Bla. Com. 179; Glover v. Still- son (Conn. 1888), 15 Atl. Eep. 752. 3 See sect. 241. ^ 1 Waslib. on Real Prop. 643; 2 Bla. Com. 180. " 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 643; 2 Bla. Com. 180. 195 § 237 JOINT ESTATES. [PART 1. sons cannot be joint-tenants, where the estate is granted in remainder to the heirs of two living persons. The death of one, during the life of the other, would cause the shares. of his heirs to vest before the others. Finally, the estate must false effect in possession at the same time. One can- not have an estate in possession, while, the other has an estate in remainder. Joint-tenants, therefore, " have one and the same interest, accruing by one and the same convey- ance, commencing at one and the same time, and held by one and the same possession." ^ And whenever these four unities were present in a joint estate, the estate was con- strued at common law to be a joint-tenancy, unless the grantor by express limitation gave the estate a different character.^ But the American law has been in opposition to joint-tenancy, and has shown more favor to tenancies in common. The doctrine of survivorship has been consid- ered repugnant to the American sense of justice to the heirs. A number of the States have by statute abolished joint-tenancy altogether, exfcept in the case of trustees and other persons, holding a joint-estate in a fiduciary capacity;* while it may be stated as a general rule in the rest of the 1 2 Bla. Com. 180, 181, 182. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 643; Williams on Real Prop. 132; Rigden t». Vallier, 3 Atk. 734. But sometimes the intention to create a tenancy in common is established by implication, as, for example, where the land was purchased with the intention of expending large sums in the im- provement of the property, and tliere is no relationship between the co- tenants to support the contrary presumption, that the estate was Intended to be a joint-tenancy. See Lake v. Craddock, 3 P. Wms. 158; Cuyler v. Bradt, 2 Oaines, 820; Caines v. Grant's Lessee, 5 Binn. 196; Duncan v. Forrer, G Binn. 196. 3 Statutes of this character exist in Virginia, North Carolina, South CaroHaa, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Ohio, and Couneclicut. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 644, note. See also Phelps v. Jepson, 1 Root, 48; Ballij. Deas, 1 Strobh. Eq. 24; Parson v. Boyd, 20 Ala. 112; Nichols D. Denny, 37 Miss. 69; Kennedy's Appeal, 6 Pa. St. 511; Jenk's Lessee v. Backhouse, 1 Binn. 91; Biird's Appeal, 3 Watts & S. 469; Miles v. Fisher, 10 Ohio, 1 Varn V. Varn (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 829. 196 CH. VIII. J JOINT ESTATES. § 238 States, that a joint-estate vyill be presumed in every case, -except tliat of trustees, etc., lo be a tenancy in common, unless expressly declared to be a joint-tenancy, even though the four unities are present. ^ Joint-mortgagees hold by joint-tenancy, until the property is sold under foreclosure, when they become tenants in common,^ in theland, if strict foreclosure is had, and in the proceeds of sale, if it is iin equitable foreclosure. § 238. Doctrine of survivorship, — how right of sur- vivorship is destroyed The chief incident of joint-ten- ancies, and that which distinguishes them from tenancies in common, is the right of survivorship. Although the estate is limited to two or more and their heirs, the entire estate falls to the survivor or survivors upon the death of one, to the exclusion of his heirs. ^ Nor does the wife or husband 1 This statutory rule prevails in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Iowa, Cali- fornia. I Washb. on Keal Prop. *644, note. See also Webster v. Van- deventer, 6 Gray, 428; Jones v. Crane, 10 Gray, 308; Stimpson v. Butter- man, 5 Cush. 153; Purdy v. Purdy, 3 Md. Ch. 547; Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 «Iowa, 302; Orr c. Clark (Vt. 1890), 19 Atl. 929. 2 Kinsley w, Abbott, 19 Me. 430; Pearce v. Savage, 45 Me. 90; Donnels V. Edwards, 2 Pick. 617; Appleton u. Boyd, 7 Mass. 131; Deloney v. Hutchison, 2 Rand. 183; Martin u. McReynolds, 6 Mich. 72. If the debt is joint, it goes to the survivor and he alone must sue. Webster v. Van- deventer, 6 Gray, 428. But if the debts are several, belonging to different persons, who together constitute the joint-mortgagees, the doctrine of survivorship does not apply. In the event of the death of one of them, his personal representatives or heirs, according to the local law, must be made joint parties with the survivors. Brown v. Bates, 56 Me. 522; Burnett v. Pratt, 22 Pick. 551. And although joint-disseisors ■do not strictly hold in joint-tenancy, it is a familiar rule of the law of adverse possession that, if one abandons the property, the other takes the entire estate. Putney v. Dresser, 2 Mete. 583; Allen «. Holton, 20 Pick. 458. 8 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 643; 2 Bla. Com. 183; Williams on Real Prop. 134. But the administrator or executor of the deceased co-tenant has a right to the growing crop planted by the decedent under the law of emblements. Pritchard u. Walker, 22 111. App. 286; s. c. 121 111. 221. 197 § 238 JOINT ESTATES. [PART I. of the deceased joint-tenant have respectively dower or curtesy in the estate.^ For the reason that corporations cannot be said to die, and therefore there can be no sur- vivorship, if two corporations hold land jointly, they are tenants in common, and not joint-tenants.^ Joint-tenants are said to hold the entire estate per my et per tout,^ indi- vidually and jointly. Upon the death of one, the others do not acquire a new interest in the land by descent from the deceased. Their interest is only indirectly increased by the extinguishment of the deceased joint-tenant's interest. For this reason, in a conveyance by one joint-tenant to another, a release is not only sufficient to vest in the latter the entire estate, but it is the only proper common-law mode of assignment.* But the ordinary deeds of grant will operate, as well as a technical release, in conveying or ex- tinguishing a joint-tenant's interest.^ The survivor's estate will be subject to the same incumbrances as were imposed by him upon his share of the joint-tenancy before the death of his co-tenant.® But a joint-tenancy, and therewith the right of survivorship, may be destroyed by a conveyance by one joint-tenant to a third person. Although he has not the power to devise his interest, and although there is a joint possession and interest in the estate, he may alien his share to a stranger. Such a stranger would at once become a tenant in common, and the alienation would thus 1 1 Washb. on Keal Prop. 649; Co. Lit. 37 b. " 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 643; Dewitt v. San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289. ' 1 Waslib. on Real Prop. 642; 2 Bla. Com. 182. Blackstone translates per my (mie) et per tout, by the half or moiety, and by the whole. In "Williams on Real Prop. 136, Mitchell's note, a note to Murray v. Hall, 7 Mann. Gr. & Sc. (62 Eng. C. L. R.) 455, is cited to the effect that the proper rendering of mie (my) is nothing or not in the least. * Williams on Real Prop. 134, 135; Co. Lit. 169 a; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 648; 1 Prest. Est. 136; Rector v. Waugh, 17 Mo. 13. <* 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 648; Eustace v. Scawen, Cro. Jac. 696; Chester v. Willan, 2 Saund. 96 a. 6 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 646; Co. Lit. 185 b; Lord Abergaveny's Case, 6 Rep. 78. 198 CH. VIII.J JOINT ESTATES. § 239 destroy the right of survivorship.^ But if there be more than two joint-tenants, the conveyance by one of his share will not affect the right of survivorship of the other tenants between themselves. They would still be joint-tenants to each other. ^ § 239. Tenancy in common, what is. — Tenancy in common is a joint estate, in which there is unity of posses- sion, but separate and distinct titles. Joint estates are usually so limited as to be estates in fee. But there may be tenancies in common and other joint estates in estates for life or for years,^ and where an estate is given to two durino; their " natural lives " and there is a limitation over "after the decease of both" the limitation in remainder does not take effect until the survivor's death, and after the death of one of them, the survivor takes the whole of the estate.* The tenants have separate and independent freeholds or leaseholds in their respective shares, which they manage and dispose of as freely as if the estate was one in severalty. There is no restriction upon their power of alienation.^ And the tenant may dispose of it by will, 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 647, 6i8; Co. Lit. 273 b. One joint-tenant may mortgage his interest in the estate, and to that extent will the jus accrescendi be destroyed or rather suspended. York v. Stone, 1 Salk. 158; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 293; Simpson v. Ammons, 1 Binn, 175. But it can- not be taken away by a devise of the deceased co-tenant's share. Co. Lit. 185 b; Duncan v. Forrer, 6 Binn. 193. 2 2 Bla. Com. 186; Co. Lit. sect. 294. 3 See ante, sect. 236. ' Glover v. Stillson (Conn. 1888), 15 Atl. Eep. 762. " 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 652, 653 ; Brown v. Wellington, 106 Mass. 318; 8 Am. Rep. 330; Butler v. Roys, 25 Mich. 63; 12 Am. Rep. 218f Fry V. Scott (Ky.), 11 S. W. Rep. 426; Bush v. Gamble, 127 Pa. St. 43; A co-tenant's interest may be mortgaged. Green v. Arnold, 11 R. I. 3G4 ; 23 Am. Rep. 466. And it can be levied upon in satisfaction of the co- tenant's debts. Boylston Insurance Co. v. Davis, 68 N. C. 17; 12 Am. Eep. 624; Newton v. Howe and Drury, 29 Wis, 531; 9 Am. Rep. 616; Peabody v. Minot, 24 Pick. 329; Duncan v. Sylvester, 24 Me. 482; Whil- ton V. Whilton, 38 N. H. 127; Griswold v. Johnson, 5 Conn. 363; Prim v. 199 § 240 JOINT ESTATES. [PART I. while the heirs of an estate tenant will inherit the estate. In like manner, the husband or wife of a tenant in common will have, respectively, curtesy and (power in this species of joint estate.^ The interest of one tenant in common is so independent of that of his co-tenant, that in a joint con- veyance of the estate it would be treated as a grant by each ofhis own share in the estate.^ And, unlike joint-tenancies, in order to convey the share of one co-tenant to another, the same formal deed is requu'ed as in a conveyance of it to a stranger. A simple technical release, without words of inheritance, would not be sufficient. Tenants in com- mon are not seised of the entire estate. They do not hold it per my et per tout.^ § 240. Joint estates, when tenancies in common. — The common-law rule was that all estates, acquired by purchase, under circumstances which prevented the pres- ence and existence of the so-called four unities, were Walker, 38 Mo. 97; White v. Sayre, 2 Ohio, 302; McKey v. Welch, 22 Texas, 390. 1 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 654. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 656 ; 2 Prest. Abst. 77. And in the same manner, if a covenant of warranty in the conveyance of a tenancy in common is broken, each co-tenant can sue individually for the breach. Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 322; 8 Am. Rep. 426. But they must join in an action for the recovery of the possession. Co. Lit. 200 a; Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1 Pick. 22i; Allen v. Gibson, 4 Rand. 468; Johnson v. Harris, 5 Hayw. 113; Toung v. Adams, 14 B. Mon. 127; Hines v. Frantham, 27 Ala. 359; Hughes v. Holliday, 3 Greene (Iowa), 30; Muller v. Boggs, 25 Cal. 187. Contra, Hillhouse v. Mix, 1 Root, 246. And in the same man- ner they must sue jointly for injuries to the possession, such as trespass, nuisance, etc. Phillips v. Sherman, 61 Me. 548; Merrill v. Berkshire, 11 Pick. 269; Austin v. Hall, 13 Johns. 286; Dupuy v. Strong, 37 N. Y. 372; Doe v. Botts, 4 Bibb. 420; Parke v. Kilham, 8 Gal. 77. s 1 Co. Lit. 193 a, n. 80; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 652. It will of course be understood that, when speaking of the necessity of words of limitation, reference is made only to the common-law rule. Where the necessity of words of limitation has been removed by statute, In the grant of one co-tenant to the other, an ordinary deed of release will operate to pass the estate in fee, without words of limitation. See wst, sect. 780. 200 CH. VIII.] JOINT ESTATES. § 241 tenancies in common.^ But, as has been explained above, the rule has now been changed and modified in this country, so that the general rule here is that all joint estates are held to be tfenancies in common, where they are not ex- pressly made joint-tenancies, whether acquired by purchase or by descent, except in the few localities where tenancy in coparcenary still exists.^ In a tenancy in common the unity of possession is all that is required. The estates, the titles, and the times of enjoyment might all be different. One tenant may thus have a life estate and another a fee, acquired by different titles. There may be a tenancy in common in a future estate, and their titles may vest and be executed in possession at different periods, provided at some time during the existence of both estates there is a tinity of possession.^ § 241. Tenancy in coparcenary. — This tenancy is the joint estate which, according to common law, vested by descent in the heirs of an intestate. It partakes of the characteristics of both joint-tenancies and tenancies in common. Like joint-tenancies, in a conveyance by one co- tenant to another of his share, a simple release was sufficient without words of limitation, since they were all seized in fee of the entire estate by descent.* And they were like 1 2 Bla. Com. 191. 2 4 Kent's Com. 367; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 653; Miller v. Miller, 16 Mass. 59; Sigourney v. Baton, 14 Pick. 414; Gilman v. Morrill, 8 Vt. 74; Alclricli u. Martin, 4 R. I. 620; Evans v. Brittain, 3 Serg. & E. 135; Partridge v. Colegate, 3 Har. & McH. 339; Jolinson v. Harris, 5 Hayw. 113; Young u. DeBruhl, 11 Bicli. L. 638; Briscoe v. McGee, 2 J. J. Marsh. 370; Challefoux v. Ducliarme, 8 Wis. 287; Ctiurch v. Ciiurch. 15 E. I. 138; Bisliop v. MoClelland's Exrs. (N. J. 1888), 16 Atl. Eep. 1; Bowen v. Swander, 121 Ind. 164; Bush v. Gamble; 127 Pa. St. 43; Coudert v. Earl, 45 N. J. Eq. As to what declaration is necessary to create a joint-tenancy, see Hersky v. Clark, 35 Ark. 17; 37 Am. Rep. 1. 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 652; 2 Bla. Com. 191 ; 1 Prest. Est. 139. That there may be a tenancy in common in a remainder, see Coleman v. Lane, 26 Ga. 515. * Co. Lit. 273 b; 1 Prest. Est. 138; Gilpin ». Holllngswortlj, 3 Md. 190. .201 § 242 JOINT ESTATES. [PART I. tenancies in common, in that the doctrine of survivorship did not obtain in respect to the respective shares of the tenants. The heirs of a deceased tenant in coparcenary inherited his share. ^ And a coparcenary may taake a devise of his estate.^ But in this country the doctrine of copar- cenary has never prevailed except in Maryland; in all other States joint estates by descent are treated as tenancies in common. The subject, therefore, is of very little impor- tance to American students.' § 242. Estates in entirety. — This is an estate arising in the conveyance to a man and wife jointly. They are not seised of moieties, but of entireties; hence the name, estate in entirety.^ In those States where statutes have been passed, giving to married women, in respect to their prop- erty, the rights of femes sole, it has become a question of great doubt, whether tenancy in entirety has been abolished inferentially by the statute/ These tenancies resemble 1 2 Bla. Com. 188; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 650. 2 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 651 ; 2 Prest. Abst. 72. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 651; i Kent's Com. 367; Johnson v. Harris, 5 Hayw. 113; Hoffar «. Dement, 5 Gill, 132; Gilpin v. HoUingsworth, 3 Md. 190; Bishop u. McClelland's Ex'rs (N. J. 1888), 16 Atl. Eep. 1; Palms V. Palms (Mich.), 36 N. W. Rep. 419; Rowland v. Murphy, 66 Tex. 534; McPheeters v. Wright (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 734. * 1 Prest. Est. 131; Shaw v. Hearsey, 5 Mass. 521; Draper v. Jackson, 16 Mass. 480; Harding v. Springer, 14 Me. 407; Doe u. Rowland, 8 Cow. 277; Torrey v. Torrey, 14 N. Y. 430; Wright v. Sadler, 20 N. Y. 320; Brownson v. Hull, 16 Vt. 309; Fairchild v. Chastelleux, IPa. St. 176; Den 0. Branson, 5 Ired. 426; Babbit ». Scroggin, 1 Duv. 272; Paul v. Camp- bell, 7 Yerg. 319; Davis v. Clark, 26 Ind. 424; Gibson «. Zimmermann, 13 Mo. 385; Ketchum v. Wadsworth, 5 Wis. 95; Lux o. Hoff, 47 111.425; Farmer's Bank v. Corder, 32 W. Va. 233. 5 In the following cases, it has been held that the statute has had no efCect upon the estates in entirety and that a conveyance to man and wife makes them tenants in entirety now, as well as before the statute. Mar- burg V. Cole, 49 Md. 402 ; 33 Am. Eep. 266 ; Hulett v. Inlow, 57 Ind. 412 ; 26 Am. Rep. 64: Hemingway u. Scales, 42 Miss. 1; 2 Am. Rep. 586; Mc- Curdy v. Canning, 64 Pa. St. 39; Diver v. Diver, 56 Pa. St. 106; Bennett V. Child, 19 Wis. 365; Fisher v. Provin, 25 Mich. 347; Garner v. Jones, 62 202 CH. VIII.] JOINT ESTATES. § 243 joint-tenancies in that tiiey have the quality of survivorship ; • the heirs of the survivor v?ould take to the exclusion of the heirs of the first deceased. ^ But, unlike joint- tenancies, the right of survivorship cannot be destroyed by the action of either party. There can, therefore, be no partition of the estate.^ During coverture the husband has the entire control of the estate, may convey it away, and it is liable to be sold under execution for his debts. If thfe husband survives the wife, this conveyance of it to a stranger will be as absolute, as if the estate had been one in severalty.^ But if the wife survives the husband, she acquires, by the right of survivorship, the entire interest in the land, and is entitled to her proper action for the recovery of the pos- session.* The Statute of Limitations cannot run against her right of survivorship during the disability of coverture.^ § 243. Kstate In entirety in a joint-tenancy, or ten- ancy in common. — As a consequence of the doctrine ex- plained in the foregoing paragraph, if husband and wife, as such, are made joint-tenants or tenants in common with others, they will be considered as one co-tenant, and will take but one share between them, equal to the shares of the others. Thus if A. and B., husband and wife, are made joint-tenants with C, A. and B. will take a one-half inter- Mo. 68; Eobinson v. Eagle, 29 Ark. 202; Goelett v. Gori, 31 Barb. 314; Shinn v. Shinn, 42 Kan. 1; Meeker v. Wright, 75 N. Y. 26; Gardinier v. Furey, 50 Hun, 82; O'Connor??. McMahon, 54 Hun, 66. But a contrary conclusion is reached by the courts in the cases cited ^os(. Cooper v. Cooper, 76 111. 67; Hoffman v. Steigers, 28 Iowa, 302; Clark v. Clark, 56 N. H. 105. 1 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 672, 673; 1 Prest. Est. 132. 2 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 673; Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 364; Shinn v. Shinn, 42 Kan. 1. 3 1 Prest. Est. 135; Barber v. Harris, 15 Wend. 615; Needham v. Bran- son, 5 Ired. 42G; Ames v. Norman, 4 Sneed. 683; Tane v. Campbell, 7 Yerg. 319; Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 364. * Pierce v. Chase, 108 Mass. 258 ; French v. Mehan, 66 Pa. St. 286 ; McCurdy v. Canning. 64 Pa. St. 39. « 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 673; Co. Lit. 326 a. 203 § 244 JOINT ESTATES. [PAET I. est, while C. will have the other half. And the death of the husband or wife would have no effect on C.'s share. On the other hand, if C. died, A. and B. would take the whole estate in entirety.^ § 244. Tenancy In common between husband and wife. — Although the estate in entirety has met with gen- eral recognition in this country, yet in a number of States the estate does not exist, and a joint estate held by husband and wife is either treated as a tenancy in common, as in Ohio and Virginia, or as a joint-tenancy, as in Connecti- cat.^ And furthermore, if at any time a joint-tenancy or tenancy in common is desired to be created between man and wife, a joint estate will be treated as such, if that inten- tion is clearly expressed in the deed or will.^ An express limitation of the remainder of the estate, after the death of both husband and wife, to the heirs of both, a provision being made for a division of the property between these two classes of heirs, will cut down the joint estate between husband and wife to a life estate, and thus prevent the right of survivorship from affecting the rights of the heirs to the remainder.* 1 1 "Washb. on Real Prop. 674; Williams on Real Prop. 225; 1 Prest. Est. 132; Barber i;. Harris, 15 Wend.' 615; Johnson v. Hart, 6 Watts & S. 319 ; Gordon v. Wtiieldon, 11 Beav. 170. But see Hampton v. Wheeler, ^9 N. C. 222, where it is held that as to the other co-tenants, the husband and wife are simply individual co-tenants, each taljing his and her pro- portionate share in the general estate, the only difference from the other interests being that the interests of the husband and wife upon the death of on» of them became uuited in the survivor. 2 See 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 674, 675; Whittlesey v. Fuller, 11. Conn. 337; Sergeant v. Steinberger, 2 Ohio, 305; Wilson v. Fleming, 13 Ohio, 68. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 674 ; McDermott v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 81 ; Cloos V. Cloos, 55 Hun, 450. In Kentucliy and Iowa, a conveyance to husband and wife gives them a tenancy in common, unless the estate is expressly declared to be a tenancy in entirety. Rogers v. Grider, 1 Dana, 242; Hofeman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302. * Hadlocii V. Gray, 104 Ind. 596. 204 CH. VIII.] JOINT ESTATES. § 246 § 245. Estates in partnership. — When a joint estate is vested in the members of a partnership, purchased with partnership funds and for partnership purposes, it is called an estate in partnership. The estate is treated in equity as personal property, and made liable to the satisfaction of the partnership's debts, in preference to the claims of private creditors or of the widows and heirs of one of the partners. Real estate held by a partnership is subject to the partnership debts, and until they are satisfied no other claim can be made upon the share of any one of the partners.^ And if one partner has paid more than his share of the debts, he also has a lien upon the real estate to protect his right of contribution for such over-payment.^ Real estate, purchased by a firm, will have in equity all the characteristics of an estate in copartnership, even though the legal title be taken in the name of one partner. He will hold the legal title in trust for the partnership. Of course, if the partner holding the legal title disposes of it to a purchaser for value without notice of the trust, the purchaser will take to the exclusion of the partnership claims.^ § 246. Several Interests of partners. — When, however, the partnership debts have all been paid, the partners are tenants in common of the partnership lands. Their widows 1 Cox ?;. McBurney, 2 Sandf. 561; Delmonico v. Guillaume, 2 Sandf. Ch. 366; Deming v. Colt, 3 Sandf. 284; Lane v. Tyler, 49 Me. 252; Good- win V. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469; Galbraith ii. Gedge, 16 B. Mon. 631; Howard v. Priest, 6 Mete. 582; Lang v. Waring, 26 Ala. 625; Marvin v. Trumbull, "Wrigtit, 386; Lancaster Bk. v. Myley, 15 Pa. St. 544; Coder v. Ruling, 27 Pa. St. 84; Piatt v. Oliver, 3 McLean, 27; Blacli v. Black, 15 Ga. 445; Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 370; Hunter v. Martin, 2 Eich. L. 641; 1 Pars, on Con. 149. '■* BufEum u. Buffurn, 49 Me. 108; Burnside v. Merrick, 4 Mete. 537; Howard v. Priest, 6 Mete. 585; Smith v. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. 28; Loubat «. Nourse, 6 Fla. 360. 3 Smiths. Alleu, 5 Allen,456; Moreauo. Safferons, 3 Sneed, 595; 1 Pars, on Con. 153. 205 § 246 JOINT ESTATES. [PAET I. have dower, and their heirs are entitled to it upon the de- cease of the partners. It is also subject to partition.^ In this country, at least, if the real estate had to be sold to liquidate the partnership debts, any surplus that might be found undisposed of would be treated as real property, and go to the widow and heirs of a deceased partner.^ 1 Sane v. Tyler, 49 Me. 252; Goodwin v. Kichardson, 11 Mass. 469; Howard v. Priest, 5 Mete. 582; Whaling Co. v. Borden, 10 Cush. 458; Tillinghast v. Ciiamplln, 4 E. I. 173; Olcott v. Wing, 4 McLean, 15; Deloney v. Hutcheson, 2 Kand. 183; Loubat v. Nourse, 5 Fla. 363; Lud- low o. Cooper, 4 Ohio, St. 1; Dilworth v. Mayfleld, 36 Miss. 40; Buchan V. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 163; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 43; Pipers. Smith, 1 Head, 93; Patterson v. Blake, 12 Ind. 436. Where there are debts unsatisfied, equity regards the real estate as personalty, so far as to enable the surviving partner to dispose of it for the satisfaction of the partnership debts, and a court of equity will compel the widow and heirs of the deceased partner to execute the deeds of conveyance. Deimouico v. (iuillaume, 2 Sandf. Ch. 366; Boyce v. Coster, 4 Strobh. Eq. 25; Winslow v. Chiffelle, Har. Eq. 25; Matlock d. Matlock, 5 Ind. 403; Boyers v. Elliott, 7 Humph. 204; Arnold v. Wainwright, 6 Minn. 358. 2 Offut V. Scott, 47 Ala. 105; Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 398; 22 Am. Law Reg. 300, notes 307-310. See also, generally. Shearer v. Shearer, 98 Mass. 107; Jones' Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 169; Bopp v. Fox, 63 111. 540; 1 Pars, on Con. 150. In England, the interest of the partner In partnership real estate is looked upon as personalty, and therefore, the surplus after satisfaction of the partnership debts, goes to the personal representa- tive, instead of to the heirs. Darby v. Darby, 3 Drewry, 495; 1 Pars, on Con. 149. And see Eice v. Barnard, 20 Vt. 479; Lang v. Waring, 17 Ala. 145. 206 SECTION II. INCIDENTS COMMON TO ALL JOINT ESTATES. Sbction 251. Disseisin by one co-tenant. 252. Adverse title acquired by one co-tenant. 252a. Maintenance of actions against trespassers. 253. Alienation of joint estates. 254. Waste by co-tenants. 255. Liability of one co-tenant for rents and profits.. § 251. Disseisin by one co-tenant. — As the possession of co-tenants is common to all, a tenure exists between them in respect thereto, so that if one co-tenant is in pos- session, his possession is generally held to be for the bene- fit of all ; the sole possession by one does not constitute in itself a disseisin of the other co-tenants, notwithstanding it continues for the statutory period of limitation .^ And where the tenancy in common rests upon a title by adverse possession the tenancy is established by proof of adverse possession by one of the alleged co-tenants under color of title to the co-tenants.^ But the husband of a tenant in common is not estopped from setting up adverse title to 1 McClung V. Eoss, 5 Wheat. 116; Clymer e. Dawkins, 3 How. 674; Colburn v. Mason, 25 Me. 434; Barnard v. Pope, 14 Mass. 434; Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68; Catlin «. Kidder, 7 Vt. 12; Thomas v. Hatch, 3 Sumn. 170; Campbell v. Campbell, 13 N. H. 483; German v. Machin, 6 Paige Ch. 288; Clowes v. Hawley, 12 Johns. 484; Lloyd u. Gordon, 2 Har. & McH. 254; Martin v. Quattlebaum, 3 McCord, 205; Prage v. Chinn, 4 Dana, 50; Brown v. Hogle, 30 111. 1V9; Story v. Saunders, 8 Humph. 663; Long V. McDow, 87 Mo. 197; Terrell v. Martin, 64 Tex. 121; Hamilton v. Redden (Kan. 1890), 24 Pac. 7G ; Millis v. Roof, 121 Ind. 360; In re Grider's Estate, 81 Cal. 571 (22 Pac. 908) ; Grand Tower etc., Co. v. Gill, 111 111. 541; Rhett V. Jenlans, 25 S. C. 453; Stevenson w. Anderson, 87 Ala. 228; Newman v. Bk. of California, 80 Cal. 368. 2 Lenoir v. Valley River Mia. Co., 106 N. C. *73. 207 § 251 JOINT ESTATES. [PAET I. the land on a simple exclusive possession.^ To create a title by adverse possession in one co-tenant, he must not only have exchisive possession, but he must also deny the right of the others in the estate, and maintain such denial long enough for those rights to be barred by the Statute of Limitations; and this denial must expressly, or by necessary implication from its notoriety, be made known to the others. ^ Among the acts which produce such an ouster of the co-tenants, as to cause the statute to run against them, is the refusal to share in the profits, a conveyance of the entire estate to a third party who enters into possession, an entry into pos- session of parts of the estate under an agreement that this shall be a practical partition, and many other acts which are inconsistent with their joint-ownership.^ If the co- tenant in possession refuses to recognize the rights of the others, by a refusal to share in the rents and profits, or re- sistance of their right to enter into possession, they may have either trespass or ejectment at their election for 1 Cooper V. Fox (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 342. 2 Doe V. Bird, 11 East, 49; Brackett v. Norcross, 1 Me. 89; Harpend- ing V. Dutch Church, 16 Pet. 455; Willison v. Watkins, 3 Pet. 52; i/lunroev. Luke, 1 Mete. 670; Presbrey v. Presbrey, 13 Allen, 284; Roberts v. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319; JacksOn v. Tibbitts, 9 Cow. 241 ; Forward V. Deetz, 32 Pa. St. CO; Meredith b. Andres, 7 Ired. L. 5; Grayo. Givens, Riley Ch. 41; Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 15 Ala. 763; Corbin v. Cannon, 31 Miss. 570; Hoftstetteri;. Blattner, 8 Mo. 276; Owen v. Morton, 24 Cal. 377; St. Louis, etc., Ey. Co. u. Prather, 75 Tex. 53; Coogler ». Rogers, (Fla. 1890), 7 So. 391; Stoddard v. Weston, 6N. T. S. 34; English b. Ouster, 119 Ind. 93; Mayes v. Manning, 73 Tex. 43; Peck v. Lockridge, 97 Mo." 549 ; Richards v. Richards, 75 Mich. 408. 3 Thomas v. Pickering, 13 Me. 337; Bigelow v. Jones, 10 Pick. 160; Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass. 344; Jackson v. Whitbeck, 6 Cow. 632; Bogar- dus B. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 178; Rider v. March, 46 Pa. St. 380; Cullenu. Motzer, 13 Serg. & E. 366; Frederick ». Gray, 10 Serg. & R. 182; Great Falls Co. u. Worster, 15 N. H. 412; Jones v. Weathersbee, 4 Strobh. 50; Gill v. Fauntleroy, 8 B. Mon. 177; Weisinger ». Murphy, 2 Head, 674; Miller u. Miller, CO Pa. St. 10; Hinkley v. Green, 62 III. 230; MTard v. Farmer, 92 N. C. 93; Highstone v. Burdette, 61 Mich. 64 (27 N. W. 852) ; Streeter o. Shultz, 46 Hun, 406. 208 CH. VIII.] INCIDENTS COMMON TO ALL JOINT ESTATES. § 252 such ouster. 1 Neither action can be maintained against a co-tenant, as long as they both remain in possession, and the wrong complained of does not constitute a clear case of eviction or destruction of some part of the common prop erty.^ But there may be an ouster from one part of the land, while the tenant so evicted remains in possession of another part, and trespass would lie for such partial eviction.^ § 252. Adverse title acquired by one co-tenant. — So intimate is the relation of co-tenants that one cannot ac- quire by purchase an adverse and superior title, and set it up in opposition to his co-tenants, unless they refuse to contribute their share of the expense of procuring it. The title is held to be acquired by one for the benefit of all.* But one co-tenant may buy the others' interests 1 Keay ». Goodwin, 16 Mass. 1; Bennett v. Clemence, 6 Allen, 18; Erwin v. Olmstead, 7 Cow. 229; King «. Philips, 1 Lans. 421; Austin v. Rutland, etc., R. R. , 45 Vt . 215 ; McGill «. Ash, 7 Pa. St. 397 ; RlcPherson v. Seguine, 3 Dev. 163; Lawton v. Adams, 29 Ga. 273; Jones v. Chiles, 8 Dana, 163; Jones v. DeLassus, 84 Mo. 541; Frakes-B. Elliott, 102 Ind. 47; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. ». Prather, 75 Tex. 53; Southern Cotton Oil Co. V. Henshaw (Ala. 1890J, 7 So. 760. 2 Jewett V. Whitney, 43 Me, 242; Silloway v. Brown, 12 Allen, 37; Erwin v. Olmstead, 7 Cow. 229; Bennet v. Bullock, 35 Pa. St. 364; Pilbert v. Hoff, 42 Pa. St. 97. 3 Murray v. Hall, 7 C. B. 441; Bennett v. Clemence, 6 Allen, 10; Carpentier v. Webster, 27 Cal. 624. * Braintree ». Battles, 6 Vt. 395; Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Ch. Johns. 407; Wells v. Chapman, 4 Sandf. Ch. 312; Lloyd v. Lynch, 28 Pa. St. 419; Hussey v. Blood, 29 Pa. St. 319; Flagg v. Maun, 2 Sumn. 490; Venable V. Beauchamp,3 Dana, 321; Picot v. Page, 26 Mo. 398; Morgan v. Her- rick, 21 111. 481; Butler v. Porter, 13 Mich. 292; Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black, 613; Weare v. Van Meter, 42 Iowa, 128; 20 Am. Rep. 616; Fallon ■0. Chidester, 46 Iowa, 588; 26 Am. Rep. 164; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; Menteru. Durham, 13 Oreg. 470; Holterhoff v. Mead, 36 Minn. 42; Todd V. Lunt, 148 Mass. 322 ; Battin v. Woods, 27 W. Va. 58 ; Calkins ». Steinbach, 56 Cal. 117; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Prather, 75 Tex. 63; Gilchrist v. Boswick, 33 W. Va. 168; Richards v. Richards, 75 Me. 408; Moon v. Jennings, 119 Ind. 130. It is a fraud for one tenant to let the taxes remain unpaid, and then buy in the tax-title, for the purpose of 14 209 § 253 JOINT ESTATES. [PAET I. at public sale, and hold the interest so acquired ad- versely.'^ § 252a. Maintenance of actions against trespassers. — If a third person should disturb the possession of the co- tenant, whether the disturbance should amount to an ouster or only a trespass, to such an extent are the interests of the co-tenants considered to be one interest, that a single tenant may successfully prosecute the suit against such trespasser for the benefit of all, without joining the others as parties to the suit.^ § 253. Alienation of joint estates. — The co-tenants of all kinds of joint estates, except tenants in entirety, may alien their shares in the estates, without the participation or consent of the other tenants. Their deeds convey whatever interest they possess.' The same rule would ap- ply to a lease by one co-tenant. It would be valid as to every one except the co-tenants who had not joined in the lease, or authorized its execution by the tenant who did sign it.* But a lease executed by one co-tenant, with the consent of all, and as their agent, is as binding upon alias if it had been executed by all in person.^ If the co-ten- acquiring title to the whole premises. Brown v. Hogle, 30 111. 119. See Preston ». Wright, 81 Me. 306. But one co-tenant, who pays the taxes, can claim contribution against the others, and can enforce such claim by asserting a lien against the interests in the joint-estate of those who refuse to contribute. Hurley v. Hurley, 148 Mass. 444. 1 Peck V. Lockridge, 97 Mo. 540. 2 Corley v. Parton, 75 Tex. 98; Bounds v. Little, 75 Tex. 316; Voss V. King, 33 W. Va. 236. s Peabody u. Minot, 24 Pick. 329; Buttler v. Roys, 35 Mich. 63; 12 Am. Rep. 218; Brown d. Wellington, 106 Mass. 318; S Am. Rep. 300; Rector !). Waugh, 17 Mo. 13; York v. Stone, 1 Salk. 158; Simpsons. Ammons, 1 Binn. 175; Green u. Arnold, 11 R. I. 364; 23 Am. Rep. 330; Barnes v. Lynch (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 783. * Grundy i;. Martin, 143 Mass. 279; Tipping u. Robbins, 64 Wis: 546; McKinley v. Peters, 111 Pa. St. 283; Richey w. Brown, 58 Mich. 435; Omaha & Grant, etc., Co. v. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41. I « Harms v. McCormick (III. 1889), 22 N. E. 511. , 210 CH. VIII.] INCIDENTS COMMON TO ALL JOINT ESTATES. § 254 ancy is an estate-tail, the conveyance by one of the co- tenants "will under the Massachusetts statute bar the entail as effectually as a joint conveyance. ^ § 254. Waste by co-tenants. — If one co-tenant misuse or abuse the property, while in possession, he is liable to the others for waste. But as a general rule he is only liable, where the waste complained of results in an actual injury to the property'. He must do something more than exercise the rights of ownership. He may therefore be held liable for negligence in keeping up the necessary re- pairs, or doing any aflSrmative act which injures the inher- itance, such as iiowing land, pulling down houses, and the like.^ A tenant is guilty of technical waste in putting a house on the joint-estate without the consent of his co-ten- ant, and the latter can remove it from the premises without sustaining liability for doing so, if he exercise reasonable care.* If a co-tenant threatens wilf uU and malicious de- struction of the property, he may be restrained by injunc- tion.* But the tenant is under no obligation to make improvements, and if one co-tenant enters upon the laud and makes improvements, he cannot hold the others liable for their share, nor can he claim the exclusive right to these improvements. But if the repairs are necessary to prevent the property from going to decay, he may either compel the others to join him in making the repairs, or, if he has 1 Coombs V. Anderson, 138 Mass. 376. 2 Hines v. Robinson, 57 Me. 328; Hutchinson v. Chase, 39 Me. 608; Hastings o. Hastings, 110 Mass. 285; Chesley v. Thorapsoo, 3 N. H. 9; Odiorne ». Lyford, 9N. H. 502; McLellan v. Jenness, 43 Vt. 183; 5 Am. Rep. 270; Hayden.i7. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336; 8 Ara. Rep. 372; Elwell v. Burn- side, 44 Barb. 454; Anderson v. Meredith, 3 Dev. & B. 199; Farr v.. Smith, 9 Wend. 338; Hyde «. Stone, 9 Cow. 230; Harmon ?;. Gartman, Harper, 430; Shields v. Starli, 14 Ga. 429; Pightmaster v. Beasley, 7 J. J. Marsh. 410. " Bijam v. Bichford, 140 Mass. 31. * IWashb. ou Real Prop. 661; Twort v. Twort, 16 Ves. 128. See Martin v. Knowlys, 8 T. R. 146 ; Wilbraham v. Snow, 2 Saund. 47. 211 § 255 JOINT ESTATES. [PAET I. notified them that such repairs are necessary, bring an. action against them for their share of the expenses.^ It has been held in case of partition and sale he may in any case be re-imbursed out of the proceeds of sale the fair value of such improvements.^ Whenever the claim for contribution towards the expense of making the improve- ments is recognized, it is held to constitute an equitable lien on the undivided interest of the indebted co-tenant.^ § 255 . Liability of one co-tenant for rents and profits. — If one tenant cuts timber upon the land, and sells it, the co-tenants are entitled to their share of the money so re- ceived. And so also would he be liable to account for r«nts, received by him from the tenant of the land, over and above his share.* But in order that a co-tenant may be held personally liable for rent through his own use and occupa- ^ Doane ». Badger, 12 Mass. 65; Coffin v. Heath, 6 Mete. 79; Calvert ». AMricti, 99 Mass. 78; Stevens d. Thompson, 17 N. H. 109; Cheesebro o. Green, 10 Conn. 318; Mumford v. Brown, 6 Cow. 475; Scott v. Guernsey, 48 N, y. 106; Taylor v. Baldwin, 10 Barb. 582; Crest v. Jacks, 3 "Watts, 239 ; Dech's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 472 ; Israel v. Israel, 30 Md. 128 ; Ottumwa. Lodge V. Lewis, 84 Iowa, 67; Pickering u. Pickering, 63 N. H. 468; Pord «. Knapp, 102 N.T. 135(55 Am. Eep.782); Davis u. Sawyer (N. H. 1890), 20 Atl. 100; Rico Reduction, etc., Co. u. Musgrave (Col. 1890), 23 Pac. 458; Newmann ?;. Dreif urst, 9 Col. 228; Jo^inson v. Blair, 126 Pa. St. 426; Alden v. Carleton, 81 Me. 358; Redfleld v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220; Alleman. V. Hawley, 117 Ind. 532. 2 Moore v. Thorp (R. I. 1890), 19 Atl. 321. 3 Curtis u. Poland, 66 Tex. 511. ^ Miller v. Miller, 7 Pi^k. 133; Peck v. Carpenter, 7 Gray, 283; Dick- inson V. Williams, 11 Cush. 258; Gowen v. Shaw, 40 Me. 56; Webster V. Calef, 47 N. H. 289; Hayden «. Merrill, 44 Vt. 336; 8 Am. Rep. 372; Izard «. Bodine, 11 N. J. Eq. 403; Israel v. Israel, 30 Md. 126; Holmes V. Best, 68 Vt. 547; Minter v. Durham, 130 Reg. 473; Alney v. Daniels, 15 E. 1.312; Bushu. Gamble, 127 Pa. St. 43; Fulmer's Appeal, 128Pa. St. 24; Hufi V. McDonald, 22 Ga. 131 ; Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal. 414. But re- plevin would not lie between two co-tenants. Bohlen v. Arthurs, 115 U. S. 482. One co-tenant may cut the grass, growing on the common estate, sell it, and apply the profits to his own use. Brown B.Wellington, 106 Mass. 318; 8 Am. Rep. 130. See Kean v. Connely, 25 Minn. 222; 33- Am. Rep. 458. And contra, Le Barren v. Babcock, 46 Hun, 598. 212 CH. VIII. j INCIDENTS COMMON TO ALL JOINT ESTATES. § 255 tion of the land, a special agreement to that effect must be shown. An occupancy by one co-tenant without the inter- ference of the others is not sufficient. He is merely exor- cising his right of ownership.^ But the one co-tenant cannot hold exclusive possession of the estate against the others, and if he attempts it, ejectment will lie against the tenant in possession, the judgment requiring the abandonment of exclusive possession.^ And he is then liable in damages for the past exclusion of his co-tenant.^ And when a co-tenant is liable for use and occupation, the claim is personal, and is not assigned with the grant of the claimant's estate.* 1 Sargent u. Parsons, 12 Mass.' 149; Calhoun v. Curtis, 4 Mete. 413; Scots v. Guernsey, 60 Barb. 163; Kline v. Jacobs, 68 Pa. St. 67; Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90; Israel tf. Israel, 30 Md. 120; McMahon ■». Bur- chell, 2 Phil. Eq. 134; Lyles v. Lyles, 1 Hill Ch. 85; Crow v. Mark, 52 III. 382; Everts v. Beach, 31 Mich. 136; 18 Am. Rep. 169; Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal. 414. But see contra Holt ». Robertson, McMull. 475; Thompson V. Bostick, lb. 75; Hayden v. Merrill, 44 Vt. 430; 8 Am. Eep. 372; Belknap V. Belknap, 77 Iowa, 71; Sailer v. Sailer, 41 N.J. Eq. 398; Boley v. Barutls, 24 111. App. 515; s. c. 120 111. 192; Almy v. Daniels, 15 R. I. 312. And likewise, if one co-tenant plants a crop upon the common estate, it belongs to him exclusively, and his co-tenant would be liable as a tres- passer, if he appropriated it to himself. Calhoun v. Curtis, 4 Mete. 413; Bird V. Bird, 15 Fla. 424; 21 Am. Rep. 296. See Kean y. Connely, 25 Minn. -222; 33 Am. Rep. 458;Berry». Whidden, 62N. H. 473 ; Le Barren ». Bab. cock, 46 Hun, 588. 2 Jones V. De Lassus, 84 Mo. 54; Gilman v. Oilman, 111 N. Y. 266; 3 Stephenson v. Cotter, 5 N. Y. S. 749; Bowen«. Swander (Ind. 1889), 22 N. E. 725; 121 Ind. 164. *■ 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 663; Haunan v. Osborn, 44 Paige Ch. 33. The liability of a co-tenant to the others for his use and occupation of the land is in some of the States regulated by statute. WooUey v. Schrader, 116 111. 29. 213 SECTION in. PARTITION. Section 259. Definition of partition. 260. Voluntary partition. 261. Involuntary or compulsory partition. 262. Who can maintain action for partition. 263. Partial partition. 264. Manner of allotment. 265. ESect of partition. § 259. Definltioa of partition. — Partition is the act of dividing up the joint estates into estates in severalty among the co-tenants, in the proportion of their undivided shares in the joint estate. This can be done with any joint estate in possession, except estates in entirety.^ § 260. Voluntary partition. — As co-tenants of joint es- tates generally have the unrestricted power of aliening their shares in the common estate, it is possible for them to make partition of the estate by mutual conveyances to each other of their share in different parts of the estate ; that is, by dividing up the estate into several parcels, and making conveyance of one parcel to each, all joining in the deed 1 Bennetts. Child, 19 Wis. 364; 1 Waahb. on Real Prop. 673. Where there is an express condition against partition, partition cannot be had, for an attempt at it would result in a forfeiture of the estate. Hunt v. Wright, 47 N. H. 399. See Fishery. Demerson, 3 Mete. 546. But the condition must be express, and clearly manifest an intention to prevent partition. Spaulding ti. Woodward, 53 N. H. 573; 16 Am. Rep. 393. But apart from these exceptions, the general rule is, thit partition may be had in all joint-estates, joint-tenancies, as well as tenancies in common. Mitchell V. Starbuck, 10 Mass. 5; Potter v. Wheeler, 13 Mass. 604 ; Cole- man «. Coleman, 19 Pa. St. 100; Holmes ». Holmes, 2 Jones Eq. 334; Witherspoon «. Dunlap, Harper, 390; Hlgginbottom d. Short, 25 Miss. 160. 214 CH. TIII.j PARTITION. § 260 or deeds, a partition ctin be made. But in order to be effectual, ttie partition must be done by mutual deeds. If all do not join in the execution of the mutual deed, it is a nullity and those who signed are not thereby prevented from subsequently bringing the action for partition.^ But if it is a mutual deed, it cannot subsequently be revoked.^ Parol partition would be void under the Statute of Frauds. ^ Tenants in coparcenary may make an effectual partition by parol, if it is followed by actual possesion in severalty, at least in those States where tenancy in coparcenary is recog- nized.* And so, also, apparently will a parol partition be valid between joint devisees, especially where the devisor directs the division.^ But although a parol partition will not be effectual and binding upon the parties, yet if it is followed by actual possession, such partition will give to the parties the rights and incidents of exclusive possession, as long as the exclusive possession is permitted to continue. And this exclusive possession, if continued for a sufficient length of time, will ripen into an indefeasible title under the Statute of Limitations.* So, also, if one of the co-tenants. » Patterson v. Martin, 33 W. Va. 494. ' Walton V. Ambler (Neb. 1890), 45 N. W. 93X. 3 Gardiner Man. Co. v. Heald, 5 Me. 384; Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34; Dow V. Jewell IS N. H. 354 ; Wood v. Fleet, 30 N. Y. 501 ; Gratis v. Gratts, 4 Ralle, 411 ; Coles v. Wooding, 2 Patt. jr. & H. 189; Slice v. Der- rick, 2 Rich. 627; Piatt v. Hubbell, 5 Ohio, 243; Mauley «. Pettee, 38 111. 128; Wildey v. Barney's Lessee, 31 Miss. 644. Sat see contra, Aycock V. Kimbrough, 71 Tex. 330; Tate v. Foshee, 117 Ind. 322; Smith v. Cole, 39 Hun, 248. * Washb. on Real Prop. 676. 5 Knevals v. Prince, 10 N. Y. S. 676. 8 Keay v. Goodwin, 16 Mess. 1; Jackson v. Harder, 4 Johns. 202; Corbin v. Jackson, 14 Wend. 619; Gregg v. Blackmore, 10 Watts, 192; Lloyd V. Gordon, 2 Har. & McH. 254; Slice v. Derrick, 2 Rich. 627; Drane V. Gregory, 3 B. Mon. 619; Piatt v. Hubbel, 5 Ohio, 243; Wright v. Jones, 105 Ind. 17; Brazee v. Schofield, 2 Wash. 209; Campbell v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 84 Mo. 352; McKnight v. Bell (Pa 1890), 19 Atl. 1036; RouQtree ». Lane (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 941; Patterson e. Martin, 33 W. Va. 404; HamUton ». Phillips (Ga., 1889), 9 S. 215 ^ 261 PARTITION. [PAKT I. relying upon the parol partition, enters into possession, and makes extensive improvements on tiie part allotted, to him, the court, in a subsequent action for partition, in the ex- ercise of a wise discretion, may, and probably would sim- ply confirm the former parol partition, instead of making any different one.^ § 261. Involuntary or compulsory partition. — At com- mon law, no suit for partition of a joint estate could have been sustained against the will of any one of the co-tenants, except in the case of an estate in coparcenary, and it was not until the reign of Henry VIII. that any legal action was provided for compulsory partition. Statutes were then passed creating the common-law writ of partition.^ Similar statutes have been passed in the different States.^ But apart from the common-law statutory remedies, the court of chancery has, since the reign of Elizabeth, maintained jurisdiction for partition, and this is now the only remedy in England, unless recent statutes have been passed; it exists also in most, if not all, of the States.* The court E. 606. In Manley v. Pettee, 38 ni. 128, a parol partition followed by occupation, lias been lield to be effectual against creditors and pur- chasers. See Alldays v. Whittaker, 66 Tex. 669; Aycock ». Kimbrough, 71 Tex. 330. ' Wood V. Fleet, 36 N. T. 501. 2 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 651, 676; Williams on Real Prop. 103. 3 The statutes vary in detail and cannot be given here. For an excel- lent compendium of these statutes, see Mr. Washburn's note, 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 690, note ; i Kent's Com. 364. See also, generally, in refer- ence to the common-law remedy, Cook v. Allen, 2 Mass. 462; Champion v. Spence, 1 Root, 147 ; McKee v. Stranb, 2 Binn. 1 ; Witherspoon o. Dun- lap, 1 McCord, 646. ^ 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 677, 678 ; Williamson Real Prop. 103 ; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 647; Moore v. Moore, 47 N. Y. 469; Bailey v. Sissan, 1 R. I. 233; Adams v. Ames Iron Co., 24 Conn. 230; Whitton v. Whitton, 36 N. H. 326; Spitts v. Wells, 18 Mo. 468; Greenup v. Sewell, 18 111. 53. But chancery did not entertain a suit for partition U there was a dispute concerning the title. 4 Kent's Com. 665; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 678, 679; McCall's Lessee v. Carpenter, 18 How. (D. S.) 297; Hosforde. 216 •CH. VIII. j PAKTITIOK. § 262 of chancery would after examination by the master, allot particular parcels to each tenant, and make its decree effectual by compelling the parties to execute mutual deeds of conveyance. In the* proceedings at common law, the judgment of the court vested the titles in severalty in each party, without the aid of the mutual conveyance.^ The action for partition, whether it be in law or equity, is an actioii in rem, and must be brought in the county and State in which the land lies.^ § 262. Who can maintain action for partition. — Under the statute 31 Henry VIII., only tenants of a free- hold estate of inheritance were empowered to compel a partition ; but by statute 32 Henry VIII., the right was extended to tenants for life and for years, but partition between them would not affect the rights of reversioners. The general rule now is, that partition might be had be- tween the co-tenants of any joint estate except estates in entirety, who has the seisin and immediate right of posses- sion.^ But a m ortgagee of an undivided share in a joint estate cannot maintain an action for partition, even under the common-law theory of the character of a mortgagee's Merriam, 5 Barb. 51 ; Obert v. Obert, 10 N. J. Eq. 98 ; Tabler u. Wiseman, 2 Ohio St. 207; Shearer v. Winston, 33 Miss. 140. 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 678; Story's Eq. Jur., sects. 662, 654. But now in most of the States the degree in equity has the same effect as a judgment at law. Hassett v. Kidgley, 49 111. 201; Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302. 2 Bonner, Petitioner 4 Mass. 122; Peabody y. Minot, 24 Pick. 333 ; Corwithe v. Griffiing, 21 Barb. 9; Brown v. McMullen, 1 Nott & M. 252. 3 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 680; Co. Lit. 107; Mussey v. Sandborn, 15 Mass. 152; Austin v. E. E., 45 Tt. 215; Eiker v. Darkey, 4 Edw. Ch. 668; Brownwell v. Brownwell, 19 Wend. 367; Call v. Barker, 12 Me. 320; Lamdert v. Blumenthal, 26 Mo. 471; Tabler v. Wiseman, 2 Ohio St. 207; Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497; McGowan v. Eeed (S. C. 1890), 11 S. E. 685; West v. West (Ala. 1890), 7 S. O. 830; Hendershot U.Lawrence (N. J. 1890), 18 Atl. 774; Chastain v. Higdon, 84 Ga. Ill; Welch v. Agar, 84 Ga. 583; Watson v. Sutro (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. 172, equitable title. 217 § 262 PARTITION. [PAET I. interest.^ A difference in the duration of the estates of the co-tenants will not interfere with the right of partition.^ Partition, therefore, does not lie between tenants who are disseised either by a stranger or one of their own number,* or who are tenants in remainder or reversion.* The con- sent of the co-tenant or of any number of them is not required in order to secure a partition. Any one co-tenant may compel a partition by making the other co-tenants defendants.^ Demand need not be made before briuginw the suit.® And the right of partition cannot be taken away or suspended by a condition against alienation.' Partition will not be decreed where the defendants to the suit dispute the title of the plaintiff. * If the parties defendant, who 1 Bannon v. Comegys, 69 Md. 411. 2 Allen V. Libbey, 140 Mass. 82 ; Meyer v. Schurbruck, 37 La. An. 373 ; Tilton V. Vail, 53 Hun, 324. 3 Bonneck v. Kennebeck Purchase, 7 Mass. 475; Marshall v. Crehore, 13 Mete. 4G2; Hunnewell v. Taylor, 6 Cush. 472; Call u. Barker, 12 Me. 320; Miller v. Dennett, 6 N. H. 109; Brownell v. Brownell, 19 "Wend. 367; Bradshaw v. Callaghan, 8 Johns. 558; Florence v. Hopkins, 46 N. Y. 184; Clapp V. Biomagham, 9 Cow. 630; Stevens v. Enders, 1 Green (N. J.), 271; Brock v. Eastman, 28 Vt. 658; Tabler v. Wiseman, 2 Ohio St. 207; Lamdert«. Blumenthal, 26 Mo. 471; Windsor «>. Simpkins (Or. 1890), 23 Pac. 669; Criscoe v. Hambrick, 47 Ark. 235; Penton v. Steere, 76 Mich. 405; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. 273; Welch's Appeal, 126 Pa. St. 2971 But see Holloway v. HoUoway, 97 Mo. 628. * Hodgkinson, Petitioner, 12 Pick. 374; Hunnewell v: Taylor, 6 Cush. 472; Nichols v. Nichols, 28 Vt. 228; Adams v. Ames Iron Co., 24 Conn. 230; Brown v. Brown, 8 N. H. 93; Zeigler v. Grim, 6 Watts, 106; Tabler e. Wiseman, 2 Ohio St. 207; Swanson o. Calhoun, 81 Ga. 777; Woods. Sugpt, 91 N. C. 93; 49 am. Rep. 639; Osborne v. Mull, 91 N. C. 203; Ebertsu. Fisher, 54 Mich. 294; Bragg o. Lyon, 93 N. C. 151; Moore?). Shannon, 6 Mackay, 157; Appeal of Clarke (Pa. 1890), 23 Pac. 890. In New York and Illinois, there may be a partition of a vested remainder. Blakely ». Colder, 15 N. Y. 617; Hilliard v. Scoville, 52 111. 449; Hill c. Reno, 112 lU. 154; 64 Am. Rep. 222. See, also, Smalley o. Isaacson, 40 Minn. 450; Preston v. Brant, 196 Me. 556. ^ Sample v. Sample, 34 Kan. 73 ; Rohn v. Harris, 130 111. 636. " Willard v. Willard, 6 Macbey, 559. ' Whitney v. Kindall, 63 N. H. 200. 8 Peterson v. Fowler, 73 Tox. 524; Carrigan v. Evans, 31 S. C. 262: Fenton v. Steere, 76 Mich. 405; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. 278. 218 CH. VIII. J " PARTITION. § 262 dispute the title of the others, be dismissed from the suit, the partition may be decreed as to the others. A dispute over a title can not be settled in a partition suit.^ Unset- tled claims or incumbrances upon the land, or upon the share of one or more of the co-tenants, in the hands of strangers, — such as an outstanding claim of dower, or curtesy, or a mortgage of the premises, where the mortgagee is not in possession, — will not prevent the par- tition. But in order that the decree in partition shall bind the holders of these claims or incumbrances, existing at the time that the suit for partition is instituted, they must be made parties, in the absence of a statute to the con- trary.^ And if there is any owelty coming to the mortgagor co-tenant, it must be paid to the mortgagees.* If claimants upon the shares of individual co-tenants have been properly brought before the court, the decree in partition will transfer the lien of the incumbrance to the part allotted to the tenant, whose share, in the joint estate was incumbered.* The court may always, and by statute in some of the States, is obliged to, stay the decree in par- tition of any intestate's lands among the heirs, as long as 1 Peterson v. Fowle^ 73 Tex. 524; Carritran v. Evans, 31 S. C. 262; Beebe v. Louisville, etc., E. E. Co., 39 Fed. 481. But see Hay's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 110; Simmes' Heirs v. Simmes (Ky. 1889), 11 S. W. 665; Best V. Sanders, 31 S. C. 602. 2 Call V. Barker, 12 Me. 320; Purvis v. Wilson, 5 Jones L. 22; Brad- shaw w. Callaghan, 8 Johns. 558; Burhaus, 2 Barb. Ch. 398; Taj' lor v. Blake, 109 Mass. 513; Colton v. Smith, 11 Pick. 311; Mottey v. Blake, 12 Mass. 280; Harlan v. Stout, 22 Mass. 488; Kilgour v. Crawford, 51 111. 249; Butler v. Eoys, 25 Mich. 53; 12 Am. Rep. 218; DeUprey u. DeUprey, 27 Cal. 332; De La Vega v. League, 64 Tex. 205; Morse v. Stockman, 65 Wis. 36; Childs v. Hayman, 72 Ga. 791; Simpson v. Stranghen (N. J. 1890), 19 All. 667; Judgment Creditors : Ovyens v. Owens, 25 S. C. 155; Barclay!). Kerr, 110 Pa. St. 130; Widow's Dower, Appeal of Black, 130 Pa, St. 516; Claim of Curtesy: Grand Fomer, etc., Co. v. Gill, 111 111. 541; Starke. Carroll, 66 Tex. 393; McKinney v. Moore, 73 Tex. 470; Fales v. Fales, 148 Mass. 42. 3 Green v. Arnold, 11 E. I. 364; 23 Am. Eep. 466. i 1 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 682. 219 § 264 PARTITION. [PAET I. the claim of the intestate's creditors have not been duly provided for.i If the interest in the co-tenant's share is acquired after the commencement of the suit, the claimant takes the iuterest subject to the decree in partition, and need not be made a party. But all who were co-tenants at the time of bringing the suit, must be joined as parties.^ If, however, trustees, in whom the legal title of an estate in common is vested, are properly made parties, it will not be necessary to make the cestuis que trust parties.^ § 263 Partial partition. — Partition of a part of the joint estate cannot be asked for. The entire estate must be brought in for partition ; but two or more of the co- tenants may ask for a decree setting out their shares in common, and apart from the others.* This is likewise the rule where the property held as a joint estate consists of two or more parcels. If the relations of the parties are such that their rights cannot be adjusted, except by a par- tition of the entire property, the whole of it must be in- cluded in the decree.^ § 264. Manner of allotment. — Commissioners are generally appointed by the court, whose duty it is to ascer- tain the best mode of dividing up the estate among the 1 Alexander v. Alexander, 26 Neb. 68; Hendry ». HoUingdrake (R. I. 1889), 17 Atl. 50. 2 Smith !). Brown, 66 Tex. 543; Jordan v, McMllty (Colo. 1890), 23 Pac. 460; Grand u.Fomer, etc., Co. v. Gill, 111 111. 541; Stark v. Carroll, 66 Tex. 393; McKinney v. Moore, 73 Tex. 470; Fales ». Fales, 148 Mass. 42. But see Coombs v. Unknown Persons, 82 Me. 326. 3 Eailsback v. Lovejoy, 116 111. 442. But trustees are not necessary parties to a suit for partition between the beneficiaries. Welch v. Agar, S4 Ga. 583. * Smith V. Brown, 66 Tex. 643; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 679; Bigelow V. Littlefield, 52 Me. 24; Clark v. Parker, 106 Mass. 554; Ladd v. Perley, 18 N. H. 396; Colton v. Smith, 11 Pick. 511; Arms v. Lyman, 6 Pick. 210; Duncan v. Sylvester, 16 Me. 388. * Barnes v. Lynch (^Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 783. 220 CH. VIII.] PARTITION. § 264 several tenants. And in performing this duty, they are to be f^uided by tlie circumstances of each case. If there are several lots or parcels of land, one parcel may be given to each, or, if it is a single tract, it is divided up, if possible, into equal parcels ; but if in either case an equal division is impossible, the commissioner may direct the payment of a sum of money, called oioelty of partition, in order to equalize the partition.^ But the consent of the tenant, to whom the larger portion is allotted, to that mode of settle- ment must be obtained, in order to bind him. He cannot be forced to pay the owelty of partition against his will.^ And where both parties want the allotment of the larger share, a sale should be ordered of the entire property.* When a bond for owelty is given, it constitutes a lien upon the share of land which is allotted in partition to the obligor.* A court of equity may so direct partition that the tenant, who has made improvements upon the land, may get the benefit of them even where the partition is made by a sale of the premises and a distribution of the proceeds of sale.® If the estate in question is not suscepti- ble of a partition without destroying the value of the property, as where it is a mill, a wharf, and the like, the property will either be ordered to be sold, and the proceeds 1 Hagar?;. Wiswall, 10 Pick. 152; Story's Eq. Jur. 654; 1 Washb. oa Real Prop. 678; Green u. Arnold, 11 E. I. 364; 23 Am. Rep. 466; Dobbin V. Rex, 106 N. C. 444; Stannard v. Sperry, 56 Conn. 541; Haines v. Hewitt, 129 111. 347; Koehler v. Klins, 128 HI. 323; Houston v. Blythe, 71 Tex. 719. 2 "Whitney v. Parker, 63 N. H. 416. 3 Corrothers v. Jolliffe, 32 W. Va. 562, ^ Snlveley's Appeal (Pa. 1889), 18 Atl. 124; 129 Pa. St. 250; Burnside V. Watkins, 30 S. C. 459. « AUeman v. Hawley, 117 Ind. 652; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. 600; Wood V. Fleet, 36 N. Y. 501; Crafts v. Crafts, 13 Gray, 360; Robinson v. McDonald, 11 Tex. 385; Dean v. O'Meara, 47 HI. 122; Thorn v. Thorn, 14 Iowa, 55; Borah v. Archers, 7 Dana, 177; Buck v. Martin, 21 S. C. 590; 53 Am. Rep. 702; Lynch v. Lynch, 18 Neb, 586. But see, contra, Gourley v. "Woodbury," 43 t. 89. 221 § 265 PARTITION. [part I. of sale divided among the tenants according to their equi- ties, or the entire estate will be vested in one, who will then be required to pay to the others their share in money. But an actual partition is more favored, and will be or- dered, whenever practicable. If partition is made by sale between tenants, one of whom is only a tenant for life, such co-tenant becomes entitled only to the income during his life from the sum of money allotted to him as his share in the proceeds of sale.^ § 265. Effect of partition. — Partition, when com- pleted, vests in each tenant an estate in severalty in the part or parcel allotted to him by agreement of the parties, , or by the decree of the court ; and the parties cease to be co-tenants. But if the partition is made by the decree of a court, there is a sufficient privity of estate remaining be-. tween them, as to make the loss by one tenant, of the part allotted to him, through the enforcement of a superior title, a burden upon all. In compulsory partition, each tenant becomes a warrantor of the titles of the others to the extent of his share. And if one is ousted of his share by the claim of a superior title, lie may enter upon the share of the others, and ask for a new partition of what remains of the original joint estate.^ But if the parti- i Exp. Winstead, 92 N. C. 703; Miller v. Miller, 13 Pick. 237; Adams V. Briggs Iron Co., 7 Gush. 361; King v. Keed, II Gray, 490; Wood v. Little, 35 Me. 107; Morrill v. Morrill, 5 N. H. 134; Crowell v. Woodbury, 52 N. H. 613; Conaut v. Smith, 1 Aik. (Vt.) 67; Hills v. Dey, 14 Wend. 204 ; Belknap v. Trimble, 3 Paige Cb. 577 ; Royston v. Eoyston, 13 Ga. 425; Higsinbottom v. Short, 25 Miss. 160; McGUlivray v. Evans, 27 Gal. 96; David v. David, 9 N. Y. S. 256; Smith v. Upton (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 721; Foster u. Roche, 117 N. Y. 462; Allard v. Carledon, 64 N. H. 24; Wrenn v. Gibson (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 766; Bruhn v. Fireman's Bldg. Assn. (La. 1890), 7 So. 556; Durruty v. Musacchia (La. 1890), 7 So. 555; Vail V. Vail, 52 Hun, 520; Corrothers v. JoUiffe, 32 W. Va. 562; Tyler v. Jewell (Ky. 1889), 11 S. W. 25; Eohn v. Harris, 130 111. 525. * 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 689; Co. Lit. 178 b; Feather v. Stroliecker, 8 Pa. St. 505. See Campan v. Bernard, 25 Mich. 382; Huntley v. Cline, 222 CH. VIII. J PAETITION. § 265 tion is by mutual deeds of release, there will be no claim for compensation, unless the partition was tainted with fraud. ^ For this reason, and perhaps for others, it is impossible for one, who has been a co-tenant, to acquire, by purchase after pai-tition, a superior title to the joint estate which he may enforce against his former co-tenants. They may claim the benefit of such purchase by contribut- ing their share of the price or consideration, in the same manner as before partition; and it would seem that this would be the case, whether the partition was voluntary or involuntary .2 93 N. C. 458. But the purchaser from the tenant cannot make the same claim for a repartition. Ketchin v. Patrick (S. C. 1890), 11 S. E. 301. 1 Weiser v. Weiser, 5 Watts, 279; Beardslee v. Knight, 10 Vt. 185. But wliere it is necessary that all should join in an action on the cove- nant of warranty in the conveyance to them, the one who has lost his estate may call upon the others to join him in the action against their common warrantor. Sawyers v. Cater, 8 Humph. 256 ; Dugan v. Hol- lins, i Md. Ch. 139; 4 Kent's Com. 470. But now, a tenant in common may sue alone on the general covenant of warrantry where the breach affects him alone. Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 322 ; 8 Am. Rep. 426. 2 Venable v. Beauchamp, 3 Dana, 326 ; Co. Lit. 174 a ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 688. 223 OHAPTEE IX. ESTATES UPON CONDITION AND LIMITATION, AND CONDI- TIONAL LIMITATIONS. Section 271. Definition of an estate upon condition. 272. Words necessary to create an estate upon condition. 273. Conditions precedent and subsequent, further distin- guished. 274. Invalid conditions — Impossibility of performance. 275. Invalid conditions — Because of illegality. 276. The time of performance. 277. The effect of the breach of the condition. 278. Waiver of performance. 279. Equitable relief against forfeiture. 280. Estates upon condition, distinguished from trusts. 281. Same — From estates upon limitation, and conditional limitations. § 271. Definition of an estate upon condition. — This estate is one which is made to vest, to be modified or de- feated, upon the happening or not happening of some event. ^ If the estate is to be created or enlarged ^ upon the performance of the condition, and not before, it is called a condition precedent; if the condition is to defeat or limit an estate already vested, it is a condition subsequent. Con- ditions are also divided into express and implied. An express condition is, as its name implies, one which is ex- pressly created in the instrument, which limits the estate to which the condition is annexed, and is otherwise called a condition in deed; while an implied condition is not ex- pressly declared, but arises by implication of law, and is generally annexed to certain estates as an invariable inci- 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 2; Co. Lit. 201 a. Frank v. Frank (Pa.), IT Atl. Rep. 11. 2 See Thayer v. Spear, 68 Vt. 327. 224 CH. IX.] ESTATES UPON CONDITION. § 272 dent.^ The annexation of a condition to an estate does not affect the grantee's power of enjoyment of the land,^ or prevent its alienation or disposition by devise. The only effect is, that the alienee or devisee takes the estate sub- ject to the possibility of forfeiture by a failure to perform the condition.^ Nor does the presence of the condition alter the character of the estate, that is, determine whether it is a freehold, or not. Thus an estate to A. for fifty years, provided he lives so long, is a leasehold, and an estate to A. for life, provided he does not live longer than fifty years is a life estate, notwithstanding the first is to terminate with his life, even though the fifty years have not expired, and the second is to terminate with the expiration of the fifty years, although he is still alive.* § 272. Words necessary to create an estate npon con- dition. — No particular words or forms of expression are really necessary for the creation of such an estate. Any words, particularly in wills, which show the intention to annex a condition to the estate granted, will be sufficient. Such phrases, however, as " on condition," " provided," "if it shall so happen," etc., are found in constant use, and if resorted to, will ordinarily remove any doubt as to the grant being an estate upon condition.* As intimated, 1 Washb. on Keal Prop. 3; Co. Lit. 201 a; Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dor- rance, 3 Dall. 317. 2 N. J. Zinc and Iron Co. v. Morris, etc., Co. (N. J.), 15 Atl. 227. 3 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 23; Wilson v. Wilson, 38 Me. 18; Underhill V. Saratoga and Washington E. E. Co., 20 Barb. 45; Taylor v. Sutton, 15 Ga. 103; Munroe v. Hall, 97 N. C. 206. ^ 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 23; Co. Lit. 42 a; Ludlow v. New York, etc., E. E. Co., 12 Barb. 440. » 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 3 ; Vander's Est., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 482 ; Miller v. Board of Supervisors (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 429; Cullen«. Sprigg, 83Cal. 56; 23 Pac. ,222; Wilkesbarre v. Wyoming, etc., Soc. (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 809; Goodpaster v. Leathers (Ind. 1890), 23 N. B. 1090. But it must be ex- pressed In the deed; it cannot be created by parol. Marshall, etc., School V. Iowa, etc., School, 28 Iowa, 360. Hall v. Horton (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. 15 225 § 273 ESTATES UPON CONDITION. [PART I. it is more difficult in devises, than in grants, to determiue whether they are conditional, and even such phrases, as those above mentioned, in the case of devises do not neces- sarily create an estate upon condition, if from the context the testator appears to have had a contrary intention.^ It has also been held lately that, where a tract of land was conveyed to the county, in consideration of the permanent removal of the county seat to the town in which the land conveyed was situated, there is no condition subsequent, which becomes broken by a removal of the county seat many years afterwards.^ The same conclusion is reached in other cases, where the special consideration of the conveyance has failed.^ § 273. Conditions precedent and subsequent, further distinguished. — It is not always an easy matter to deter- mine in a given case whether a condition is precedent or subsequent. It is clear that in a grant to A. upon his mar- riage, or in a lease for ten years, and if he p;'.ys a certain sum of money, then to him and his heirs forever, the con- ditions are precedent ; or that in a grant to A. for life, provided she remains a widow, or a grant in fee with a rent reserved, with right of entry upon failure to pay, they are conditions subsequent. But in wills, particularly, great 569. If the right of entry is reserved for the breach of a covenant in the deed, it gives to the covenant the character of a condition and converts the estate into an estate upon condition. Moore v. Pitts, 53 N. Y. 85; Ayer v. Emery, 14 Allen, 69; Kawson v. Uxbridge, 7 Allen, 125; Waters ». Breden, 70 Pa. St. 235; Wheeler v. Walker, 2 Conn. 201; Supervisors, etc., V. Patterson, 50 III. 119; Berryman v. Schumacher, 67 Tex. 312. But see Ealey v. County of Umantllla (Oreg.), 13 Pac. Rep. 890. See post, sect. 863. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4. See Wheeler v. Walker, 2 Conn. 201; Hayden v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. 528; Austin «. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 215; Stuyvesant v. Mayor of N. Y., 11 Paige Ch. 427; Lindsey ». Lindsey, 45 Ind. 552. 2 Sumner «. Darnell (Ind. 1891), 27 N. E. 162. ' Ruggles V. Clare (Kan. 1891), 26 Pac. Rep. 25. 226 CH. IX.] ESTATES UPON CONDITION. § 273 difEcuKy is sometimes experienced in reiicliing a definite conclusion on this point. Tiie construction is, of course, governed by the intention of the grantor or devisor, as ob- tained from the instrument of conveyance. Perhaps the rule for the determination of the character of a condition is best expressed in the words of the court in the case cited below, viz.: " If the act or condition required do not nec- essarily precede the vesting of the estate, but may accom- pany or follow it, and if the act may as well be done after, as before the vesting of the estate; or if, from the nature of the act to be performed, and the time required for its performance, it is evidently the intention of the parties that the estate shall vest, and the grantee perform the act, after taking possession, then the condition is subsequent."^ But while the courts are inclined, in any case of doubt, to treat the condition as subsequent, yet a stricter rule of construc- tion is applied than if the condition is precedent. It must be created by express limitation, or arise by necessary implication, in order to work a forfeiture of an estate already vested.^ And if the performance of the condition is not 1 UnderhiU v. Saratoga and Wasbington R. R. Co., 20 Barb. 455. See also Fialay v. King's Lessee, 3 Pet, 340; Taylor tJ.MaxoD, 9 Wheat. 325; Hayden v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. 528; Marwick v. Andrews, 25 Me. 525; Austin V. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 215; Wheeler v. Walker, 2 Conn. 201; Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y. 100; Barruss v. Madan, 2 Johns. 145; Horsey v. Horsey, 4 Harr. 517; Waters v. Bieden, 70 Pa. St. 235; Jones v. Walker, 13 B. Mon. 1G3; Huntw. Beeson, 18 Ind. 382; Jones e. Doe, 2 111. 276; Rogan?;. Walker, 1 Wis. 527; Barksdale u. Elam, 80 Miss. 694; Monroe v. Bowen, 26 Mich. 52^; Farabow v. Green, 108 Si. C. 339, where condition enlarged a life estate into a fee; Stanton d. Allen (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 878; Blanchard v. Morey, 56 Vt. 170, a case of con- dition precedent; Morse v. Hayden, 82 Me. 227; Wahl's Estate, 8 Pa. Co. C. 309; Johnson v. Warren, 74 Mich. 491; Robertson v. Mowell, 66 Ind. 5G5, condition precedent ;,Burleyson ti. Whitley, 97 N. C. 295, condition precedent; Barnet v. Barnet, 43 N. J. Eq. 297, precedent; Reuff v. Cole- man's Heirs, 30 W. Va. 171 ; Howard v. Wheatley, 15 Lea, C07 ; Weinreich V. Weinreich, 18 Mo. App. 364; Chute v. Washburn, 44 Minn. 312. 2 Labereet). Carleton,53 Me. 213; Merrifleld u. Cobleigh, 4 Cush, 178; Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick, 389; Iloyt v. Kimball, 49 N. H. 327; Ludlow . 227 § 275 ESTATES UPON CONDITION. [PART I. expressly imposed upon the heirs and assigns, its breach will not work a forfeiture, if the estate has previously descended to the heirs, or has been conveyed away. In such a case, the estate cannot be forfeited for any breach of the condi- tion, occurring after the grantee has parted with the estate.^ § 274. Invalid conditions — Impossibility of perform- ance. — If the condition is impossible from the beginning, and is for that reason manifestly absurd, or becomes impos- sible though the act of the grantor, or by the act of God or inevitable accident, the performance will be excused, and the condition held void. Its invalidity, however, would have a different effect upon the estate, according as it is a condi- tion precedent or subsequent. If the condition is prece- dent, the estate will fail, just as if the condition was valid and had been broken.^ But if it is a condition subsequent, its invalidity would destroy the right of entry and forfeiture in the grantor, and leave the estate in the grantee absolute and free from the condition.^ § 275. Invalid conditions — Because of illegality. — Similar effects would be produced, if the condition is invalid, because of its illegality. A condition is illegal, whenever it involves the performance of an act prohibited by law. Thus a condition, that the grantee shall commit a (/. N. T. and Harlem R. E. Co., 12 Barb. 440; Martin v. Ballou, 13 Barb. 119; McWilllams v. Nisley, 2 Serg. & R. 523; McKelway «. Seymour, 29 N. J. L. 322; Gadberry v. Sheppard, 27 Miss. 203; Voris v. Renshaw, 49 111. 432; Board, etc., v. Trustees, etc., 63 111. 204. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 7, 8; Emerson v. Simpson, 43 N. H. 475; Page V. Palmer, 48 N. H. 385. 2 Co. Lit. 206; Harvey v. Aston, 1 Atk. 374; Taylors. Mason, 9 Wheat. 325 ; Martin u. Ballou, 13 Barb. 1 10 ; Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 317; Mizell v. Burnett, 4 Jones L. 249. 3 Co. Lit. 206 a; "Walker (Am. Law), 298; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429; Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. 324; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 489; Blackstone Bank D. Davis, 12 Pick. 42; Badlam«. Tucker, 1 Pick. 284; Mer- rill V. Emery, 10 Pick. 507; Taylor v. Sutton, 15 Ga. 103; Jones v. Doe, 2 111.276; Gadberry v. Sheppard, 27 Miss. 203. 228 CH. IX. J ESTATES UPON CONDITION. § 275 murder or any other crime, would be void; and, if it is a condition subsequent, the grantee would take an absolute estate. The illegal conditions, most commonly met with, iire those restr icting marriage and the alienation of a fee simple estate by the grantee. An absolute restriction of that kind would be just as invalid as the condition to com- mit a crime. ^ But where an estate is granted to a widow during widowhood, it being an estate upon limitation and not an estate upon condition, it is a good limitation, and the estate will terminate upon her marriage.^ But if the devise is for life, or during widowhood, having first given her an es- tate for life, the subsequent limitation durijig widowhood operates as a condition ; it must be construed to be a condi- tion and for that reason has been sometimes held to be void, but not always.^ The general rule is that if the restriction 1 Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429; Mumoe v. Hall, 97 N. C. 206; Phillips V. Ferguson (Va.), 8 S. E. Eep. 241; Myers v. Bentz, 127 Pa. St. 222; Mclntyre o. Mclntyre, 123 Pa. St. 323; Hartman v. Herblne, 7 Pa. C. C. 630; Lloyd v. Mitchell, 130 Pa. St. 205; Halladay v. Sticliler, 78 Iowa, 388; Farris v. Rogers (Ky. 1888), 7 S. W. Rep. 543; Pepper's Appeal, 120 Pa. St. 235; Anglesea v. Church Wardens, 6 Q. B. 114; 'Willis v. Hiscox 4 M}lQe& Cr. 197; Hall v. Tuftts, 18 Pick. 455; Blackstone Bank «. Davis, 21 Pick. 42; Scherraerhorn u. Myers, 1 Denlo, 448; DePeysteru. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467; Taylor v. Suttin, 15 Ga. 103; Gadburry v. Sheppard, 27 Miss. 203; Bertie B. Falkland, 2 Freem. 222; Walker v. Vincent, 17 Harris, 369; Williams v. Cowdeu, 13 Mo. 211 ; Allen v. Craft, 109 Ind. 476; Greene v. Greene, 125 N. Y. 506; Stansbury v. Hubner, 73 Md. 228. 2 Co. Lit. 42 a; ante, sect. 60; Harmon v. Brown, 58 Ind. 207; Cop- page V. Alexander's Heirs, 2 B. Mon, 113; Boylan b. Deinzer, 45 N. J. Eq. 485; Little v. Giles, 25 Neb. 313; Schreiner v. Smith, 38 Fed. Eep. 897; Traphagen v. Levy, 45 N. J. Eq. 448; Best v. Best (Ky.), 11 S. W. Rep. ■600 ; Long v. Paul, 127 Pa. St. 456 ; Levengood v. Hopple (Ind.) , 24 N. E. Eep. 373; Brotzman's App. (Pa.), 19 Atl. Rep; 564; Siddons v. Cockrell, 111. 1890), 23 N. E. Rep. 586; Harmon v. Dyer (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. Rep. 774; Myers v. Adler, 6 Mackey, 515; Rowland v. Rowland (S. C. 1888), 6 S. E. 902; Squier v. Harvey (R. I. 1888), 14 Atl. 862; Beshore v. Lytle, 114 Ind. 8; Summit v. Yount, 109 Ind. 506; King v. G'rant, 55 Conn. 166; McGuire's Appeal (Pa. 1887), 11 Atl. Rep. 72; Knight v. Mahoney et al, . 152 Mass. 523. 3 Lloyd 0. Lloyd, 2 Sim. (n. s.), 255; Binnermau v. Weaver, 8 Md. 517; Coon v. Bean, 69 Ind. 474; Stillwelli). Kaapper, 69 Ind. 558; 35 Am. 229 § 275 ESTATES UPON CONDITION. [PAET I. against alienation or marriage is only for a limited period, as during minority or coverture, or if it is directed only against certain persons, as that the grantee shall not alien to, or marry, a certain named person or class of persons, it is a good condition and can be enforced.^ So, also, is a general restriction of alienation valid, where the land is conveyed to charitable uses. ^ A condition, restraining the alienation of a life estate or one for years, is valid, even though it is absolute both as to the persons and time.^ The statute quia' emptor es, which made conditions in re- straint of alienation void, only applied to estates in fee.* So also will a condition be V(jid, which defeats the estate if it is appropriated to the payment of the grantee's debts.* But an estate may be limited to determine upon the insol- vency or bankruptcy of the grantee; in such a case, how- ever, tlie estate would be one upon limitation and not upon condition.^ It may be added finally, that a condition is never illegal because the prohibited act or deed is itself lawful. Thus a condition against the sale of intoxicatinor Rep. 24:0; contra, Walsh v. Mathews, 11 Mo. 131; Diimey v. Schaeffer, 24 Mo. 170; see Martin v. Seigler (S. C), 10 S. E. Rep. 1073; Greenlialgh D. Marggi-af (1890), 7 N. Y. S. Rep. 728. '■ Co. Lit. 223 a; 2 Washb. ou Real Prop. 9; Hunt v. Wright, 47 N. H. 396; Plumb D. Tobbs, 41 N. Y. 442; Mc Williams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & R. 513; Schackleford 1). Hall, 19 III. 212; Attwater, 18 Beav. 330; Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82; Stewart v. Brady, 3 Bush. 623; Reuff v. Coleman's Heirs, 30 W. Va. 171. -But see Greene v. Greene, 125 N. Y. 506. 2 Butterfleld v. Wilton Academy (Iowa), 38 N. W. Rep. 390; Bennett V. Washington Cemetery, 26 Abb. N. C. 459. But the restriction will not be presumed from the declaration of the trusts. Fewbold v. Gleun (Md.), 10 Atl. 242; Gage v. School District No. 7 (N. H.), 9 Atl. Rep. 387. 3 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 118, 507; 1 Cruise Dig. 108; see ante, sects. 64, 182. * CrisswelliJ. Grumbling, 107 Pa. St. 408; Hayes v. Davis, 105 N. C. 482; Reynolds v. Crispin (Pa. 1887), 11 Atl. Rep. 236; Chautauqua Assembly v. Ailing^ 46 Hun, 582. " Brandon u. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429; Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 21 Pick. 42; Wellingtons. Jauvrin, 60 N. H. 174; McCormick, etc., Machine Co. V. Gates (Iowa, 1888), 39 N. W. 657. ' See post, sect. 503. 230 CH. JX.J ESTATES UPON CONDITION. § 277 1 liquor on the premises sold and granted, is legal even though the sale of liquor is not generally prohibited by law in the State in which the question arises. ^ It is also per- missible to convey an estate upon condition, that the grantor does not revoke the conveyance during her life.^ But this would more properly be described as a power of revoca- tion.* § 276. The time of performance. — If there is a time specitied, withiu which the condition is to be performed, it cannot be performed afterwards. Where there is no ex- press specification of time, it must be determined from the apparent intention of the grantor or testator, as gathered from the context and the nature of the condition. Gener- ally, if the time of performance is not limited, the grantee has his whole life in which to perform. But if a prompt performance appears to have been intended from the use of words in the present tense, or if in any other way an im- mediate performance is indicated ; or if an early perform- ance is necessary, in order that the grantor may obtain the expected benefit, the grantee has only a reasonable time in which to perform. Thus, where an estate was conveyed upon condition, that the grantee should pay a certain mort- gage upon the estate, a prompt compliance with the con- dition was held necessary.* § 277. The effect of a breach of the condition. — If it is a condition precedent, the failure to perform will prevent the estate from taking effect. But if it is a condition subse- quent, the estate is defeated only at the election of the 1 Smith V. Barrie, 56 Mich. 314. 2 Eecketts v. Louisville, etc., Ey. Co. (Ky. 1891), 15 S. W. 182. » See post, § 560. * Co. Lit. 208 b; Finlay v. King's Lessee, 3 Pet. 374; Hayrlen v. StonshLon, 5 Pick. 528; Ross v. Tremain, 2 Mete. 495; Alien v. Howe, 105 Mass. 241; Williams v. Angell, 7 E. I. 152; Stuyvesant v. Mayor of N. T., 11 Paige Ch. 425; Nlcoll v. N. Y. & Erie R. R., 13 N. Y. 121; Hafti- iltou V. Elliot, 5Serg. & K. 375. 2;]i § 277 ESTATES UPON CONDITION. [PART I. parties who can take advantage of the breach. i But where the condition is a double contingency, the breach of which cannot be claimed unless both contingencies occur, the happening of one of them will not have any effect upon the estate to which the condition is attached. ^ At common law it was necessary for such a party to enter upon the es- tate, in order to work a forfeiture. It could not be effected by bringing an action for the recovery of the possession. This rule has been somewhat changed, so that at the present time the ordinary action of ejectment would have the same effect as the common-law entry .^ Where the grantor is al- ready in possession, the forfeiture is effected without any overt act.* This right of entryneed not be expressly reserved where the condition is express. It follows as a necessary incident to the condition and passes with the land, into whosesoever hands it may come.^ The enforcement of the forfeiture does not depend upon any previous demand of 1 The breach of the condition does not alone defeat the estate. Web- ster V. Cooper, 14 How. 501; Talman v. Snow, 35 Me. 342; King's Chapel ». Pelham, 9 Mass. 501; Hubbard ». Hubbard, 97 Mass. 192; Willard v. Henry, 2 N. H. 120; Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 477; Lud- low V. N. Y. & Harlem R. R., 12 Barb. 440; Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., i Gill & J. 121; Phelps u. Chesson, 12 Ired. 194; Vail ^. Long Island R. Co., 106 N. T. 283; Berryman v. Schumacher, 67 Tex. 312. 2 Forsyth v. Forsyth (N. Y.), 19 All. Rep. 119; Morse v. Church, 15 E. I. 336. 3 See 1 Prest. Est. 46, 48, 50; Co. Lit. 201 a; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 13; Goodright u. Cator, Dougl. 485; Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Saund. 287 c, note; 1 Smith Ld. Cas. 89; Doe v. Masters, 2 B. & C. 490; Jones v. Carter, M. & W. 718; Osgood v. Abbott, 68 Me. 73; Sperry v. Sperry, 8 N. H. 77; McKelway v. Seymour, 29 N. J. L. 329; Jackson v. Crysler, 1 Johns. 125; Tonde v. Sage, 46 Barb. 123; Green v. PettingUl, 47 N. H. 375; Austin v. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 224; Stearns v. Harris, 8 Allen, 598; Phelps v. Chesson, 12 Ired. L. 194; Chalker ». Chalker, 1 Conn. 79. ' Guffey V. Hukill (W. Va.), 11 S. E. 760; Witte v. Quinn, 38 Mo. App. 681. * Osgood V. Abbott, 58 Me. 73; Gray Blanchard, 8 Pick. 284; Jack- son V. AUer, 3 Cow. 220; Jackson, «. Topping, 1 Wend. 388; Bowen v. Bowen, 18 Conn. 536; Wheeler v. Walker, 2 Conn. 201. 232 CH. IX.] ESTATES UPON CONDITION. § 277 the performance of the condition. The grantee should per- form without any demand or notice.^ Conditions are reserved only to the grantor and his heirs. They cannot be reserved for the benefit of third persons. As a general rule, therefore, only the grantor and his heirs have a right to ■tenter upon condition broken, and they lose their rights if they should convey away the reversion in them. The right of entry is not an estate, not even a possibility of reverter; it is simply a cliose in action? And although it has been held that an express condition can be devised with the re- version, and the devisee and his heirs enter for the breach,^ yet such a condition cannot be aliened or assigned, and does not pass with a grant of the reversion.* This rule against assignment of the right of entry was restricted by the statute, 32 Hen. VIII., ch. 34, to freehold estates upon con- dition, thus enabling the assignees of the reversion to enforce the forfeiture of leasehold estates for the breach of the condition.^ But if it be a condition in law, or an 1 Royal V. Aultman-Taylor Co., 116 Ind. 424. 2 Shulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 346; Hooper v. Cummlngs, 45 Me. 359; Gray v. Blanohard, 8 Pick. 284; Merritt v. Harris, 102 Mass. 328; Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y. 103; De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. y. 606; Fonda v. Sage, 46 Barb. 122; Michal u. N. Y. & Erie R. R., 12 N. Y. 132; Cross v. Carson, 8 Blackf. 138; Co. Lit. 201 a, Butler's note, ^4; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 13-15; Hayward v. Kinney, 84 Mich. 501. 2 This appears to be a local rule in Massachusetts. Hayden v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. 628; Clapp v. Stoughton, 10 Pick. 463; Austin v. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 215. See contra, Avelyn v. Ward, 1 Ves. Sr. 422; Southard ». Central R. R., 26 N.J. L. 21; Cornelius v- Ivins, 26 N. J. L. 386. See also Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. (U. S.) 501 ; Nicoll v. N. Y. & Erie R. R., 12 N. Y. 121 ; Henderson u. Hunter, 59 Pa. St. 341 ; Jones o. Roe, 3 T. R. 88. « Co. Lit. 214 a; Hooper v. Cummings, 45 Me. ,359; Gray v. Blanch- ard, 8 Pick. 284 ; Guild v. Richards, 16 Gray, 309 ; Gibert v. Peteler, 38 JSf. Y. 165; NichoU v. N. Y. & Erie R. R., 12 Barb. 461; s. c. 12 N. Y. 132; Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 478; Norris v. Milner, 20 Ga. 563; Torop W.Johnson, 3 Ind. 343; Cross v. Carson, 8 Blachf. 138; Smith v. Brannan, 13 Cal. 107; Hayward v. Kinney, 84 Mich. 591. 5 Co. Lit. 215a; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 476; Fenn ». Smart, 12 East. -444; Lewes v. Ridge, Cro. Eliz. 863; Nicoll v. N. Y. & Erie R. R., 12 233 § 278 ESTATES UPON CONDITION. [PART 1. implied condition, ttie right of entry was always assign- able, it being considered more in the nature of an incident to the right of property, than a separate and indepen- dent chose in action.^ But the condition cannot be apportioned between two or more assignees of separate portions of the reversion, and it will be destroyed by such dissection of the reversion.^ If the grantor is in possession of the property at the time of the breach, no act of entry is required of him, in order to defeat the estate. But if he is out of possession, he must enter, or do acts equivalent to entry, with the express intention of thereby working a for- feiture. Entry without such an. intention would have no effect.^ The right of entry may be exercised, even though the breach of the condition has woi-ked no material injury to the grantor. And he can exercise it, notwithstanding he may have other equally effective remedies.* § 278. AVaiver of performance. — If the party, who is entitled to the right of entry, waives the performance bj' an actual release of the condition or by an express license, the condition is gone, and he cannot take advantage of any subsequent breach. But a mere acquiescence, without ac- tual license, would only constitute a waiver of the present Barb. 461; s. e. 12 N. Y. 132; Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. T. 102; Burden o. Thayer, 3 Mete. 76; Trask v. Wheeler, 7 Allen, 111; Plum- leigh V. Cook, 13 111. 669. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 13; Co. Lit. 214. 2 Co. Lit. 215 a; Taylot's L. & T., sect. 296; Wright o. Burroughs, 3 Mann. Gr. & S. 700; Doe v. Lewis, 5 Ad. & El. 277; s. c. 31 Eng. C. L. 277; Cruger v. McLaury, 41 N. Y. 225. 3 Andrews^. Senter, 32 Me. 394; Willard u. Henry, 2 N. H. 120; Rol- lins V. Riley, 44 N. H. 13; Bowea v. Bowen, 18 Conn. 535; Hamilton v. Elliott, 5 Serg. & R. 375; Kicliter v. Richter, 111 Ind. 456. And where he is in possession, his retention of possession after the breach will not necessarily work a forfeiture. He may, even under such circumstances, ■waive the breach, and thus prevent a forfeiture. Guild v. Richards, 16 Gray, 317; Hubbard u. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 192. * Gray v. Blauchard, 8 Pick. 284; Stuyvesant v. Mayor of N. Y , U Paige Ch. 414; Washb. on Real Prop. 17, 18. 234 CH. IX. J ESTATES UPON CONDITION. § 278 breach, and the right of entry for subsequent breaches would survive. 1 This waiver may result from acts, as well as from agreements. Thus if there is a condition attached to a lease against its assignment, the subsequent acceptance of rent from the assignee, or the beginning of an action for rent accruing after the breach, will constitute a waiver of the breach.^ But mere delay in making the entry will not have the effect of a waivci', unless such apparent acquies- cence is sufficient to induce the grantee to incur expenses, and the subsequent exercise of the right of entry would in consequence work a leg.il fraud upon him. Thus, where in a grant to a railroad the condition was, that the road should be finished within a certain time, the grantor stood by and acquiesced in the continuance of the work after the expira- tion of the time stipulated, and the right of entry was held to be waived under the doctrine of estoppel. But, except in special cases like this, only affirmative acts and express agreements by the grantor will have the effect of a waiver.'' 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 19; Co. Lit. 211 b; Andrews v. Senter, 32 Me. 397; Gray v. Blanchard, 8 Pick. 284; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 192; Doe v. Gladwin, 6 Q. B. (51 Eng. C. L.) 953; Guild v. Richards, 16 Gray, 326; Doe v. Jones, 5 Excli. 498; Doe v. Peels, 1 B. & Ad. (20 Eng. C. L.) 428 ; Ctialker v. Ciialker, 1 Conn. 79 ; Jackson v. Crysler, 1 Johns. 126; Gluck v. Elkan, 36 Minn. 80. 2 Hubbard v. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 192; Coon v, Brecket, 2 N. H. 153; Chalker v. Chalker, 1 Conn. 79; Jaclcsonc. Crysler, 1 Johns. 126; Crouch V. Wabash, etc., E. R. Co., 22 Mo. App. 315. But it has been held, and perhaps it is the better opinion, that in order that the acceptance of rent may constitute a waiver of forfeiture for non-payment of rent, it must be rent accruing after the breach. Jackson v. Allen, 3 Cow. 220; Hunter ?7. Osterhoiit, 11 Barb. 33; Price tj. Worwood, 4 H. & N. 512; Green's Case, Cro. Eliz. 1; s. c. 1 Leon. 262. See Downes v. Turner, 2 Salk. 597; Dumpor'sCase, 4 Rep. 119; ». c. 1 Smith's Ld. Cas. note; Horn o. Peterer, 16 Mo. App. 438; Silva v. Campbell, 84 Cal. 420. ' Dudlow V. N. Y. & Harlem R. E., 12 Barb. 440. See Williams v. Da- kin, 22 Wend. 209; Jackson v. Crysler, 1 Johns. 126; Sharon Iron Co. v. City of Erie, 41 Pa. St. 349; Grayu. Blanchard, 8 Pick. 284; Doeu. Glad- win, 6 Q. B. (61 Eng. C. L.) 953; Doe ». Beck, 1 B. & Ad. (20 Eng. C. L.) 428; Doe v. Jones, 5 Exch. 498; Duffleld ». Hue, 129 Pa. St. 94; Young V. Gav, 41 La. An. 758. 235 § 279 ESTATES UPON CONDITION. [pART I. But the waiver of a condition precedent cannot have the effect of passing to the grantee the title of the land. The grantee can under the same deed only acquire the title by the performance, of the condition precedent, its perform- ance is not a conveyance.^ ' .However effective a waiver of entry for forfeiture may have upon the condition, it would have no effect upon the right of action for the breach of a covenant , which is caused by the same act which constituted a breach of the condition.^ § 279. Equitable relief against forfeiture. — As a gen- eral proposition, equity will neither relieve against, nor enforce a forfeiture. It simply leaves the parties to their remedies at law. Where the breach is the result of an un- looked-for accident, and where the damages resulting there- from can be accurately estimated by the court, as where the condition calls for the payment of a sum of money at a particular time, it may be a mortgage, or a rent re- served, equity will prevent a forfeiture and decree, instead thereof, as compensation in damages, the payment of the sum of money, together with interest for the time which has elapsed.^ But if the condition be some act, collateral to the grant, and one which cannot be estimated in damages, as where the condition is to repair, or against the acquisi- tion of rights of easement by third parties; or where the breach is not the result of inevitable accident, but is will- fully or negligently committed, equity will not interfere.* ^ Johnson v. Warren (Mich. 1888), 42 N. W. Rep. 74. 2 Spencer v. Dougherty, 23 111. App. 399. 3 Goodtitle v. Holdfast, 2 Strange, 900; Hill v. Barclay, 18 Ves. 56; Stone D. Ellis, 9 Cush. 95; Atkins u. Chilson, 11 Mete. 112; Hancock ». Carlton, 6 Gray, 39; Bethlehem v. Annis, 40 N. H. 34; City Bank v. Smith, 3 Gill & J. 265; Skinner «. Dayton, 2 Johns. Ch. 526; Warner «. Bennett, 31 Conn. 478; Williams v. Angell, 7 R. I. 152,- Beaty ». Harkey, 2 Smed. & M. 563. •> Hill V. Barclay, 18 Ves. 56; Descarlett«. Dennett, 9 Mod. 22; Elliott V. Turner, 13 Sim. Ch. 485; Wafer v. Mocato, 9 Mod. 112; Reynolds «. 236 CH. IX.] LIMITATION AND CONDITIONAL LIMITATIONS. § 281 § 280. Estate upon condition distinguished from trusts. — It is sometimes difficult in devises, to ascertain whether the testator intended to create an estate upon condition, or onfe upon trust. If he intended the former, there can be no relief against forfeiture, except as already explained, nor can performance of the condition be enforced. But if an estate upon trust was intended, and what appeared to be conditions were directions to trustees, explanatory of what they should do with the estate, a failure to perform would not result in an absolute forfeiture, but a court of equity would interpose in behalf of the cestui que trust and enforce a performance of those acts, which were intended for his benefit. The conclusion in every case depends upon the ascertained intention of the testator, and the devise will in proper cases be declared upon trust, instead of upon condition, though the words, " pro- vided," " on condition," etc., are used in that connection.^ § 281. Same — From estates upon limitation and con- ditional limitations. — An estate upon limitation is one which is made to determine absolutely upon the happening of some future event as an estate to A., so long as she remains a widow. The technical words generally used to create a limitation, are conjunctions relating to time, such as during, while, so long as, until, etc. But these words are not absolutely necessary; for where it is necessary, in order to carry out the intent of the grantor, to construe an estate Pitt, 2 Price, 212 ; Hancock v. Carlton, 6 Gray, 39 ; Henry v. Tupper, 29 Vt. 66; Dunkley u. Adams, 20 Vt. 415; Bacon v. Huntington, 14 Conn. 92; Skinner v. Dayton, 2 Johns. Ch. 528; Livington v. Thompkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 431; Baxter v. Lansing, 7 Paige Ch. 350; City Bank v. Smith, 3 Gill & J. 265. 1 Stanly «. Colt, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 165. See Linsee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 512; Dorr. v. Hallaran, lb. 534; Smith v. Brown, 66 Tex. 543; l.S. W. 573; Miller v. Board of Supervisors (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 429; Curtis v. Board of Education, 43 Kan. 138, 23 Pac. 98; Stilwell v. St. Louis & H. H. Ey. Co., 39 Mo. 221; Watterson v. Ury, 5 Ohio C. C. 347. 237 § 281 LIMITATION AND CONDITIONAL LIMITATIONS. [PART I. to be a limitation, it will be done, even though words, ordinarily used in the creation of an estate upon condition, appear in their stead. ^ An estate upon limitation differs from one upon condition in this, that the estate is deter- mined ipso facto by the happening of the contingency, and does not require any entry by the grantor in order to defeat it.^ A conditional limitation is an estate limited to take effect upon the happening of the contingency, and which takes the place of the estate which is determined by such contingency. Some authors, among others, Mr. Washburn, have used the terms conditional limitations and limitations interchangeably, referring in both instances to the estate which is determined by the happening of the event.^ But it appears to be the better method to apply the term conditional limitation to the estate which takes effect, and limitation to the estate which is determined.* A condi- tional limitation is an estate limited to take effect after the determination of an estate, which in the absence of a limitation over would have been an estate upon condition. Strictly speaking, a conditional limitation cannot be limited afteCd^an estate upon limitation, except where the contin- gency which constitutes the limitation, is not sure to happen 1 1 Prest. Est. 129; Co. Lit. 203 b; Mary Portingtou's Case, 10 Rep. 42; Chapin v. Harris, 8 Allen, 594; Ashley v. Warner, 11 Gray, 43; Owen V. Fields, 102 Mass. 105; Miller v. Levi, 44 N. Y. 489 ; Henderson B. Hunter, 59 Pa. St. 340; Herrick's Estate, 59 Hun, 616. 2 2 Bla. Com. 155; 1 Prest. Est. 456; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 23, 26; Stearns v. Godfrey, 16 Me. 158; Eifly Associates v. Howland, 11 Mete. 102; Proprietors, etc., v. Grant, 3 Gray, 142; Attorney-General v. Merri- mack Co., 14 Gray, 612; Owen v. Field, 102 Mass. 105; Miller v. Levi, 44 N. Y. 489;'»Wheeler v. Walker, 2 Conn. 196; Henderson u. Huntington, 59 Pa. St. 340. 8 2 Wasiib. on Real Prop. 23, 26. 4 Mr. Washburn quotes from Watkins on Conveyancing, to this effect: " Between a condition and a conditional limitation there is this difference : a condition respects the destruction and determination of an estate; a conditional limitation relates to the commencement of a new one. A condition brings the estate back to the grantor or his heirs ; a condi- tional limitation carries it over to a stranger." Watkins, Convey. 204 238 CH. IX.] LIMITATION AND CONDITIONAL LIMITATIONS . § 281 and the estate is a fee upon limitation. Thus in a grant to A. during widowhood, and upon her marriage to B., A.'s estate would be an estate upon limitation, and consequently B.'s estate would be a good common-law remainder.^ Using the term conditional limitalion as indicating a future estate which is to take effect in derogation of a preceding limita- tion, it may be stated here in general terms, to be more clearly explained in subsequent pages, that it was unknown to the common law. Tiie only common-law future estate, which can be created by the same deed with a prior limita- tion, is a remainder, and as a remainder cannot be limited, which takes effect in derogation of the preceding estate, conditional limitations are not recognized by the common law. They can only be created as a shifting use, or an executory devise.^ 1 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 563; Fearne Cont. Rem. 5, 10. See post, sect. 412. 2 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 26, 28; 4 Kent's Com. 128; 1 Prest. Est. 60. See post, sects. 398,, 418, 536, 537. 239 CHAPTEE X. MOKTGAGES . Section I. Nature and Classification of Mortgages. II. Tlie Rights and Liabilities of Mortgagors and Mort- gagees. m. Remedies and Remedial Rights inciderd to a Mortgage. SECTION I. NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OP MORTGAGES. Section 287. Definition. 288. Mortgages by deposit of title deeds. 289. Continued — N'otice to subsequent purchasers. 290. Continued — Their recognition In this country. 291. Continued — Foreclosure. 292. Vendor's lien. 293. Continued — Discharge or waiver of the lien. 294. Continued — In whose favor raised. 295. Vendee's lien. 2S5a. Enforcement of vendor's and vendee's liens. 296. Mortgage at common law. 297. Vivum vadium. 298. Welsh mortgage. 299. Equity of redemption. 300. The mortgage in equity. 301. Influence of equity upon the law. 302. The form of a mortgage. 303. Execution of the defeasance. 304. Form of defeasance. 305. Agreements to repurchase. 306. The defeasance clause in equity. 307. The admissibility of parol evidence. 308. Contemporaneous agreements. 309. Subsequent agreements. 310. The mortgage debt. 311. Mortgages for the support of the mortgagee. 312. What may be mortgaged. 240 CH. X.] MORTGAGES. § 288 § 287. Definition. — A mortgage is an interest in lands, given to secure the payment of a sum of money or money's equivalent. It incumbers the title of the laud and enables the creditor or obligee to satisfy his claim by a sale of the land, or by a forfeiture of the land to the mortgagee. Before explaining the character and incidents of the com- mon-law mortgage, which will constitute the principal sub- ject of the present chapter, reference will be made to several kinds of incumbrances upon land, which, although gener- ally called mortgages, are not strictly such. The first of these is the — § 288. Mortgage by deposit of title deeds. — This is an ancient security for debt, which at one time was in general use in England, and even now is employed there to some extent. The deposit of the title deeds of a tract of land with the creditor secured to him in equity a lien upon the land for the amount of the debt. It was looked upon in equity as an agreement to execute a mortgage which would be enforced against the depositor and all other persons claiming under him, except subsequent purchasers and in- cumbrancers for value and without notice.^ Although it has been strongly objected to, as violating the Statute of Frauds, it is now definitely settled iu England that the mortgage by deposit of title deeds does not come within the operation of the statute.^ The mere possession by the 1 Story's Eq. Jar., sect. 1020; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 83; 4 Kent's Com. 150, 151 ; Russell v. Russell, 1 Bro. C. C. 269 ; Ex parte Langstone, 17Ves. 230; Pain v. Smith, 2 Myl. & K. 417; MandevUle v. Welch, 5 "Wheat. 277; Roberts v. Craft, 24 Bear. 223; Edge v. Worthington, Cox, 211; Ex parte Cornini;, 9 Ves. Jr. 115; Carey o. Rawson, 8 Mass. 159; Jarvis v. Butcher, 16 Wis. 307. 2 Whitbread, ex parte, 19 Ves. 209; Haigh, ex parte, 11 Ves. 403; Ex parte Hooper, 19 Ves. 477; Norris ». Wilkinson, 19 Ves. 192; Russell u. Russell, 1 Bro. C. C. 269. In Pennsylvania, a written agreement must accompany the deposit of the title deeds, in order that the transaction may create a mortgage-. Luch's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 519; Edwards©. Trumbull, 50 Pa. St. 509. 16 241 § 289 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. creditor of the debtor's muniments of title will not raise for the former a lien upon the land. They must have been deposited with him with the express intention of pro- viding 11 lien, in order that the possession may have that effect.^ But it is not necessary that all the title deeds in the chaiu of title should be deposited. A single title deed would be sufEcieut as against the depositor, and it would only be invalid as to those, who were fairly misled by the fact that the mortgagor or depositor was in possession of the other deeds.^ And as against the mortgagor and all others claiming under him with notice, the mere agreement to deposit the title-deeds as security would suffice to make the debt an equitable charge upon the estate, if it be evi- denced by some writing.^ § 289. Continued — Notice to subsequent purchasers. — If the subsequent purchaser for value has received no notice of the existence of this equitable mortgage, it cannot be en- forced against him and the land in bis hands. What will be sufficient notice to such a purchaser would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. In England, where there is no registration law, and the purchaser is accustomed to depend upon the original title deeds in inves- tigating the title to lands, the absence of these deeds or of any of them would constitute sufficient notice to put the purchaser on his inqiiiry. But the burden of proof is on 1 Norris v. Wilkinson. 12 Ves. 162; Bozon v. Williams, 3 Y. & J. 150; James v. Rice, 23 Eug. L. & E. 567; Chapman v. Chapman, 3 Eug. L. & E. 70; s. c. 13 Beav. 308; Ex parte Bruce, 1 Rose, 374; Ex parte Wright, 19 Ves. 258; Ex parte Lmgstou, 17 Ves. 227; Lucas v. Darren, 7 Taunt. 278; MaudeviUe v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1020. If the intention is declared By a memorandum in writing, it cannot be controlled by parol evidence. Ex parte Coombe, 17 Ves. 369; Baynard V. Woolley, 20 Beav. 583. 2 Ex parre Chippendale, 2 Mont. & A. 299; Ex parte Wetherail, 11 Ves. 398; Lacon v. Allen, 3 Drew, 582; Roberts v. Crofty, 24 Beav. 253; S.C.2 De G. &J. 1. 3 Edwards, ex parte, 1 Deac. 611 ; 4 Kent's Cora. 151. 212 CH. X. ] MORTGAGES. §" 290 the equitable mortgagee to show that the purchaser has received notice of the mortgage.^ In this country, how- ever, where all deeds of conveyance are required to be recorded, in order to give constructive notice to subse- quent purchasers, actual notice of the deposit of the deeds must be brought to such purchasers, in order to bind the land in their hands. The purchaser in this country is not required to look beyond the record for the evidences of title.2 § 290 . Continued — Their pecognition in this country. — The equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds is recog- nized in some of the States of this country, but in view of the general prevalence of the recording law, it is at best a very ineflScacious kind of security. It can never be relied upon,^nd is rarely, if ever at the present day, met with in practice. Its value as a security is destroyed, as soon as the land has been sold or mortgaged to one having no actual notice of the deposit. And it being a purely equitable in- terest, not even an equitable estate, the mortgagee cannot have any instrument of notice recorded for the purpose of giving constructive notice of its existence. The mortgage is, however, recognized in Maine, Khode Island, New York, 1 Herrick v. Atwood, 25 Beav. 212; Coyler v. Pinch, 5 H. L. Cas. 924; Ex parte Hardy, 2 Deac. & C. 363; Hiern v. Mill, 13 Ves. 114; Hewitt v. Loosemore, 9 Eng. L. & E. 35; Head v. Egerton, 3 P. "Wis. 279; Adam's Eq. 123; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1020; Jones, Mortg., sect. 179. Ex parte Kensington 2 V. & B. 79, 84; Ex parte Langston, 17 Ves. 227; Baynard v. Woolley, 20 Beav. 583 ; Parker v. Housefield, 2 My. & K. 419; Pryce v. Bury, 2 Brew. 41, 42; Lacon v. Allen, 2 Drew. 579; Whlt- bread v. Jordan, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 303; National Bank of Austr. v. Cherry, L. R. 3 P. C. 299; Russell w. Russell, 1 Bro. Ch. 289; 1 Eq. Lead. Cas. 331 (4th Am. Ed.); Pye v. Daubus, 2 Dick. 759; Ex parte Whitbread> 19 Ves. 209; Ex parte Wright, 19 Ves. 255; Ex parte Hooper, 1 Meriv. 7. 2 Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1020; Jones, Mortg., sect. 179; Hall v. McDuff, 24 Me. 311; "Whitworth v. Gangain, 3 Hare, 416; Berry v. Mutual Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 604; Luch's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 522; Edwards v. Trumbull, 50 Pa. St. 612; Probasc© v. Johnson, 2 Disney, 96; Walker, Am. Law. 315. 243 § 291 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, and in the United States Courts. i While in Pennsylvania, Ver- mont, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, the doctrine has been repudiated.^ § 291. Continued — Foreclosure. — Since the mortgage by deposit of title deeds is only an equitable lien, it can be enforced only in a court of equity, and it is a matter of doubt in the English courts, whether the decree should be for foreclosure, or simply direct a sale of the premises, and the application of the proceeds to the liquidation of the debt. But the later English cases hold that the mortgagee of such a mortgage has the same rights of foreclosure as any other mortgagee.^ 1 Hall V. McDufe, 24 Me. 311; Hackett v. Eeynolds, 4 R. I. 512ll Rock- well V. Hobby, 2 Sandf. Ch. 9; Robinson v. Urquhar t, 1 Deas. 523; Stod- dard ?;. Hart, 23 N. ,Y. 561; Mounoe v. Byars, 16 Ga. 469; Gothard B. Flynn, Miss. 58; Williams v. Stratton, 10 Smed. & M. 418; Welsh v. Usher, 2 Hill (S. C), 166-170; Jarvis v. Dutcher, 16 Wis. 307; Mande- Tille V. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Chase v. Peck, 21 N. T. 581; William v. Stratton, 10 Sm. & Mar. 418, 426; Gothard v. Flynn, 23 Miss. 58; Hackett «. Reynolds, 4 R. I. 512; Rockwell v. Hobby, 2 Sandf. Ch. 9; Griffin u. Griffin, 18 N. J. Eq. 104; Welsh v. Usher, 3 Hill Ch. 167, 170. per Harper J.; Williams v. Stratton, 10 Sm. & Mar. 418, 426; Mowry v. Wood, 12 Wis. 413; First Nat. Bk. v. Caldwell, 4 Dillon, 314. 2 Shitz V. Dieffenback, 3 Pa. St. 233; Bowers v. Oyster, 3 Pa. St. 233; Strauss' Appeal, 49 Pa. St. 258; Kauffelt v. Bower, 7 Serg. & R. 64; Bicknell v. Bicknell, 31 Vt. 498; Tan Meter v. McFaddin, 8 B. Mon. 438; Meador v. Meador, 3 Heisk. 662; Probasco v. Johnson, 2 Disney, 96; Bloom V. Noggle, 4 Ohio St. 45, 56; Gothard v. Flynn, 25 Miss. 58. But compare per contra, Williams v. Stratton, 10 Sm. & Mar. 418; Thomas' Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 378; Edwards' E.xrs. v. Trumbull, 50 Pa. St. 609; Bowers v. Oyster, 3 P. & W. 239. But in Pennsylvania, if the deposit Is accompanied by an Instrument, declar ing the purpose of the deposit, it will be a good, equitable mortgage. Luoh's Appeal, 44 Pa. St. 522; Edwards v. Trumbull, 56 Pa. St. 512. ' 3 Backhouse v. Charlton, L. R. 8 C h. D. 444; Carter v. Wake, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 605; James v. James, L. R. 16 Eq. 153; Pryce v. Bury, L. R. 16 Eq. 153 n.; Adams Eq. 125; Pain v. Smith, 2 M. & K. 417; Parker v. Housefleld, Id. 419; Brocklehurst v. Jessop, 7 Sim. 438; Moores v. Choat, 8 Id. 508; Price u. Carver, 3 M. & C. 157; Lister©. Turner, 5 244 ■CH. Tt.J MOETGAGES. § 292 § 292. Vendor's lien. — This is also an equitable lien recognized in favor of the vendor as a security for the purchase-money. It is founded on the equitable theory that, until the payment of the purchase-money, the vendee holds the land as trustee of the vendor for the purpose of a security. No agreement is necessary for its creation ; it is presumed to exist, until the contrary is shown .^ This lien has been generally recognized in the Staines of this country,^ but it has been denied or left in doubt ia Hare, 281; Tuckley v. Thompson, 1 Johns. & H. 126; James w. James, L. K. 16 Eq. 153; Redmagne u. Forster, L. E. 4 Eq. 467. In Jarvis v. Dutcher, 16 "Wis, 307, it was held that the decree should be for a sale ol the premises. See to the same effect, Hackett u. Reynolds, 4 R. I. 512; Mowry v. "Wood, 12 Wis. 413. 1 Walker Am. Law, 366; Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Ves. 389; Chapman V. Tanner, 1 Vern. 267; Blackburn v. Gregson, 1 Bro. C. C. 420; Payne V. Atterbury, Harr. (Mich.) 414; Warren v. Fenn, 28 Barb. 334; Wilson V. Lyon, 51 111. 166; Truebody v. Jacobson, 2 Cal. 269; Dodge V. Evans, 43 Miss. 570; Schnebly v. Ragan, 7 Gill & J. 120. A.hrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 266; Cowielt v. Bower, 7 Serg. & E. 64; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1217; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bland. Ch. 491; Iglehart v. Arralger, 1 Bland. Ch C19, 624, 525; 2 Story's Eq. Jur., sects. 1218 etseq; 1217; Snell's Eq. 136 (5th ed.) ; Perry on Trusts, sects. 231, 232 ; Ringgold v. Bryan, 3 Md. Ch. 488. 2 In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minne- sota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin. Haley v. Bennett, 5 Port. 452 ; Pylant v. Reeves, 53 Ala. 132; Thamed ij. Caldwell, 60 Id. 644; Blankhead v. Owen, 60 Id. 457; Bizzell ». Nix, 60 i"d. 281; Simpson v. McAllister, 56 Id. 228; Moore v. Worthy, 56 Id. 163; Bryant v. Stephens, 58 Id. 636; Dugger v. Tayloe, 60 Id. 504; Terry v. Keaton, 58 Id. 667; Flinn v. Barber, 61 Id. 530; Gordon V. Bell', 50 Id. 213; Dennis v. Williams, 40 Id. 633; Griffin u. Camapk, 36 Id. 695; Bradford v. Harper, 25 Id. 337; Burns v. Taylor, 23 Id. 255; Eoper V. McCook, 7 Ala. 318; Barnett v. Riser's Exrs., 63 Id. 347; Thur- man v. Stoddard, 63 Id. 336; Chapman v. Lee, 64 Id. 483; Burgess v. Greene, 64 Id. 509; Shorter v. Frazer, 64 Id. 74; Carver v. Eada, 65 Id. 190; Walker v. Carroll, 65 Id. 61; Shall v. Ciscoe, 18 Ark. 142; Lav ender V. Abbott, 30 Ark. 192, 172; Neal v. Speigle, 33 Id. 63; Mayers w, Hendry, 33 Id. 240; Swan v. Benson, 31 Id. 728; Blevins v. Rogers, 32 Id. 258; Johnsoa v. Nunnerly, 30 Id. 153; Liuthicum v. Tapscott, 28 Id. 267; Hol- man v. Patterson's Heirs, 29 Id. 357; Stroud v. Pace, 35 Id. 100; Young .». Harris, 36 Id. 162; Harris v. Hanie, 37 Id. 348; Scott v. Orbin- 245 § 292 MORTGAGES. [PART I. some.^ The decisions differ as to details, but agree in respect to the general features of such a lien. The vendor's lien is son, 21 Ark. 202; Harris v. Hanks, 25 Id. 510, 517; Refeld v. Per- rell, 27 Id. 63i; Campbell v. Rankin, 28 Id. 401; Turner v. Horner, 29 Id. 440; Salmon v. Hoffman, 2 Cal. 138; Gallagher u. Mars, 50 Id. 23; Wells v. Harter, 56 Id. 342; Civil Code, sect. 3046; True- body V. Jacobson, 2 Cal. 269; Calioon v. Robinson, 6 Id. 225; Walker v. Sedgwick, 8 Id. 398; Sparks v. Hess, 15 Id. 186; Williams ». Young, 17 Id. 403; Taylor v. McKinney, 20 Id. 618; Baum v. Grisby, 21 Id. 172; Burt V. Wilson, 28 Id. 632; Francis v. Wells, 2 Col. 660; Ford v. Smith, 1 McArthur, 592; Bradford v. Marvin, 2 Flor. 463; Woods v. Bailey, 3 Id. 41; Keith v. Horner, 32 and 42 111. 524; Dyer v. Martin, 4 Scam. 146; Trustees v. Wright, 11 111. 603; McLaurie v. Thomas, 39 Id. 291; Boyn- ton V. Champlin, 42 Id. 57; Wilson v. Lyon, 51 Id. 166 ; Kirkham v. Bos- ton, 67 Id. 599; Wing v. Goodman, 75 Id. 159; Moshier o. Meek, 80 Id. 79; Andrus v. Coleman, 82 Id. 26; Henson ©. Westcott, 82 Id. 224; Small V. Stagg, 95 Id. 39; Manning v. Frazier, 96 Id. 279; Yayan v. Shriner, 26 Ind. 364; Anderson v. Donnell, 66 Id. 150; Haskell v. Scott, 56 Id. 564; Fouch v. Wilson, 60 Id. 64; Nichols v. Glover, 41 Id. 24; Martin v. Cauble, 72 Id. 67 ; Higgins v. Kendall, 73 Id. 522 ; Richards v. McPherson, 74 Id. 158; Carty v. Pruett, 4 Id. 226; Merritt v. Wells, 18 Id. 171; Mattix v. "Weand, 19 Id. 151; Cox's Admr. v. Wood, 20 Id. 54; Lagow ». BadoUet, 1 Blackt. 416; Evans v. Goodlet, 1 Id. 246; Delbler V. Barwick, 4 Id. 339; Johnson v. McGrew, 42 Iowa, 55, see Rev. Stat. Iowa (1873), sect. 1940; s. c. 42 Id. 555; Rev. Laws (1860), p. 653; Tins- ley V. Tinsley, 52 Iowa, 14; Stuart v. Harrison, 52 Id. 611 ; Allen v. Loring, 34 Id. 499; Escher v. Simmons, 54 Id. 269; Pierson v. David, 1 Iowa, 23; 1 Denied and repudiated in Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Car- olina, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Simpson v. Mundee, 3 Kan. 172; Brown v. SinapsoD, 4 Id. 76; Smith V.Rowland, 13 Id. 245; Greenes. Barbard, 18 Id. 518; GUman v. Brown, 1 Mason, 191, 192, 210; Philbrook V. Delano, 29 Me. 410, 415; Ahrend v. Odiorne, 118 Mass. 216; Wright v. Dame, 5 Mete. 603; McGahee v. Sneed, 1 Dev. &Bat. Eq. 233; Wombles. Battle, 3 Ired. Eq. 182; Henderson v. Burton's Exr., 3 Id. 259; Cameron V. Mason, 7 Id. 180. See Mast v. Raper, 81 N. C. 330; McKay o. Gillman, 66 Id. 130; Zentmeyer v. Mittower, 5 Pa. St. 403; Kauffelt v. Bower, 7 S. &R. 64; Semplew. Burd, 7 Id. 286; Megargel u. Saul, 3 Whart. 19; Bear V. Whistler, 7 Watts. 144, 147; Cook v. Trimble, 9 Id. 15; Hepburn v. Snyder, 3 Barr, 72; Sprigner v. Walters, 34 Pa. St. 828; Stephen's Exrs.' Appeal, 38 Id. 9; Helster v. Green, 48 Id. 96; Heist v. Bakor, 49 Id. 9i Strauss' Appeal, 49 Id. 353; Wragg v. Comptroller-Gen., 2 Desaus, 609, 620. Left in doubt in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Watson V. Wells, 6 Conn. 468; Dean v. Dean, 6 Id. 285; Megis v. Dimock, 6 Id. 458, 464; Atwood u. Vincent, 17 Conn. 675; Chapman v. Beardsley, 246 CH. X.], MORTGAGES. § 292 binding upon the vendee, and all persons claiming under him who had notice of the lien or who are not purchasers Grapengether u. Fejervary, 9 Id. 163; Hays v. Horiue, 12 Id. 61; Raise- straw . Hamilton, 14 Id. U7; Patterson v. Linder, 14 Id. 414; Tupple «. Viers, 14 Id. 515; Poler v. Bubuque, 20 Id. 440; McDoIe v. Pnrdy, 23 Id. 277; Tievnan v. Thurman, 14 B. Mon. 277, 284; Gritton v. McDonald, 3 Mi'fc. 2."2; Burrus w.Eoulhac's Admx., 2 Bush, 39; Maupini;. McCormick, 2 Id. 206; Ledford v. Smith, 6 Id. 129; Emisnn v. Risque, 9 Id. 24; Gen. Stat. (1873), p. 589; Phillips v. Skinner, 6 Bush. 662; Fowler v. Heirs of Bust, 2 A. K. Marsh, 294; Thornton v. Knox's Exr., 6 B. Mon. 74; Muir o. Cross, 10 Id. 277; Magruder v. Peter, 11 Gill & J. 217; Repp v. Repp, 12 Id. 341 ; Carr v. Hobbs, 11 Md. 285; Hummer v. Schott, 21 Id. 307; Ciir i). Hnbbs, 11 Md. 285; Hall v. Jones, 21 Id. 439; Bratt u. Bratt, 21 id. 578; Oarrico v. Farmers', etc., Bk., 33 Id. 235; Gen. Laws, Art. 16, sect. 130; Rev. Code (1878% Art. 66, sect. 5; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bland Ch. 491; Iglehart v. Arliger, 1 Id. 519; Ringgold ?7. Bryan, 3 Md. Ch. 488; White v. Casenave's Heirs, 1 liar. & J. 106; Ghiselin ii. Fergus- son, 4 Id. 522; Pratt v. Vanwyck's Exrs., 6 Gill &, J. 495; Carroll v. Van Rensselear, H;>rr. (Mich.) 225; Payne v. Avery, 21 Mich. 524; Merrill v. Allen, 38 Id. 487; Palmer v. Sterling, 41 Id. 218; Clark u. Stilson, 36 Id- 482; Hiscock v. Norton, 42 Id. 320; Brown v. Porter, 2 Mich. N. P. 12; Carroll v. Van Rensselear, Harring. Ch. 225; Sears v. Smith, 2 Mich. 243; Converse v. Blumrich, 14 Id. 109; Daughaday v. Paine, 6 Minn. 306; S( Iby u. Stanley, 4 Id. 65; Diwson v. Girard L. Ins. Co., 27 Minn. 411; Duke u. Balme, 16 Id. 306; Dodge v. Evans, 43 Miss. 570; Davidson v. Allen, 36 Miss. 419; Perkins v. Gibson, 51 Miss. 699; Tucker v. Hadley, 52 Id. 414; McLaia v. Thompson, 52 Id. 418; Walton o. Hargroves, 42 Id. 18; Lindsey v. Bates, 42 Id. 397; Richardson v. Bowman, 40 Id. 782; Harvey v. Kelly, 41 Id. 490; Russell v. Watt, 41 Id. 602; Dodge v. Evans, 43 Id. 570; Pitts v. Parker, 44 Id. 247; Rutland v. Brister, 53 Id. 683; Slewart v. Ives, 1 Sm. & Mar. 197; Tanner v. Hicks, 4 Id. 294; Dunlap v. Burnett, 5 Id. 702; Upshaw v. Hargrove, 6 Id. 286; Totter v. Erwin, 27 Miss. 772; Servis v. Beatty, 32 Id. 52; Littlejohn ». Gordon, 32 Id. 235; March v. Turner, 4 Mo. 253; Stevens v. Rainwater, 4 Mo. App. 292; Davenport v. Murray, 68 Mo. 198; Pearl v. Hervey, 70 Id. 160; McKnight V. Brarty, 2 Mo. 110; Marsh v. Turner, 4 Mo. 253; Dclassus v. Poston, 19 Id. 425; Davis v. Lamb, 30 J(?. 441; Bledsoe v. Games, SO Id. 448; Pratt 87. Clark, 67 Id. 189; Armstrong v. Boss, 20 N. J. Eq. 109; Corlies -o. 31 Conn. 115; Buntin u. French, 16 N. H. 592; Arlin v. Brown, 44 Id. 102; Perry v. Grant, 10 R. I. 334; Kent v. Gerlmrt, 12 B.I. 92. While in Georgia, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia, although upheld judici- ally, it is now abolished by statute, except that in the last two States, it may be reserved on the face of the deed of conveyance. Ga. Code, 1873, sect. 1997; Jones v. Jones, 56 Ga. 325; but see Drinkwater v. Moreman, 247 § 292 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. for value. A volunteer to whom the land is conveyed with- out consideration, a widow with her dower, and the heirs Howland, 26 U. 311; Graves v. Coutant, 31 Id,. 763; Ogden ». Thornton, 30 U. 569; Tandoren v. Todd, 2 Green Ch. (N. J.) 397; Brinkerhofl v. Tansciveu, 3 U. 251; Herbert . Compton, 52 Id. 252; Dibrell v. Smith, 49 Id. 474; Briscoe ». Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326; Pinchain V. CoUard, 13 Id. 333; Glascock u. Glascock's Admr., 17 Jd!. 480; Wheeler ■0. Love, 21 Id. 583 ; McAlpine v. Burnett, 23 Id. 649 ; Tobey v. McAllister, 9 Wis. 643, 663; Willard v. Reas, 26 Wis. 540; Madden v. Barnes, 45 Id. 135; DePorest a. Holum, 38 Id. 516; Lavender v. Abbott, 30 Ark. 172; Neal V. Speigle, 33 Id. 63; Mayes v. Hendry, 33 Id. 240; Swan v. Benson, 31 Id. 728 ; Blevins v. Rogers, 32 Id. 258 ; Johnson v. Nunnerly, 30 Id. 153 ; English V. Russell, Hempst. 35; Scott n. Orbison, 21 Ard. 202; Shall o. Briscoe, 18 Id. 142; Harris v. Hanks, 25 Id. 510, 517; Linthicum v. Tap- scott, 28 7d. 267 ; Holmau u. Patterson's Heirs, 29 Id. 357 ; Stroud ». Pace, 35 Id. 100; Young «. Harris, 36 Id. 162; Harris ii. Hanie, 37 Id. 348; Re- feld ». Ferrell, 27 Id. 634 ; Campbell b. Rankin, 28 Id. 401 ; Turner v. Horner, 29 Id. 440; Civil Code, sect. 1801; Kent v. Gerhard, 12 R. I. 92. 61 Id. 395; Mills v. Macon, etc., R. R., 3 Id. 333; Mounce v. Byars, 16 Ga. 469; Mins 13. Lockett, 23 Id. 237; Chance v. McWhorter, 26 Id. 315; Still •B. Mayor, etc., 27 Id. 502, 504; Stat. Laws of 1851, Ch. 47; Gen. Stat. (1862), Ch. 65, sect. 33; Manly ■». Slason, 21 Vt. 271, per Redfleld, C. J.; Code Va., 1873 Ch. 115, sect. 1- Wade». Greenwood, 2 Robt. 475; Yan- 248 OH. X.] MORTGAGES. §292 and devisees, cannot plead the want of notice as a defense.^ The decisions, however, are not uniform in determining to what extent the vendor's lien will be enforced against cred- itors of the purchaser, who are not charged with notice. It is certain that it will prevail against an assignment for the benefit of creditors, if the vendor enforces his lien by filing a bill in equity, before the assignee executes the trust. ^ But where the conveyance is direct to the creditor, or the land is attached under levy of execution issued upon a judg- cey ». Mauok, 16 Gratt. 300; Cole ». Scot, 2 Wash. 141; Tompkins «. Mitchell, 2 Rand. 428; Redford v. Gibson, 12 Leigh, 338; Kyles v. Tait's Admr., 6 Gratt. 44; W. Va. Code, 1870, Ch. 75, sect. 1; Hempfleld R. R. V. Thornburg, 1 W. Va. 2G1. See also Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. 46; Chilton V. Brladen, 2 Black, 458; McLeau v. McLean, 10 Pet. 625; Gilman V. Brown, 4 Wheat. 254; s. c. 1 Mason, 191; McLearn v. Wallace, 10 Pet. 625, 640; Galloway v. Pinley, 12 Id. 264; Bush v. Marshall, 6 How. (U. S.) 284; Chilton v. Braiden's Admx., 2 Black, 468; Cordova v. Hood, 17 Wall. 1, 5. 1 Pintard v. Goodloe, 1 Hempst. 527; Webb v. Robinson, 14 Ga. 16; Garson v. Green, 1 Johns. Ch. 308; Amory v. Reilley, 9 Ind. 490; Upshaw V. Hargrove, 8 Smed. & M. 286; Fisher v. Johnson, 5 Ind. 492; Crane c. Palmer, 8 Blackf. 12; Williams «. Wood, 1 Humph. 408; Besland w- Hewitt, 11 Smed. & M. 1C4; Nazareth v. Lowe, 1 B. Mon. 257; EUicott V. Welch, 2 Bland, 242; Warner v. Van Alstyne, 3 Paige Ch. 513; Newton V. McLean, 41 Barb. 285; Cole v. Scott, 2 Wash. (Va.) 141; Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. 46; Duval v. Bibb, 4 Hen. & M. 113; Shirley u. Sugar Refln. Co., 2 Edw. Ch. 505; 1 Eq. Lead. Cas. 477-481; Graves v. Coutant, 31 N. J. Eq. 763; Simpson v. McAllister, 56 Ala. 228; Gordon V. Bell, 50 Id. 213; Stafford w. Van Rennselaer, 9 Cow. 316; Magruder V. Peter, 11 Gill & J. 217; Tucker v. Hadley, 52 Miss. 414; McLain ». Thompson, 52 Id. 418; Pylant u. Reeves, 63 Ala. 132; Carver v. Eads, 65 Id. 190; Higgins v. Kendall, 73 Ind. 522; Mast v. Raper, 81 N. C. 330; Whetselu. Roberts, 31 Ohio St. 503; Swan v. Benson, 81 Ark. 728; Dag- ger V. Taylor, 60 Ala. 504; Burgess v. Green, 64 Id. 609; Thurmaa v. Stoddard, 63 Id. 336 ; Russell v. Dodson, 6 Baxt. 16 ; Robinson v. Mc- Whirter, 52 Tex. 201; Dugger v. Taylor, 60 Ala. 504; Fisk v. Potter, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 138. ' Brown v. Vanlier, 7 Humph. 239 ; Shirley v. Sugar Refinery, 2 Edw. Ch. 505; Repp v. Repp, 12 Gill & J. 341; Truebody i). Jacobson, 2 Cal. 269; Pearce v. Foreman, 29 Ark. 663; Green v. Demoss, 10 Hump. 371; Walton V. Hargroves, 42 Miss. 18; Warren v. Fenn, 28 Barb. 333; Cor- lies V. Howland, 26 N. J. Eq. 311 ; Bowles v. Rogers, 6 Ves. 95. 249 § 292 MORTGAGES. [PART I. ment against the vendee, the courts generally hold that the lien will not prevail.^ It is also very doubtful whether a subsequent judgment creditor of the grantee can claim priority for his lieu over the purchased land, or whether the grantor's lien can be enforced agaiust such judgment cred- itor. The courts differ on this question, some holding that the judgment-lieu has priority .^while other courts give prior- ity to the grantor's lien. 3 In respect to what constitutes notice of the vendor's lien, it maybe stated that any notice, which is sufficieut to put a reasonable man upon his inquiry will charge the purchaser with knowledge of the existence of the lien. Thus the vendor's possession, or a recital in the deed that the cousideration has not been paid, would be sufficient notice to bind the land in the purchaser's hands.* 1 Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. 46 ; Aldridge v. Dunn, 7 Blackf . 249 ; Taylor v. Baldwin, 10 Barb. 626; Webb v. Robinson, 14 Ga. 216; Gaun v. Chester, 5 Yerg. 205; Roberts v. Rose, 2 Humph. 145; Roberts v. Salis- bury, 3 Gill & J. 425; Cook V. Banker, 50 N. Y. 655; Johnson u. Caw- thorne, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 32; Adams v. Buchanan, 49 Mo. 64; Allen v^ Loring, 34 Iowa, 499; Porter v. City of Dubuque, 20 Iowa, 440. 2 Hulett !;. Whipple, 58 Barb. 224; Taylor v. Baldwin, 10 Id. 626 Cook V. Kraft, 3 Lans. 512; Johnson v. Cawthome, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 32 Webb V. Robinson, 14 Ga. 216; Roberts v. Rose, 2 Humph. 145, 147 Gann ». Chester, 5 Yerg. 205 ; Allen v. Loring, 34 Iowa, 499; Dawson ». Girard L. Ins. Co., 27 Minn. 411; Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. 46; Cook V. Banker, 50 N. Y. 655; Robinson v. Williams, 22 Id. 380. * Parker v. Kelley, 10 Sm. & Mar. 184; Thompson v. McGill, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 401; Lewis e. Caperton's Exr., 8 Gratt. 148; Aldridge ®. Dunn, 7 Blackf. 249 ; Lamberton v. Van Voorhis, 15 Hun, 336 ; Tucker V. Hadley, 52 Miss. 444; Walton ■». Hargroves, 42 Id. 18. * McSlmmonst). Martin, 14 Texas, 318; Tiernanc. Thurman, 14 B. Mon. 277; Honore v. Bake well, 6 B. Mon. 67; Daughady i;. Paine, 6 Minn. 452 Hopkins u. Garrard, 6 B. Mon. 66; Thorpe o. Duulap, 4 Heisk. 674 Briscoe 1). Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326; Frail v. Ellis, 17 Eug. L. & Eq. 457 Hamilton v. Fowlkes, 16 Ark. 340; Manly o. Glason, 21 Vt. 271; Wilson V. Lyon, 51 111. IGC; Baum v. Grisby, 21 Cal. 176; Thorntou?). Knox, 6 B. Mon. 74; Woodward v. Woodward, 7 B. Mon. 116; Kilpatrick i). Kilpat- rick, 23 Miss. 124; Parker v. Foy, 43 Miss. 260; McAlpine v. Burnett, 23 Texas, 649; Melross v. Scott, 18 Ind. 250; Mounce v. Byars, 11 Ga. 180; Cordova u. Hood, 17 Wall. 1; Masich v. Shearer, 49 Ala. 226. 250 CH. X.] MORTGAGES. § 293 § 293. Continued — Discharge or waiver of the lien. — Since this lien is raised in favor of the vendor on the tlieory that ho is without remedy in a court of law, and the lien is necessary to prevent his incurring the loss of both the land and the purchase-money ; if the vendor shows by any act that he does not rely upon the vendor's lien ^or protection, the land will vest in the vendee, discharged of the lien. The reservation of the lien depends upon the intention of the parties. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that it was their intention to reserve the lien. This presumption may, however, be rebutted. An express agreement, that the lien shall not be reserved, will, of course, have that efi'cct; and the general rule in all other cases is, that nothing less than the acceptance of some other security will constitute a waiver of the lien.^ Such would be a mortgage or pledge of the same ^ or other property, or a note with surety or indorser.^ The execution of an invalid mortgage on the same land would not discharge the lien.* Nor would a mere change in the form of the vendee's in- 1 Anderson v. Donnell, 66 Ind. 150; Clark?;. Stilson, 36 Mich. 482; Perry ». Grant, 10 R. I. 334; Walker c. Carroll, 65 Ala. 61; Brown v. Gilman, 4 Wheat. 255, 290; Fish v. Howland, 1 Paige, 20, 30. 2 Burgess u. Millican, 50 Texas, 397; Wasson i). Davis, 34/(2. 159; De- Bruhl V. Maas, 54 Id. 464 ; Tinsley v. Tinsley, 52 Iowa, 14 ; Stuart ■». Har- rison, 52 Id. 51 1 ; Escher v. Simmons, 54 Id. 269 ; Neal v. Speigle, 33 Ark. 63; Gaylord v. Kaapp, 15 Hun, 87; Pease v. Kelly, 3 Oreg. 417; Wells v. Harter, 56 Cal. 342; Camden «. Vail, 23Cal. 633; Richards ». McPherson, 74 Ind. 158; Little v. Brown, 2 Leigh, 353; Young o. Wood, 11 B. Mon. 123; Johnson v. Sugg, 13 Sm. & Mar. 346. See contra, Armstrong v. Ross, 20 N. J. Eq. 109; DeForest v. Holum, 38 Wis. 616; Anketel v. Converse, 17 Ohio St. 11; Boos v. Ening, 17 Ohio, 500; Linville v. Savage, 58 Mo. 248; Morris v. Pate, 31 Id. 315. 3 Carrico v. Farmers', etc., Bk., 33 Md. 235; McGonigal v. Plummer, 30 Id. 422; Campbell v. Henry, 45 Miss. 326; Sanders v. McAffee, 41 Ga. 684; Baum v. Grisby, 21 Cal. 172; Hazeltine v. Moore, 21 Hun, 355; Vail V. Foster, 4 N. Y. 312; Stevens v. Rainwater, 4 Mo. App. 292; Durette v. Briggs, 47 Mo. 366 ; Durham v. Heirs of Daugherty, 30 La. Ann. pt. 2, 1255; Haskell v. Scott, 66 Ind. 564. 4 Fouch V. Wilson, 60 Ind. 64; Camden v. Vail, 23 Cal. 633; Kent v. Gerhard, 12 R. I. 92; Martin v. Cauble, 72 Ind. 67. 251 § 294 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. debtedness, such as the acceptance of the vendee's bond, note, or check,i unless the parties expressly agree or it is provided by law that such change in the form of indebted- ness will operate as an actual payment of the consideration.^ And, on the other hand, if the parties expressly agree or intend that the vendor's lien shall be retained notwith- standing additional security is given, the lien will not be discharged by the receipt of such security.' §294. Continued — In whose favor raised. -^ It is doubtful if any one but the vendor and his heirs can claim the benefit of this lien. It certainly does not inure to a third person, who pays the consideration at the request of the purchaser.* And whether it is assignable with the ven- 1 Brinkerhoff ». Vansciven, 3 Green Ch. 251; Thornton v. Knox's Exr., 6 B. Mon. 74; Denny v. Steakly, 2 Heisk. 156; Aldridge «. Dunn, 7 Blackf. 249; Tobey v. MeAlUster, 9 Wis. 463; Baum v. Grigsby, 21 Cal. 172; White v. Williams, 1 Paige, 502; Garson v. Green, 1 Johns. Ch. SOS; Warren v. Fenn, 28 Barb. 333; Vandoren «. Todd, 2 Green Ch. 397; Kinn V. Barber, 61 Ala. 530; Bizzell v. Nix, 60 Id. 281 ; Chapman v. Lee, 64 J(J. 483; Shorter t;. Frazar, 64 Id. 74. 2 Keith V. Wolf, 5 Bush, 646; Thames «. Caldwell, 60 Ala. 644; Moshier V. Meek, 80 111. 79; Linthicum v. Tapscott, 28 Ark. 267; Ogden v. Thornton, 30 N. J. Eq. 569; Simpson v. McAllister, 56 Ala. 228; Bank- head u. Owen, 60 Id. 457; Shorter v. Frazer, 64 Id. 74; Holman v. Patterson's Heirs, 29 Ark. 357; Davenport v. Murray, 68 Mo. 198; Lavender v. Abbott, 30 Ark. 172; Corlies v. Howland, 26 N. J. Eq. 311; Nichols v. Glover, 41 Ind. 24; Brown v. Porter, 2 Mich. N. P. 12; Walton V. Hargroves , 42 Miss. 18; Dodge v. Evans, 43 Id. 570; Kent v. Gerhard, 12 11. I. 92; Dibrell v. Smith, 49 Tex. 474; Irvin v. Garner, 50 Jd. 48; Maddens. Barnes, 45 Wis. 135; Moore ?). Worthy, 56 Ala. 163; Graves v. Coutant, 31 N. J. Eq. 763; Ball v. Hill, 48 Tex. 634; Waldrom V. Zacharie, 54 Id. 503. 3 Mayes v. Hendry, 33 Ark. 240; Stroud v. Pace, 35 Id. 100; Lavender V. Abbott, 30 Id. 172; DeForest v. Holum, 38 Wis. 616; Fonda v. Jones, 42 Miss. 792; Sanders v. McAifee, 41 Ga. 684; Irvine v. Muse, 10 Heisk. 477; Durett v. Briggs, 47 Mo. 356. * Stansell «. Roberts, 3 Ohio, 148 ; Skaggs v. Nelson, 25 Miss. 88 ; Crane V. Caldwell, 14 111. 468; Nolte's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 361; Brown v. Budd, 2 Ind. 442. But see contra, where this is done by agreement of all the parties, and a note is given by the grantee to a third person who pays 252 CH. X.J MORTGAGES. § 294 dor's claim for the purchase-money is a matter of great doubt. There are decisions in support of both positions, but the better opinion is, that the lien is personal to the vendor and cannot be assigned, unless the right is expressly reserved by the parties, when it will have all the character- istics of an express lien, and will pass with the assignment.^ the purchase -money to the grantor. Campbell v. Eoach, 45 Ala. 667; Hamilton v. Gilbert, 2 Heisk. 680; Mitchell v. Butt, i5, 162; Francis u. Wells, 2 Col. 660; Perkins v. Gibson, 51 Miss. 699; Nichol v. Glover, 41 Ind. 24; Latham v. Staples, 46 Ala. 462. 1 It is held to be non-assignable in A rkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Caro- lina, Ohio, Tennessee. Carlton v. Buckner, 28 Ark. 66; Hutton^. Moore, 26 Ark. 396; Baumi?. Grisby, 21 Cal. 172; Ross v. Heintzen, 86 Cal. 313; Webb V. Robinson, 14 Ga. 216; Welborn v. Williams, 9 Ga. 86; Keith v. Horner, 32 111. 524; Dickenson v. Chase, 1 Morris, 492; Crow v. Vance, 4 Iowa, 436; Moshier v. Meek, 80 111. 79 ; Dixon v. Dixon, 1 Md. Ch. 220 ; Inglehart v. Armiger, 1 Bland, 519; Pitts v. Parker, 44 Miss. 247; Walker V. Williams, 30 Miss. 165; Adams v. Cowherd, 30 Mo. 468; White v. Will- iams, 1 Paige, 502; Smith IJ. Smith, 9 Abb. (n. s.) 420; Green v. Crockett, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 390; Jackson v. Hallock, 1 Ohio, 318; Brush V. Kinsley, 14 Ohio, 20; Thorpe v. Dunlap, 4 Heisk. 674; Green v. DeMoss, 10 Humph. 371; Stratton v. Gold, 40 Miss. 780; Hallock V. Smith, 3 Barb. 267; Graham v. McCampbell, Meigs, 52; Tanner ?). Hicks, 4 Smed. &M. 294; Norvell u. Johnson, 5 Humph. 489; Eskridge v. McClure, 2 Yerg. 84 ; Gann v. Chester, 5 Yerg. 205 ; Sheratz v. Nicodemus, 7 Terg. 9; Briggs v. Hill, 6 How. (Miss.) 362; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bland, 491; Shall u. Biscoe, 18 Ark. 162; Horton v. Horner, 14 Ohio, 437; Durant ». Davis, 10 Heisk. 522; Tharpe b. Dunlap, 4 Heisk. 674; Williams v. Christian, 23 Ark. 255; Jones v. Doss, 27 Id. 518; Blev- ins V. Rogers, 32 Id. 258 ; Crawley v. Riggs, 24 Id. 563; Williams v. Young, 21 Cal. 227; Ross u. Seintzen, 36 Id. 313; Shall v. Stagg, 95 111. 39; Wing V. Goodman, 75 Id. 159; Carpenter v. Mitchell, 54 Id. 126; Rutland v. Bris- ter, 53 Miss. 683; Lindseys;. Bates, 42 Id. 397; Stratton v. Gold, iOId. 778. See Perkins v. Gibson, 51 Id. 699; Pearl v. Hervey, 70 Mo. 160; White v. Williams, 1 Paige, 502. While in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas the lien is held to be assignable. Wells v. Morrow, 38 Ala. 125; Griggs- by V. Hair, 25 Ala. 327; Fisher v. Johnson, 5 Ind. 492; Nichols u. Glover, 41 Ind. 24; Honore v. Bakewell, 6 B. Mon. 67; Ripperdon v. Cozine, 8 B. Mon. 465; White o. Downs, 40 Texas, 225; Moore v. Raymond, 15 Texas, 554; Wattu. White, 33 Texas, 421; DeBruhl v. Maas, 54 Id. 464; Broad- well V. King, 3 B. Mon. 449. And in some of the States, where it is gen- erally held that the lien is not assignable with the debt, a distinction is made between a transfer by sale of the debt, and a deposit of the debt as 253 § 295a MORTGAGES. [PAET I. § 295. Vendee's lien. — Where the vendee has paid any part of the purchase-money on the faith of the contract of sale before a conveyance has been made to him, equity gives him a lien upon the title of the vendor for the amount so advanced, which has all the characteristics of the vendor's lien, and is enforceable in the same way against the vendor and all his privies who have notice. ^ § 295a. Enforcement of grantor'SjVendor's and vendee's liens. — Both the vendor's and the vendee's liens are en- forced by a bill in equity; and if the debt cannot be liquidated in any other way, the court will order the property to be sold, or so much of it as is necessary, and the pro- ceeds of sale applied to the satisfaction of the debt. But in order that the property might be subjected to the lien, security for the vendor's indebtedness. In tlie latter case it is held tliat ttie pledgee may assert tlie vendor's lien in liis own behalf. Carlton v. Buckner, 28 Ark. 66; Hallocku. Smith, 3 Barb. 272; Crov?ley «. Riggs, 24 Ark. 563. The assignment of the note or other instrument of indebt- edness of the vendee does not discharge the lien although the lien does not pass to the assignee, as long as the vendor is liable as Indorser or guarantor. He may enforce it for his own benefit. Kelly v. Payne, 18 Ala. 371; White v. Williams, 1 Paige, 502; Lindsey t>. Bates, 42 Miss. 397; Turner v. Horner, 29 Ark. 440; Smith v. Smith, 9 Abb. Pr. (n. s.) 420. In Missouri, it is held that the assignment of note for purchase money will pass the vendor's lien to the assignee, where the vendor re- tains the legal title, and has only conditioned for the execution of a deed • upon payment of the purchase money. Adams v. Cowherd, 30 Mo. 458. ' Burgess v. Wheate, 1 W. Bl. 150; Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Ves. 352; Payne v. Atterbury, Harr. Ch. 414; ^tna Ins. Co. u. Tyler, IG Wend. 885; Lowell v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 8 Gush. 127; Shirley v. Shirley, 7 Blackt. 452; Chase v. Peck, 21 N. Y. 585; Hope v. Stone, 10 Minn. 151 ; Taffti;. Kessel, 16 Wis. 273; Wickmanw. Robinson, 14 Wis.493; Cooper V. Merritt, 30 Ark. 686; Stewart u. Wood, 63 Mo. 252; Brown v. .East, 5 Mon. 407; Lane v. Ludlow, 6 Paige, 316, note; 2 Story Eq. Jur., sect. 1216; Anderson u. Spencer, 51 Miss. 869; Hughes v. Hatchett, 55 Ala. 539 ; Lane v. Ludlow, 2 Paine, 59 1 ; Chase v. Peck, 2 1 N. Y. 581 ; Clark V. Jacobs, 56 How. Pr. 519; Wright v. Dufield, 2 Baxt. 218; Flinn v. Bar- ber, 64 Ala. 193; Stewart v. Wood, 63 Mo. 252; Cooper v. Merritt, 30 Ark. 86: Shirley ». Shirley, 7 Blackf. 452; Brown v. East, 5 Mon. 405, 407. 254 CH. X.j MOETGAGES. § 296 the action must be brought directly for that purpose. It cannot be enforced in any collateral suit.^ § 296. Mortgage at common law. — A common-law mortgage is a conveyance of an estate in lands upon condi- tion that it will be defeated by the payment of the debt or the performance of the obligation, to secure which the con- veyance was made. The conveyance is a security and for that purpose the mortgage^, is given a defeasible estate, which is to become absolute upon the failure of the mort- gagor to perform the condition. It is a species of estate upon condition subsequent, and grew out of the doctrine of those estates.^ The common-law mortgage is to be dis- tinguished from two kinds of securities, which once were used quite extensively in Great Britain, viz. ; vivum vadium and the Welsh mortgage. 1 Wilson V. Davisson, 2 Bobt. 384; Mullikiu v. Mullikin, 1 Bland, 538; Eskridge v. McClure, 2 Yerg. 84; Clark u.' Bell, 2 B. Mon. 1; ■Williams v. Young, 17 Cal. 406; Converse v. Blumrick, 14 Mich. 124; Payne v. Har- rell, 40 Miss. 498; Clark v. Hunt, 3 J. J. Marsh. 558; Jones v. Conde, 6 Johns. Ch. 77; Elyj\^lWi.Graos^39|jCodwise v. Taylor, 4 Sneed, 346; Burger v. Pottef7^2^1l! 66 ; MlTner v. Ramsey, 48 Ala. 287; Emison 'O. Bisque, 9 Bush, 24; Edwards v. Edwards, 5 Heisk. 123. In some of the States, the lien-holder must exhaust his remedy at law before be can file a suit in equity to enforce his lien. Eoper u. McCook, 7 Ala. 318; Battorf V. Conner, 1 Blackf. 287; Ford v. Smith, 1 McArthur, 592; Pratt «. Van Wyck, 5 Gill & J. 495. In Maryland it has now been changed by stat- ute. Gen. Laws, Md. (1860), p. 99. And in other States, the vendor or vendee may enforce his lien although he may have a com- plete remedy at law. Bradley v. Bosley, 1 Barb. Ch. 125; Duqois V. Hull, 43 Barb. 26; Stewart v. Caldwell, 54 Mo. 536; Pratt©. Clark, 57 Mo. 189; Campbell v. Roach, 45 Ala. 667; Richardson v. Baker, 5J. J. Marsh. 323; Vail u. Drexel, 9 111. App. 439; McCaslin «. The State, 44 Ind. 151; Sehorn v. McWhirter, 6 Baxt. 311, 313; Church v. Smith, 39 Wis. 492. See Seat v. Knight, 3 Tenn. Ch. 262; Bruce «. TU- son, 25 N. Y. 194. 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 34; 4 Kent's Com. 136; Jones on Mortg., sect. 4; Williams on Real Prop. 422; Erskine v. Townsend, 2 Mass. 493; Mitchell V. Burnham, 44 Me. 299; Wing v. Cooper, 37 Vt. 179: Lund ». Lund, 1 N. H. 39. 255 § 299 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. § 297. Vivvim vadium. — This was also an estate granted to the creditor for the purpose of securing the payment of a debt. But it is to be distinguished from the mortgage or /vadium mortuum, in that the debt was to be satisfied out of the rents and jDrofits of the estate^ The grantee in the vadium vivum invariably took possession of the premises. Transfer of possession was a necessary incident, whereas, as we shall presently have occasion to observe, the common- law mortgage does not require a change of possession, although it may take place. In the mortgage, also, if the mortgagor fails to discharge his obligation, the title be- comes absolute in the mortgagee, while in the vadium vivum it never does, but reverts to the grantor, as soon as the grantee shall have paid himself out of the rents and profits of the estate.^ § 298. Welsh mortgage. — This mortgage was one, in which the distinguishing feature was, that the mortgagee always entered into possession and appropriated the rents j and profits of the estate in payment of inter ^t on the debt. The mortgagee could neither compel the mortgagor to pay the principal, nor foreclose the mortgage and acquire the absolute estate. The mortgagor could pay or not as he chose, but until payment of the principal, he could not ex- ercise any of the rights of an owner over the land.^ Both the vadium vivum and the Welsh mortgage have fallen into disuse, and they are mentioned only as curiosities in legal literature. "a" § 299. Equity of redemption — If the mortgagor in a commony law mortgage failed to perform the condition at 1 Jones on Mortg., sect. 2; i Kent's Com. 137; 2 Bla. Com. 157; Co. Lit. 520. 2 i Kent's Com. 137; Jones on Mortg., sect. 3; Howell v. Price, 1 P. Wms. 291; Lonquet w. Scawen, 1 Yes. Sr. 402; 2 "Washb. on EealProp. 37. See O'Neill v. Grab,- 39 Hun, 566. 256 CH. X.j MORTGAGES. § 299 the time stipulated, the estate became absolute in the mort- gagee, even though the estate may have been worth much more than the mortgage debt.^ There was no remedy by which the mortgagor could enforce the acceptance of pay- ment after the breach of the condition, even where his failure arose from some accident or unavoidable delay, or where the payment of the debt with interest to date of the tender of payment would do no injury to the mortgagee. This rigorous rule of the common law did not fail to be productive of great injustice in many instances, and like all cases of hardships resulting from the technicality of the common law it attracted the attention of the Court of Chancery. A long contest ensued between these courts from the time of the Magna Oharta until the reign of James I., when Chancery acquired jurisdiction over questions arising out of mortgages, and decreed that the mortgagor may be- come entitled to redeem his estate from the mortgagee, after condition broken, by the payment of the debt and in- terest ; and in the reign of Charles I. the la:w of mortgages was firmly established as a breach of equity jurisprudence.^ This right of the mortgagor to redeem the estate after the breach of the condition was recognized only in a court of equity. The legal estate, as viewed from the legal standi point, was still considered to be absolute in the mortgagee, but discharged of all rights of the mortgagor. The right to redeem was therefore no estate in the land. It was simply an equity, and hence was called the equity of EBDEMPTION. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 35; 4 Kent's Com. 140; Fay v. Cheney, 14 Pick. 399; Brigham v. Winchester, 1 Mete. 390; Wood v. Trask, 7 Wis. 666; Goodall's Case, 5 Eep. 96; Wade's Case, 5 Rep. 115; Jones on Mortg., sect. 11. 2 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 603; Jones on Mortg., sect. 6; How v. Vigures, 1 Rep. in Ch. 32 ; Emanuel College v. Evans, /ci. 18; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 39; Roscarrick u. Barton, 1 Ca. in Chi 217; Casborne v. Scarf e, 1 Atk. 603; Wlllett v. Winnelly, 1 Vern. 488; Price v. Perrie, 2 Freem. 258. 17 257 § 301 MORTGAGES. [PART I, § 300. The mortgage in equity. — As a result of this equitable jurisdiction, mortgages assumed in equitj-- a dif- ferent character from what they had in law. Equity seized hold of the real intention of the parties, and construed the mortgage to have only the effect of a lien, instead of vesting a defeasible estate in the land. This equitable construction conforms more nearly to the purposes and desired effect of a mortgage. It is given only to secure the payment of a debt, or the performance of some obligation, and its ends are satisfied, if alter condition broken means are provided to the mortgagee for satisfying his claim by an appropri- ation of the land, while in the interim his interests are protected against any subsequent conveyance of the land. All this is attained by a lien. Equity, therefore, held the mortgage to be a lien upon the land, and not an estate in it.i § 301. Influence of equity upon the law. — As soon as equity assumed jurisdiction over mortgages, it began to exert a potent influence over the law in respect to that class of interests, and has in the course of time almost entirely superseded the courts of law in their jurisdiction. This is specially true in regard to the foreclosure of mortgages. Although in some of the States the common-law foreclosure still prevails in a modified form, yet in most of them, and in England, it has given way to the more practicable and just foreclosure in equity.* 1 Headley v. Goui^dray, 41 Barb. 282; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johns. 41; Green t!. Hart, 1 Johns. 580;-Kinna v. Smith, 2 Green Ch. 14; Hughes ». Edwards, 9 Wheat. 500; Eunyan v. Mersereau, 11 Johns. 534; Deedly B. Cadwell, 10 Conn. 218; Eaton ». Whiting, 3 Pick. 484; Ellison v. Daniels, 11 N. H. 280; Anderson v. Baumgartner, 27 Mo. SO; "Whitney v. French, 25 Vt. C63; Ragland v. Justices, 10 Ga. 65; Myers v. White, 1 Rawle, 353; Hannah v. Carrington, 18 Ark. 85; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Gal. 365; Matthews v. Wallwyn, 4 Ves. 118; Timms v. Shannon, 19 Md. 296; 4 Kent's Com. 138. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 98; 4 Keat's Com. 181. See post, sect. 358. 258 V CH. X.J MORTGAGES. § 301 Not only has equity supplanted the jurisdiction of courts of law in respect to foreclosure, but it has everywhere, in England and in this country, produced, through a legisla- tion judicial and statutory, greater or less influence upon the legal theories in regard to the interests of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. In some of the States the modifications effected by equity are but slight and pertain only to minor details, while the mortgage is still held to be a conveyance of an estate in the land. Such is the law in Maine, Massa- chusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ver- mont, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, and Minnesota. In others the mortgage is still considered a conveyance of an interest corresponding to an estate, while the mortgagee possesses in the estate only such rights and remedies as are recognized in a court of equity. The ordinary legal rights of ownership do not attach. Such will be found to be the law in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. This class approximates so nearly to the next class to be mentioned, that in the subsequent discussion of the rights of the mortgagor and mortgagee, they will be treated as con- stituting one subdivision ; so far at least as general rules are concerned. In the last class of States, namely in New York, Georgia and California, the whole common law theory has been repudiated, and the mortgage is construed to be simply a lien upon the land conveying no legal estate, not even after condition broken.' In South Carolina it has been held lately that the mortgage is so far not an alienation or conveyance of land, as that the word "heirs" is not required to give a mortgage in fee, although words of limitation are still required in that State in convey- ances inter vivos."^ This general statement of the change which the law of mortgages has undergone, and is still 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 100-108; Jones on Mortg., sects. 17-60. 2 Bredenburg v. Landrum (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 956. 259 § 302 MORTGAGES. [PAKT I. undergoing, for in most of the States it is still in a state of transition, will serve to explain why, in the presentation of the law, so much difficulty is experi- enced in attaining perspicuity of statement and a reconcile- ment of authorities. This fact must ever be borne in mind, that, although in all the States the law is developing into the lien-theory, so-called, yet the development in some is not as advanced as in others. In the consultation of authorities, therefore, in order to ascertain the law in any particular State, only such cases may be referred to with safety, as are found in those States which are in the same stage of development. It is to be further remembered that even the decisions from these States can only be relied upon as furnishing general rules of analogy. The details of the law of mortgages must be sought for in the reports of the State, in which the question arises. § 302. The form of a mortgage. — The mortgage con- sists of a deed, similar in terms to the ordinary deed of conveyance, conveying the estate to the mortgagee, but qualified by a defeasance clause, in which it is provided that the conveyance shall be void, when the condition, usually the payment of money, is 23erformed, and shall be- come absolute in the mortgagee upon breach of the condition. Generally, any deed which appears upon its face to have been intended as a security for the payment of money, will be construed as a mortgage. i If the instrument does not 1 Co. Lit. 205 a, Butler's note, 96; Hughes u. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 489; Morrisii. Nixon, 1 How. 118; Russell i;. Southard, 12 How. 139; Bigelowt). Topliff, 25 Vt. 273; Steel v. Steel, i Allen, 419; Gilson v. Gilson,"2 Allen, 115; Parks?'. Hall,2Pick. 211; NugenttJ. Riley, 1 Mete. 117; Vanderhaize V. Hughes, 13 N. J. 244; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. 246~; Hodges ». Tenn. Marine, etc., Ins. Co., 8 N. J. 416; Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch. 218; Howe V. Russell, 36 Me. 115; Stoeveru. Stoever, 9 Serg. & R. 434; Bk. of Westminster v. Whyte, 1 Md. Ch. 536; s. c. 3 Md. Ch. 508; Mende v. Be- laire, 2 Desau. 564; Yarborough v. Newell, 10 Yerg. 376; Delahay v. Mc- Connell, 4 Scam. 156; Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 386; Edington v. Harper, 260 CH. X.J MORTGAGES. § 303 conform to the legal requirements for the execution of a deed, as where the seal has been neglected, or the proper number of attesting witnesses is not obtained, the deed will be inoperative as a mortgage at law, and it is believed generally in equity. But in some of the States, such an imperfect mortgage has been treated in equity as imposing a lien upon the land for the benefit of the creditor, which partaiies of the same nature as a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. 1 And it has been held that a written agreement for security on certain property will in equity, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, operate as a lien on such property against every one interested therein, who has notice of the agreement.^ § 303. Execution o£ the defeasance. — The defeasance clause is usually found in the same deed, which conveys the estate, but this is not necessary. It may be contained in a separate instrument executed and delivered by the grantee or mortgagee to the grantor or mortgagor. In such a case, however, the instrument must be under seal, 3 J. J. Marsh. 353; Davis v. Stonestreet, 4 Ind. 101; Gibson v. Eller, 13 Ind. 124; Henry v. Davis, 7 Johns. Ch. 40; IM'Brayer u. Roberts, 2 Dev. Eq. 75; Hauseru. Lash, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 212; Claris v. Henry, 2 Cow. 324; Woodworth v. Guzman, 1 Cal. 203; Wilson v. Drumrite, 21 Mo. 325; Cot- terell v. Long, 20 Ohio, 464; English ». Lane, 1 Port. 328; Chowning w. Cox, 1 Band. 306; Rogan v. Walker, 1 Wis. 527; Burnside v. Terry, 45 Ga. 621; Mason v. Moody, 26 Miss. 184; 4 Kent's Com. 461; Newman V. Samuels, 17 Iowa, 528. 1 Coe V. Columbia, etc., B. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 372; Price v. Cutts, 29 Ga. 142-148; McQuie v. Rag, 58 Mo. 66; Daggett v. Rankin, 31 Cal. .321; McClurg v. Phillips, 49 Mo. 315; Burnside v. Wayman, 48 Mo. 356; Har- rington V. Fortner, 58 Mo. 468; Dunn v. Raley, 58 Mo. 134; Lake v. Doud, 10 Ohio, 515; Abbott v. Godfrey, 1 Mann. (Mich.) 198; Jones v. Brewington, 68 Mo. 665; Black ». Gregg, 58 Mo. 505; Brown v. Brown, 103 Ind. 23; Bullock ■». Whipp, 13 R. D. 196; Watkins i). Vrooman, 51 Hun, 175; Bell v. Pelt, 61 Ark. 433; Westerly Sav. Bank v. Stillman Mfg. Co. (R. I. 1889), 17 Atl. Rep. 918. 2 Gest !>. Packwood, 39Ped. Rep. 525; Watkins v. Vrooman, 61 Hun, 175. 261 § 303 MORTGAGES. [PAET 1. in order to have at law the power of convertiDg the appar- ently absolute deed of conveyance into a mortgage.^ It must either be executed at the same time or subsequently in pursuance of an agreement entered into at the time of conveyance.^ And as a general rule, although it is not necessary that the deed and the defeasance should bear the same date or be executed at the same time, they must be delivered at the same time. Delivery of the defeasance is essential to its full legal operation.^ In some of the States a separate deed of defeasance is required to be recorded, in order to convert an absolute deed into a mortgage, as ■■ Bod well V. Webster, 13 Pick. 411; Harrison u. Trustees, 12 Mass. 459; Flint v. Sheldou, 13 Mass. 443; Richardson v. Woodbury, 48 Me. 206; Adams u. Stevens, 49 Me. 362; Warren v. Lovis, 53 Me. 464; French V. Sturdivant, 8 Greenl. 246; Lund v. Lund, 1 N. H. 39; Dey v. Dunham, 2 Johns. Ch. 191; Baker v. Wind, 1 Ves. sr., 160; Perkins v Dibble, 10 Ohio, 433; Whitney v. French, 25 Vt. 663; Kent v. AUbritaln, 5 Miss. 317; Baldwin v. Jenkins, 23 Miss. 206; Lane u._ Shears, 1 Wend. 433; Stoever V. Stoever, 9 Serg. & R. 434; Houser v. Lamont, 55 Pa. St. 311; Plato v. Roe, 14 Wis. 453; Preschbaker v. Feaman, 32 111. 475; Sharkey v. Shar- key, 47 Mo. 543; Clark v. Lyon, 46 Ga. 203; Copeland v. Yoakum, 38 Mo. 349; Baxter v. Dear, 24 Texas, 17; Crasson v. Swoveland, 22 Ind. 427; Hill'!;. Edwards, 11 Minn. 22; Marshall v. Stewart, 17 Ohio, 356; Robin- son V. Willoughby, 65 N. C. 520; Enos v. Sutherland, 11 Mich. 538; Archambau v. Green, 21 Minn. 520; Freeman v. Baldwin, 13 Ala. 246; Edington v. Harper, 3 J. J. Marsh. 353; Hammonds v. Hopkins, 3 Yerg. 625; Clark v. Henry, 2 Cow. 324. 2 Jeffrey v. Hursh, 58 Mich. 246; Waters v. Crabtree, 105 N. C. 394; McMillan v. Bissell, 63 Mich. 66. " Bennock v. Whipple, 12 Me. 340; Bodwell v. Webster, 13 Pick. 411 ; Scott «. McFarland,^ 13 Mass. 309; Lund v. Lund, 1 N. H. 49; Kelly v. Thompson, 7 Watts, 401; Reitenbaugh u. Ludwick, 31 Pa. St. 131; Hale V. Jewell, 7 Greenl. 435; Holmes v. Grant, 8 Paige Ch. 243; Bryant v. Cowart, 21 Ala. 9 ; Sweetland v. Swetland, 3 Mich. 482 ; Harrison v. Phillip's Academy, 12 Mass. 450; Newhall v. Bart, 7 Pick. 157; Colwell B. Woods, 3 Walts, 188; Kelley i;. Thompson, 7 Watts, 401; Scott ». Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Nugent i;. Riley, 1 Mete. 117; Crane ». Bonnell, 1 Green Ch. 264; Wilson v. Shoenberger, 31 Pa. St. 296; Mclntier o. Shaw, 6 Allen, 83; McLaughlin v. Shepherd, 32 Me. 143; Brown v. Holy- oke, 53 Me. 9; Kelleran v. Brown, 4 Mass. 443; Haines v. Thompson, 70 Pa. St. 434; Preschbaker B. Feaman, 32 111. 475; Bickford ». Daniels, 2 N. H. 71. 262 CH. X.J MORTGAGES. § 304 against every one except the maker. ^ But where such is not the law, any other notice, actual or constructive, suf- fices to bind subsequent purchasers. If they have no notice of the defeasance at all, the deed as to them, will be an absolute conveyance.^ And where they are both rec- orded they must show for themselves, that they are parts of the same transaction, in order that the record may be. con- structive notice to purchasers.* Possession by the grantor is not notice of a defeasance deed held by him.* § 304. Form of the defeasance. — No particular form is necessary, provided the deed clearly shows the intention of the parties, that the instrument shall have the effect of a mortgage.^ And wherever the condition in a deed is the payment of money, the presnmption of law is always in favor of its being treated as a mortgage. Any agreem'ent under seal, therefore, which provides for the contingent avoidance of a deed of conveyance, or calls for the recon- veynnce of the estate, upon the payment of a sum of money within the prescribed time, will be a defeasance deed and will make the deed of convej'ance a mortgage. And where the relation of debtor and creditor existed, any such agree- 1 Tomlinson I). Monmouth Ins. Co., 47 Me. 232; 2 Comp. Laws (Mich. 1871), p. 1346; 1 Minn. Stat, at large (1873), p. 640; Russell v. Waite, Walk. 31. 2 Newhall i;. Pierce, 5 Pick. 450; Parrington u. Pierce, 38 Me. 447; Walton V. Crowley, 14 Wend. 63; Brown v. Dean, 3 Wend. 208; James V. Johnston, 6 Johns. Ch. 417; Friedley v. Hamilton, 17 Serg. & R. 70; Harrison v. Trustees, 12 Mass. 456 ; Knight v. Dyer, 57 Me. 177 ; Day v. Dunham, 2 Johns. Ch. 182 ; Wyatt ». Stewart, 34 Ala. 716 ; Halsey v. Mar- tin, 22 Cal. 645; Henderson v. Pilgrim, 22 Texas, 475. 3 Weide v. Gehl, 21 Minn. 449; Hill v. Edwards, 11 Minn. 22; King v. Little, 1 Cush. 436. * Newhall v. Pierce, 5 Pick. 450; Hennessey u. Andrews, 6 Cush. 170; Kunkle v. Wolfsberger, 6 Watts, 126; Crassenw. Swoveland, 22 Ind. 434. See Contra, Daubenspeck v. Piatt, 22 Cal. 330; Pritchard v. Brown, 4 N. H. 397. » Pearce ». Wilson; 111 Pa. St. 14; Mellon v. Lemmon, 111 Pa. St. 56; In re HeHenstein's Estate, 20 Atl. 151. 263 § 305 MORTGAGES. [PAKT I. ment would be held to create a mortgage, although the parties did not intend that that should be the effect of the transaction.^ Such agreements or defeasance deeds or clauses are to be distinguished from § 305. Agreements to repurchase, — Which very often bear a close resemblance to each other. The difference in the legal effect of the two is very great. If the agree- ment be merely to repurchase upon certain specified terms, or at the time stipulated, a failure to comply with the terms of the agreement destroys the right to repurchase, and the grantor has no equity of redemption, of which he can afterward avail himself in a court of equity. If it is a defeasance, he has that right, the conveyance being a mort- gage. Wherever a doubt exists whether the agreement is one to repurchase or a defeasance, the courts are inclined to the latter construction. And where the relation between the parties is that of debtor and creditor, and the intention of the parties, as shown on the face of the deed, is that the agreement should operate as a security for the debt, the presumption becomes conclusive that the agreement is a defeasance. And generally, under such circumstances, parol evidence will not be admissible to rebut this presump- tion, although such evidence is freely admitted to rebut the contrary presumption.^ Each case, however, must depend 1 Nugent u. Riley, 1 Meto. 117; Hebron u. Centre Harbor, 11 N. H. 571 ; Holmes v. Grant, 8 Paige Cb. 213; Lanfair v. Lanfair, 18 Pick. 299; Austin ». Downer, 25 Vt. 558; Stewarts. Hutcbings, 13 Wend. 485; Carey V. Eawson, 8 Mass. 159; Gllson v. Gilson, 2 AUen, 115; Hicljs v. Hicks, 5Gill&J. 75; Breckinridge w. Auld, 1 Robt. 148; Eeed «. Gaillard, 2 Desau. 552; Harrison v. Lemon, 3 Blackf. 51; Carr u. Holbrook, 1 Mo. 240; Belton t;. Avery, 2 Root, 279; Marshall ». Stewart,. 17 Ohio, 356; Pugh V. Holt, 27 Miss. 461 ; Batty v. Snook, 6 Mich. 231 ; Gillis v. Martin, 2 Dev. Eq. 470 ; Ogden v. Grant, 6 Dana, 473 ; Coldwell v. Woods 3 Watts, 188 ; Kunlde v. Wolfersberger, «> Watts, 126 ; Watkins v. Gregory, 6 Blackf. 113; Peterson v. Clark, 15 Johns. 205; Rice v. Rice, 4 Pick. 349; Pearce v. Wilson, 111 Pa. St. 14. 2 2 Cruise Dig. 74; 4 Kent's Com. 144; Kelly v. Thompson, 7 Watts, 401; Wing v. Cooper, 37 Vt. 179; Trucks v. Lindsay, 18 Iowa, 505; TruU 264 <3H. X.J MOETGAGES. §305 upon its own circumstances, and the question finally becomes one of fact, whether it was intended that th^ agreement should operate as a defeasance or as a conditional sale.^ Among the circumstances, which tend to establish the pre- sumption that the agreement is a defeasance, are the inade- quacy of the consideration, the continued possession of the grantor, the necessities or financial embarrassments of the grantor ; while the adequacy of the consideration, the pos- session of the grantee, the vesting of the right to enforce V. Skinner, 17 Pick. 216 ; Page v. Foster, 7 N. H. 392 ; Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch, 218; Flagg v. Mann, U Pick. 483; Weathersly v. Weathersly, 40 Miss. 46,9; Pearson v. Seay, 35 Ala. 612; Ricti v. Doane, 35 Vt. 125; DeFrance v. DeFrance, 34 Pa. St. 385; Watkins t). Gregory, 6 Blackf. 113; Eice V. Rice, 4 Pick. 349 ; Haines v. Tliompson, 70 Pa. St. 438 ; Woodson V. "Wallace, 22 Pa. St. 171; Peterson v. Cljrk, 15 Jolins. 206; Robinson v. Cropsey, 2 Edw. Cli. 138; s. c. 6 Paige, 480; Brown v. Dewey, 1 Sandf. Ch. 66; Huglies v. Sheaff, 19 Iowa, 335; Sears u. Dixon, 33 Cal. 326; Poindexter v. McCannon, 1 Dev. Eq. 373; Davis v. Stonestreet, 4 Ind. 191 ; Heatli v. WUliams, 30 Ind. 495; Cornell v. Hall, 22 Micli. 377; Pen- nington V. Hanby, 4 Munf. 140; Henly v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 22; Snyder v. Griswold, 37 111. 216; McCarron ■«. Cassidy, 18 Ark. 34; Montgomery u. Chadwick, 7 Iowa, 114; Kearney v. McComb, 16 N. J. Eq. 189; Glover ». Payne, 19 Wend. 518. But if the debt is an old one, and ttie intention of the parties is to pay the debt by the conveyance, the agreement to repur- chase will not convert the deed into a mortgage, as it would if the con- veyance was intended as a security for the conveyance. Glover v. Payne, 19 Wend. 618; French v. Sturdivant, 8 Me. 246; Hillhouse v. Dunning, 7 Conn. 143; Murphy v. Parifayy 52 Ga. 480; Slowey v. McMnrray, 27 Mo. 113; O'Neill v. Capelle, 62 Mo. 202; Honore v. Hutchings, 8 Bush, 687; Pitts V. Cable, 44 111. 103; Magnusson v. Johnson, 73 111. 156; Hall v. Saville, 3 Greene (Iowa), 37; West v. Hendrix, 28 Ala. 226; Ruffier v. Womack, 36 Texas, 332; Hickox v. Lowe, 10 Cal. 197; Kerru. Hill, 27 W. Va. 676; Chicago, B., etc., R. E. Co. v. Watson, 113 111. 195; Wolfe v. McMillan, 117 Ind. 587. 1 But in order that a conveyance may be treated as a mortgage, there must be a debt or a loan. If there be no debt, the agreement to reconvey is an agreement to repurchase, or converts the original conveyance into a conditional sale. Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch, 218; Lund v. Lund, 1 N. H. 39; Flagg v. Mann, 14 Pick. 467; Reading v. Weston, 7 Conn. 143; Gait V. Jackson, 9 Ga. 151 ; Pearson v. Seay, 35 Ala. 612 ; Henley v. Hotal- ing, 41 Cal. 22; DeFrance v. DeFrance, 34 Pa. St. 386; Rich v. Doane, 35 Vt. 126; Chandler v. Chandler, 76 Iowa, 574; Vincents. Walker, 86 Ala. 333. 265 § 805 MORTGAGES. [PART I. the agreement in a third person, the existence of other securities in the possession of the grantor for the payment of the consideration of the original conveyance, go to prove that it was a conditional sale, or that the grantor has only the right to repurchase. ^ Both the defeasance and the 1 'Williams v. Owen, 5 Mylne & C. 303; Perry v. Meddowcraft, 4 Beav. 197; Haines v. Thompson, 70 Pa. St. 442; Hiester v. Madeira, 3 Watts & S. 384; Baker v. Thrasher, 4 Denio, 493; Slowey v. McMarray, 31 Mo. 113; Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch, 218; Holmes v. Grant, 8 Paige Ch. 243; Eussell v. Southard, 12 How. 139; Waters v. Randall, 6 Mete. 479; Todd V. Hardle, 5 Ala. 698; "West v. Hendrix, 28 Ala. 226; Luctetto. Townshend, 3 Texas, 119; Bdington v. Harper, 3 J. J. Marsh. 353; Davis u. Stonestreet, 4 Ind. 101; Sellers v. Stalcup, 7 Ired. Eq. 13; Bennett v. Holt, 2 Yerg. 6; Flagg v. Mann, 14 Pick. 467; Low v. Henry, 9 Cal. 538; Warren v. Lovis, 53 Me. 463; Ransone v. Frayser, 10 Leigh, 592; Gibson V. Eller, 13 Ind. 124; Campbells. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130; Thompson ■!). Banks, 2 Md. Ch. 430; Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329; Brown v. Dewey, 1 Sandf. Ch. 56; Carr v. Rising, 62 111. 14; Pearson v. Seay, 35 Ala. 612; Elliott V. Maxwell, 7 Ired. Eq. 246; Trucks v. Lindsey, 18 Iowa, 504; Gibbs V. Penny, 43 Texas, 660; Crews v. Threadgill, 35 Ala. 334; Wilson V. Patrick, 34 Iowa, 361; Daubenspeck v. Piatt, 22 Cal. 430; Greig v. Russell, 115 111. 483; Devore v. Woodruff (N. D. 1890), 45 N. W. 701; Lynch v. Jackson, 28 111. App. 660; s. c. 129 II!. 72; Snow v. Pressey, 82 Me. 552; Sherrer v. Harris (Ark. 1890), 13 S. W. 730; Clark, 24 111. App. 510; In re Helfenstein's Estate (Pa. 1890), Atl. 151; Becker v. Howard, 75 Wis. 415; Greenwood, etc., Co. v. N. Y.,etc., R. R. Co.,8 N.T. S. 711; Eames v. Hardin, 111 111. 634; Gaines v. Brockerhuft (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 958; Fox o. Heffner, 1 Watts & S. 372; Jackinan v. Kingland, 4 Watts & S. 149; Null V. Fries, 110 Pa. St. 521; Lynch v. Jackson, 28 111. App. 160; s. c. 129 111. 72; Stahl v. Dehn, 72 Mich. 645; Elston v. Chamberlain, 41 Kan. 354; Baker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 79 Cal. 34; Chandler v. Chandler, 76 Iowa, 574; Jackson v. Lynch, 129 111. 72; Hall v. Arnott, 80 Cal. 348; Wallace v. Johnstone, 129 U. S. 58; Hodge v. Weeks, 31 S. C. 276 ; Vincent v. Walker, 86 Ala. 333. When it is doubtful on all the facts of the case, whether the transaction is a mortgage or a conditional sale, it is always presumed to be a mortgage. Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139; Eaton v. Green, 22 Pick. 526; Crane v. Bonnell, 1 Green Ch. 264; Baugher v. Merry man, 32 Md. 185; Bacon v. Brown, 19 Conn. 34; Turnip- seed V. Cunningham, 16 Ala. 501; Cot;rell». Long, 20 Ohio, 464; GilliS!). Martin, 2 Dev. Eq. 470; O'Neil v. Capelle, 62 Mo. 209; Turner v. Kerr, 44 Mo. 429; Heath v. Williams, 30 Ind. 498; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Swetland v. Swetland, 3 Mich. 645; Trucks v. Lindsay, 18 Iowa, 504; Ward •«. Deering, 4 Mon. 44; Jones v. Blake, 33 Mkin. 362. 266 Cli. X.J MORTGAGES. § 307 contract to repurchase are to be distinguished from a con- tract to repurchase at a given figure, if the grantee should at any time conclude to sell. This agreement does not give the grantor any right to compel a reconveyance, if the grantee does not want to sell.^ It § 306. The defeasance clause in equity. — If the in- strument containing the defeasance does not fulfill all the legal requirements of a deed, it will not in a court of law have the effect of converting an absolute conveyance into a mortgage. But it will be good in equity, and in that court the conveyance will be treated and enforced as a mort- gage against ail having actual notice of its real character. Thus, the want of a seal, the absence of the requisite num- ber of witnesses, an improper acknowledgment of the deed, would invalidate the defeasance in law, but it would be enforced in equity.^ Courts of equity have not only gone thus far in correcting and supplementing the common law, but they have, also, in cases where the defeasance was not put to writing, sustained § 307. The admissibility of parol evidence, — To prove that a deed, absolute on its face, was intended to be a mort- gage. The authorities are not uniform as to how far, or in what cases, such evidence is admissible. Some have held that in any case parol evidence can be introduced to prove a deed to be a mortgage, thus ignoring completely the application to mortgages of the rule, that parol evi- dence is inadmissible to vary or control a written instru- 1 Garcia v. Callender, 125 N. Y. 307. 2 Story Eq. Jur., sect. 1018; Kelleran c. Brown, 4 Mass; 444; Baton ■o. Green, 22 Pick. 626; Delaire v. Keenan, 3 Desau. 74; Woods ». Wal- lace, 22 Pa. St.. 171; Flagg u. Mann, 14 Pick. 467; Cutters. Dickinson, 8 Pick. 386; Jewett ■». Bailey, 5 Me. 87; Warren v. Louis, 53 Me. 463; Murpliy V. Galley, 1 Allen, 107; Gillis v. Martin, 2 Dev. Eq. 470. See 2 Washb. 59. 267 § 307 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. ment,^ while others either deny the right altogether, ^ or limit its admissibility to such cases as fall within the ordi- ^ Eussell V. Southard, 12 How. 139 ; Babcock v. Wyman, 19 How. 239; Sprigg^). Bk. of Mt. Pleasant, li JPet. 201; Jordony.Fenno, 13 Ark. 593; Anthony ■«. Anthony, 23 Ark. 479; Pierce v. Eoblnson, 13 Cal. 116; Par- mer V. Grose, 42 Cal. 169; Kuhn v. Rumpp, 46 Cal. 299; Klock v. "Walter, 70 111. 416; Wynkoopu. Cowing, 21 111. 570; Sutphen v. Cushman, 35 111. 186; Conwell v. Bvill, 4 Ind. 67; Heath w. "Williams, 30 lud. 495; Roberts V. McMahan, 4 Greene (Iowa), 34; Johnson v. Smith, 39 Iowa, 549; Zuver V. Lyons, 40 Iowa, 570 ; Moore v. "Wade, 8 Kan. 381 ; Richardson ». "Woodbury, 43 Me. 206; Whitney t;. Batchelder, 32 Me. 313; Campbell B.Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130; 12 Am. Rep. 371; Hassam b. Barrett, 115 Mass. 24; McDonough tJ. Squire, 111 Mass. 250; Flagg b. Mann, 14 Pick. 467,478; Glass B. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24; Emerson B. Atwater, 7 Mich. 12; Swetland v. Swetland, 3 Mich. 482; Wads worth «. Loranger, Har. (Mich.) 113; Belate v. Morrison, 8 Minn. 87; "Weide u. Gehl, 21 Minn. 449; Freeman t7. "Wilson, 51 Miss. 329; Littlewort b. Davis, 50 Miss. 403; O'Neill V. Capelle, 62 Mo. 202 ; Hogel v. Lindell, 10 Mo. 483; Slowey v. McMurry, 27 Mo. 116; Schade b. Bessenger, 3 Neb. 140; Cookes v. Cul- berts'on, 9 Nev. 199; Sweet v. Parker, 22 N. J. Eq. 453; Crane b. Bon- nell, 1 Green Ch. 204; Strong b. Stewart, 4 Johns. 167; Horn B.Keteltas, 46 N. Y. 605; Carr v. Carr, 52 N. Y. 258; Fielder v. Darien, 50 N. Y. 437; Murry ». "Walker, 31 N. Y. 399; Miami Ex. Co. v. U. S. Bank, "Wright, 249; Cottrell v. Long, 20 Ohio, 464; Kerr v. Gilmore, 6 Watts, 405; Rhines b. Baird, 41 Pa. St. 256 ; Palmer v. Guthrie, 76 Pa. St. 441; Tay- lor b. Luther, 3 Sumn. 228; Nichols b. Reynolds, 1 R. I. 30; Nichols b. McCabe, 3Head. 93; Haynes b. Swan, 6 Heisk. 560; Ruggles v. Williams, 1 Head. 141 ; Mead v. Randolph, 8 Texas, 191 ; Carter b. Carter, 5 Texas, 93; Gibbs v. Penny, 43 Texas, 560; Wright b. Bates, 13 Vt. 248; Hills v. Loomis, 42 "Vt. 562; Ross b. Norvell, 1 Wash. (Va.) 14; Bird b. Wilkin- son, 4 Leigh, 266; Klinck v. Price, 4 W. "Va. 4; 6 Am. Rep. 268; Rogan V. Walker, 1 Wis. 527; WUcox b. Bates, 26-Wis. 465; Cadman v. Peter, 118 V. S. 731;- Lance's Appeal, 112 Pa. St. 456; Matheny b. Sandford, 26 W. Va. 385; Workman b. Greening, 115 111. 477; Bailey v. Bailey, 115 111.551; Jones B.Blake, 33 Minn. 362; Miller b. Auseuig, 2 Wash. 22; Mc- Millon B. Bissell, 63 Mich. 66; Murdock b. Clark (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. 272; Gilchrist b. Bos wick, 33 W. Va. 168; Broughtou v. Vasquez, 73 Cal. 325; Ashton V. Shepherd, 120 Ind. 64; McPherson v. Hayward, 81 Me. 329; Hart I). Epstein, 71 Tex. 752; Hanks ». Rhodes, 128 111. 404; Towers. Fetz, 26 Neb. 706 ; Hall v. Arnott, 80 Cal. 348; Jackson b. Jones, 74 Tex. 104. ' Bassett b. Bassett, 10 N. H. 64; Porter v. Nelson, 4 N. H. 130; Boody B. Davis, 20 N. H. 140. By statute, in Georgia, the admissibility of parol evidence is limited to cases of fraud in the procurement of the absolute deed. CodeGa. (1873), p. 669; Spence u. Steadman,4!)Ga. 133; 268 CH. X.J MORTGAGES. § 307 nary equitable jurisdiction of fraud, accident or mistake, i. e., where the failure to reduce the defeasance to writ- ing aros e out of eome fraud, accident or mistake.^ As a general rule, such evidence will be received only in a court of equity, and although perhaps the majority of the courts apply the rule in every case, irrespective of any question of fraud, yet, upon a closer analysis of the cases, it will be found that in no case does the court of equity int erfere and permit the introduction of parol evidence, unless the circumstances of the case are such as would make the vendee guilty of at least con- structive fraud in insisting upon the deed being treated as an absolute conveyance.^ In any case, the evidence must Broach «. Barfleld, 57 Ga. 601; Mitchell w. Fullington, 83 Ga. 301. In Pennsylvania a similar statute has been enacted. SmoUy v. Ulrich (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 305. In Connecticut it has been lately held to be a doubt- ful question. Osgood v. Thompson Bk., 30 Conn. 27. ' Washburn v. Merrills, 1 Day, 139; Collins v. Tillon, 26 Conn. 368; Brainerd u. Brainerd, 15 Conn. 575; French a. Burns, 35 Conn. 359; Chaires i;. Brady, 19 Fla. 133; Spence i;. Steadman, 49 Ga. 133; Biggars ■V. Bird, 55 Ga. 650; Skinner v. Miller, 5 Litt. 86; Blanchard v. Kenton, 4 Bibb. 451; Green v. Sherrod, 105 N. C. 197; Coiitcher «. Muir's Exr. (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 435. And if the deed is made absolute so as to cover up a usurious contract, it will be such a ground of fraud in Kentucky as will admit parol evidence. Murphy v. Trigg, 1 Mou. 72; Cook v. Colyer, 2 B. Mon. 71; Bk. of Westminster v. Whyte, 1 Md. Ch. 536; s. v. 3 Id. 508; Artz v. Grove, 21 Md. 474; Price v. Grover, 40 Md. 102; Kelly ». Bryan, 6 Ired. Eq. 283; Brothers u. Harrill, 2 Jones Eq. 209 ; Glisson ». Hill, Id. 256; Arnold v. Mattison, 3 Rich. Eq. 153. 2 In most of the States where the rule is broad as above stated, it is held, to employ the language of Mr. Jones, that " fraud in the use of the deed is as much a ground for the interposition of equity as fraud in its creation." Jones on Mortg,, sect. 288; Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 116; Conwallu. Evill, 4 Ind. 67; O'Neill v. Capelle, 62 Mo. 202; Moreland v. Bernhart, 44 Texas, 275, 283; Wright v. Bates, 13 Vt. 348; Eogan v. Walker, 1 Wis. 52; Strong v. Stewart, 4 Johns. Ch. 167. See generally the cases cited supra. Under this theory, the extreme doctrine, that parol evidence Is admissible to show an absolute deed to be a mortgage, does not conflict with the ordinary construction of the Statute of Erauds. But the statute is thus subjected to a very strained construction, what- ever theory may be applied to the solution of this question. 269 § 308 MORTGAGES. [pART I. be clear and free from doubt as to the intention to execute a mortgage in order that a deed absolute on its face may by parol evidence be converted into a mortgage.^ It is to be understood, however, that the deed cannot be shown to be a mortgage, so as to disturb the title of a purchaser from the grantee, in reliance upon his apparent absolute title.^ § 308. Contemporaneous agreements. — If the deed be in fact a mortgage, not only will no parol evidence be admitted to show that such was not the intention of the parties, but it is also impossible by any contemporaneous agreement of the most formal character to withdraw from the mortgage the rights which are incident thereto, or to change the obligations of the parties thereunder in any manner whatsoever. The right to redeem after condition broken can never be taken away by such an agreement. The agreement is simply void.' Neither can the mortgage 1 Cadmanu. Peters, 118 Pa. St. 73; Lance's Appeal, 112 Pa. St. 456; Matheney v. Sandford, 26 W. Va. 386; Bentley u. O'Bryne, 111 111. 53; Parmer's Admr. v. Parmer, 88 Ala. 545; Fisher's Apptal, 132 Pa. St. 488; Langes t>. Muservey (Iowa, 1890), 45 N. W. 732; Armor v. Spalding, (Colo. 1890), 23 Pac. 789; Franklin v. Ayers, 22 Fla. 654; McMillan v. Bissell, 63 Mich. 66; Jameson v. Emerson, 82 Me. 359; Sanborn v. Magee (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. 720; Sherrer v. Harris (Ark. 1890), 13 S. W. 730; Jones V. Pierce (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 689; Winston v. Burrell (Kan. 1890), 24 Pac. 477; Strong v. Strong, 27 III. App. 148; s. c. 126 111. 301; Shattuck ». Bascom, 55 Hun, 14; Null ^). Fries, 110 Pa. St. 52); Mungeru. Casey (Pa. St. 1889), 17 Atl. 36; To wnsend ». Petersen, 12 Colo. 491; Jackson «. Jones, 74 Tex. 104. " Jackson v. Lawrence, 117 U. S. 679; Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga, 364. s Wing V. Cooper, 37 Vt. 181 ; Clark v. Henry, 2 Cow. 324; Henry v. Davis, 7 Johns. Ch. 40; Waters v. Kandali, 6 Mete. 479; Bailey v. Bailey, 5 Gray, 505; Vanderhaize i». Haques, 13 N. J. 244; Oldenbaugh ». Brad- ford, 67 Pa. St. 104; Rankin v. Mortimere, 7 Watts, 372 ; Baxter v. Child, 39 Me. 110; Johnston i). Gray, 16 Serg. & R, 361; Murphy ». Calley, 1 Allen, 107; Clarke. Condit, ]8 N. J. Eq. 358; Batty v. Suook, 5 Mich. 231; Thompson M. Davenport, 1 Wash. (Va.) 123; Eaton u. Whiting, 3 Pick. 484; Davis v. Stonestreet, 4 Ind. 101; Wynkoop v. Cowing, 21 111. 570; Robinsons. Farrelly, 16 Ala. 472; Cherry d. Bowen, 4 Sneed, 415; Lee V. Evans, 8 Cal. 424; Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cat. 125; Rogau v. Walker, 1 Wis. 527; Plato v. Roe, 14 Wis. 453; Willetts -v. Burgess, 34 270 CH. X.] MORTGAGES. § 309 provide for redemption within a shorter period than what is allowed by law, nor impose an increased rate of interest after breach of the condition, nor require anything else which would in the slightest degree curtail the right to redeem.' ^ § 309. Subsequent agreements. — But it is possible for the mortgagor by a subsequent agreement, either to de- prive himself entirely of the equity of redemption, or to limit its exercise. But in view of the peculiar relation of the parties, and the possibility of duress and undue influ- ence through the perhaps impecunious condition of the mortgagor, courts of equity looktwith suspicion upon all such agreements ; and if there is any improper advantage taken of his financial embarrassment, or the transaction is in the slightest degree a hard bargain, the agreement will be annulled, and the mortgsigor permitted to redeem. For that reason the purchase by the mortgagee of the mort- gagor's equity of redemption must be conducted with the 111. 494; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265; Newcomb v. Bonham, 1 Vern. 7; Co. Lit. 205 a, n. 96; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 693; Miami Ex. Co. ■». U. S. Bank, Wright (Ohio), 253; Toule ». Richards, 1 N. J. Eq. 534; McClurkan ». Thompson, 69 Pa. St. 805. 1 Johnston u. Gray, 16 Serg. & R. 361; Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 38; Spurgeon v. Collier, 1 Eden, 55; Willett a. Winnell, 1 Vern. 488; Mayo V. Judah, 5 Munf. 496; Price v. Perrie, Ereem. Ch. 257; Sheckell ii. Hopkins, 2 Md. Ch. 89; Hallifax i). Higgens, 2 Vern. 134; McGready «. McGready, 17 Mo. 697; McClurkan v. Thompson, 69 Pa. St. 805; Toom.s V. Couset, 8 Atk. 261 ; Waters v. Randall, 6 Mete. 479; Chambers v. Gold- win, 9 Ves. 271 ; Jenning u. Ward, 2 Vern. 520; Chambers u. Goldwin', 9 Ves. 71 ; Leith u. Irvine, 1 My. & K. 277; Blackburn «. Warwick, 2 Younge &C. 92. But it has been held that the right to redeem may be postponed for a reasonable time by the agreement of the parties. Talbot ». Brad- dill, 1 Vern. 183; Cowdry v. Day, 1 Gif. 316. And an agreement that, upon the failure to pay interest or an installment of the principal when due, the entire debt will fall due, is good, and does not curtail the right to redeem. Eerris D. Ferris, 28 Barb. 29; People v. Supreme Court, 19 Wend. 104; Noyes v. Clark, 7 Page, 179; James u. Thomas, 5 B. & Ad. 40; Basset v. Gallagher, 7 Wis. 442; Ottawa Plank Road v. Murray, 15 ni. 336. Contra, Tiernan v. Hmman, 16 111. 400. 271 § 310 MORTGAGES. [PAET I. most scrupulous care, in order to remove from the trans- action all suspicion of fraud.^ § 310. The mortgage debt. — There can be no mortgage without a mortgage debt. The debt may be either antece- ' dent or contemporary, or it may be incurred in the future, the last being known as future advances.^ All that is re- quired is that the debt is sufficiently described and limited in the mortgage, so that it may be recognized and distin- guished from other obligations.^ Ordinarily, parol evidence is inadmissible to show that the parties intended to include in the operation of the mortgage a debt which is not cov- 1 Russell V. Southard, 12 How. (U. S.) 139; Trail v. Skinner, 17 Pick. 213; Falls v. Conway Ins. Co., 7 Allen, 49; Harrison v. Trustees, 12 Mass. 456; Rice c.Bird, 4 Pick. 350; Patterson v. Yeaton, 47 Me. 308; Villa V. Rodriguez, 12 Wall. 323; Lawrence v. Stratton, 6 Cush. 163; Hyndman v. Hyndman, 19 Vt. 9; Holdridge v. Gillespie, 2 Johns. Ch. 30; Mason v. Grant, 21 Me. ISO; Maxfleld v. Patchen, 29 111. 42; Carpenter V. Carpenter, 70 111. 457; Sheckell ». Hopkins, 2 Md. Ch. 89; Marshall V. Stewart, 17 Ohio, 356; Wynkoop v. Cowing, 21 111. 570; Baugherr. Merryman, 32 Md. 185; Locke v. Palmer, 26 Ala. 812; Shubert v. Standley, 52 Ind. 46; "Waters v. Randall, 6 Mete. 479; Vennum v. Bab- cock, 13 Iowa, 194; Greene v. Butler, 26 Cal. 602; Henry v. Davis, 7 Johns. Ch. 40; Mills v. Mills, 26 Conn. 213; Wright v. Bates, 13 Vt. 341. 2 See Newkirk v. Newkirk, 56 Mich. 625; Shores v. Doherty, 65 Wis. 153; Louisville Bkg. Co. v. Leonard (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 521; Hyland V. Habich, 150 Mass. 112; Fessenden u. Taft CN. H. 1889), 17 Atl. 713. 3 Robertson v. Stark, 15 N. H. 112; Williams v. HUton, 35 Me. 547; Partridge v. Swazey, 46 Me. 414; Hough v. Bailey, 32 Conn. 288; Frinkr. Branch, 16 Conn. 260; Johns v. Church, 12 Pick. 657; Boody v. Davis, 20 N. H. 140; Warner v. Brooks, 14 Gray, 107; McKinster u. Babcock, 20 N. Y. 375; Kellogg v. Frazier, 40 Iowa, 502; Paine v. Benton, 32 Wis. 491; Boyd v. Baker, 43 Md. 182; Hurd v. Robinson, 11 Ohio St. 232; Hughes V. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 489; Kimball v. Myers, 21 Mich. 276; AuU ■o. Lee, 61 Mo. 160; FoUett t>. Heath, 15 Wis. 601 ; McDaniels v. Calvin, 16 Vt. 300; Booth v. Barnum, 9 Conn. 286; Gilmau v. Moody, 43 N. H. 329; Ricketson v. Richardson, 16 Cal. 330; Sheaf e v. Gerry, 18 N. H. 246; Moore v. Fuller, 6 Greg. 272; 25 Am. Rep. 424; Miller v. Rouser, 25 111. App. 88; Ray v. Hallenbeck, 42 Fed. 381; King i;. Kilbride, 58 Conn. 109; Williams v. Silliman, 74 Tex. 626; Walker v. Rand (111. 1890.), 22 N. E. 1006; Bank of Buffalo v. Thompson ^N. Y. 1890), 24 N. E. 473; Moran v. Gardemeyer, 82 Cal. 96. 272 < CH. X.] MOETGAGES. § 310 ered by the description.^ But where the description is not sufficiently particular to make the indentification of the debt sure, parol evidence is admissible to connect the debt with the mortgage, and supply the deficiencies of the descrip- tion.^ It has also been held that a mortgage, given appar- ently for a fixed debt already incurred, may be shown to have been intended to secure future advances.^ It is not necessary that the amount of the debt be stated in the mortgage, whether the sum be certain or uncertain.* But although the amount need not perhaps be stated in the mortgage, means must be provided in it, by way of refer- ence to other papers or records, for ascertaining the amount. Thus mortgages have been held good, where they were intended to secure a general indebtedness, such as, " what I may owe on book," " all the notes or agreements I now owe," " all sums that the mortgagee may become liable to pay," an open book account, and the like.^ But a debt ' Union Nat. Banku. International Bank, 22 111. App. 652; s. c. 123 111. 610. 2 Jackson v. Bowen, 7 Cow. 13; Johns v. Cliurch, 12 Pick. 557; Hall v. Tufts, 18 Pick. 455; Bell v. Fleming, 1 Beasl. 18; Baxter v. Mclntire, 13 Gray, 166; Gill i;. Pinney, 12 Ohio St. 38; Doe v. McLoskey, 1 Ala. 708; Babcock v. Lisk, 67 111. 327; Aull v. Lee, 61 Mo. 160; N. H. Bank v. Wil- lard, 10 N. H, 210; Hurdy v. Robinson, 11 Ohio St. 232; Crafts . Scarfe, 1 Atk. 606; Ledyard ». Butler, 9 Paige Ch. 132; Chamberlain t. Thompson, 10 Conn. 243; Baxter v. Dyer, 5 Ves. 656; McTaggartu. Thompson, 14 Pa. Sc. 149; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill; White V. Whitney, 3 Mete. 81; Huckins v. Straw, 34 Me. 166; Bird v. Decker, 64 Me. 550; Orr v. Hadley, 36 N. H. 575; Kennett v. Plummer, 28 Mo. 142; White v. Rittenmyer, 30 Iowa, 272; Wright u. Rose, 2 Sim. &S. 323; Glass v. KUison, 9 N. H. 69; Bourne v. Bourne, 2 Hare, 35; Bigelow V. Wilson, 1 Pick. 485. 2 Willington v. Gale, 7 Mass. 138; Taylor v. Porter, 7 Mass. 856; Blaney v. Pearce, 2 Greenl. 132; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill; Felch V. Taylor, 13 Pick. 133 ; Savage v. Dooley, 28 Conn. 411 ; Bird v. Decker, 64 Me. 550; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278; Orr v. Hadley, 30 N. H. 678; SchuykillCo. v. Thoburn, 7 Serg. & R. 411; Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290 ; Assay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. St. 21 ; Clark v. Keyburn, 1 Kan. 281. Trustees of Donations v. Streeter, 64 N. H. 106; Tilden v. Green- wood, 149 Mass. 567. Except as against the mortgagee and his privies, the mortgagor may maintain actions to recover possession or to recover damages for waste. Huckins v. Straw, 34 Me. 166; Stinson v. Ross, 51 Me. 566; Ellison v. Daniels, 11 N. H. 274; Den v. Dimon, 5 Halst. 156; Doe •«. McLoskey, 1 Ala. 708; Brown v. Snell, 6 Fla. 745; Ballard v. Ballardvale Co., 5 Gray, 468; Bird v. Decker, 64 Me. 550; Hall v. Lance, 25 111. 277; Glass v. Ellison, 9 N. H. 69; Woods v. Hildebrand, 46 Mo. 284 ; 2 Am. Rep. 513; Pueblo, etc.. Valley R. R. Co. v. Beshoar, 8 Col. 32. In Meyer v. Campbell, 12 Mo. 603, it was held that ejectment will not He by the mortgagor after the breach of the condition. And where the mortgagee has taken possession, an action for waste cannot be main- tained by the' mortgagor, unless the inheritance has been injured by the trespass. Spaihawk v. Bagg, 16 Gray, 683. And an action by the mortgagee for trespass is a bar to a similar action for the same offense by the mort- gagor. James v. Worcester, 141 Mass. 361. The mortgagor's widow has dower in the equity, if she has released her dower in the land, and may redeem the land from the mortgagee. Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452; Van Duyne v. Thayre, 14 Wend. 233; Hawley v. Bradford, 9 Paige Ch. 200; Snow v. Stevens, 15 Mass. 278; Eaton v. Simouds, 14 Pick. 98; Mc- Cabe V. Bellows, 7 Gray, 148; see post, sect. 334. 282 CH. X.] MORTGAGOES AND MORTGAGEES. § 318 the condition, under the common-law theory that the mort- gage conveyed a defeasible estate, the estate became al)SO- lute in the mortgagee, leaving nothing in the mortgagor but the equitable right to redeem the estate. This was called the equity of redemption. It was no estate in the land, simply an equitable right to regain the legal estate. At common law, therefore, the interest of the mortgagor after condition broken, although still considered real estate and descendible to the heirs of the mortgngor, and capable of alienation by the usual methods, could not be levied upon by creditors. But in this country at the present day the equity of redemption is generally held to have all the characteristics and qualities of a legal estate, and this too in those States whose courts still cling to the common-law theory of mortgages. The equity is now gen- erally subject to levy and sale under execution.^ 1 It is liable for debts. Gushing ». Hurd, 4 Pick. 253; Febeiger v. Craighead, 4 Ball. 151; Perrin v. Read, 35 Vt. 2; Dunbar v. Siarkey, 19 N. H. 160; Dadmun v. Lamson, 9 Allen, 86; Smith v. Sweetser, 32 Me. 246; Clinton Nat. Bank v, Manwaring, 39 Iowa, 281; Fox v. Harding, 21 Me. 104; White v. "Whitney, 3 Mete. 81; Curtis v. Koot, 20 111. 53; Graces. Mercer, 10 B. Mon. 157; Crow ». Tinsley, 16 Dana, 402; Wa- ters V. Stewart, 1 Caines' Cas. 47; Gotten v. Blocker, 6 Fla. 1; Fernald v. Linscott, 6 Greenl. 234 ; Huntington b. Cotton, 31 Miss. 253; Wiggln V. Heyward, 118 Mass. 514; Hall v. Tunnel], 1 Honst. 320; Van Ness v. Hyatt, 13 Pet. 294; Penderson v. Brown, 1 Day, 93; Slate ti. Laval, 4 McCord, 336; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johns. 41; Bosse v. Johnson, 73 Tex. 608. At common law, it was not subject to levy and sale under exe- cution, although perhaps always liable in equity. Plunkett v. Penson, 2 Atk. 290; Forth o. Norfolk, 5 Madd. 504; Van Ness D.Hyatt, 13 Pet. 294; Hill v. Smith, 2 McLean, 446. But in most of the States the courts have either by their adjudications assumed that it was a common-law right, or the right has been expressly givan by statute. Statutes have been passed in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina and several other States. 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 163. But the mortgagee cannot reduce the mortgage-debt to judgmi nt, and levy upon the equity of redemp- tion. Lysteri;. Dolland, 1 Ves. 431; Washburn i7. Goodwin, 17 Pick. 137; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. 351 ; Palmer v. Foote, 7 Paige Ch. 437; 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. 368; Goring v. Shreve, 7 Dana, 67; Deaver v. Parker, 2 Ired. Eq. 40; Gamp v. Coxe, 1 Dev. & B. 52; Tice v Annin, 2 Johns. Ch. 283 § 319 MOETGAGOES AND MORTGAGEES. [PAET I. § 319. Tte mortgagee's Interest. — Under the common- law theory, the mortgagee has the freehold estate both before and after the breach of the condition. Before, it is a defeasible estate, and after, an absolute estate. His interest, therefore, was a legal estate, it descended to his heirs, and required the same formalties of conveyance.^ But under the lien theory he is said to have only a chattel interest until foreclosure. The mortgage is not real estate, it is personal property, which descends with the debt to the personal representatives. And now the equity rule substantially prevails, whether the mortgagee's interest is considered real estate or personal property, and after his death the mortgagee'.s personal representatives exercise all his rights under the mortgage, a release or conveyance by the heir having no effect upon the rights of the personal representatives. The heir takes the mortgage as trustee for the personal representatives.^ If a statute prohibits foreign 125; Powell v. Williams, li Ala. 476; Parker v. Bell, 37 Ala. 858; Duck V. Sherman, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 176; Thornton v. Pisg, 24 Mo. 249; Bald- win V. Jenkins, 23 Miss. 206; WaUer u. Tate, 4 B. Mon. 529; Hill v. Smith, 2 McLean, 446. Contra, Porter v. King, 1 Me. 297; Trimm v. Marsh, 58 N. Y. 599; 13 Am. Kep. 623; Crooker v. Frazier, 52 Me. 406; Preeby v. Tupper, 15 Ohio, 467; Pierce v. Potter, 7 Watts, 475. But if the mortgage-debt has been assigned to a bona fide holder, without the mort- gage, such assignee may levy upon the equity of redemption. Crane v. Marsh, 4 Pick. 131; Andrews w. Pisk, 101 Mass. 424; WaUer ». Tate, 4 B. Mon. 529. And it has also been held that the first mortgagee may levy upon the equity of redemption from the second mortgage. John- son V. Stevens, 1 Cush. 431. 1 2 Washb. on Real. Prop. 96, 97; Co. Lit. 206 a, Butler's note, 96; Jones on Mort., sects. 11-59; see ante, sect. 296; Williams on Real. Prop. 422. 2 Connor ». Whitmore, 52 Me. 185; CoUamer v. Langdon, 29 Vt. 32; Taft V. Stevens, 3 Gray, 504; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. 11; Burt®. Kicker, 6 Allen, 78; Douglas v. Darin, 57 Me. 121; Kinna v. Smith, 2 Green Ch, 14; Dewey v. Van Deusen, 4 Pick. 19; Jackson v. DeLaneey, 11 Johns. 365; s. c. 13 Johns. 535; Great Falls Co. «. Worster, 15 N. H. 412; Chase v. Lockerman, 11 Gill & J. 185; Barnes u. .Lee, 1 Bibb. 526; White u. Rlttenmeyer, 30 Iowa, 272; Norwick ». Hubbard, 22 Conn. 587; Richardson v. Hildreth, 8 Cush. 225; Webster v. CaWen, 56 Me. 204; 284 CH. X.J MOETGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 321 corporations from lending money within the State, such cor- ponitions cannot acquire any valid interest in a mortgage, as a mortgagee. Such a mortgage would be void.^ § 320. Devise of the mortgage It has been held that a general devise in terms of lands, tenements and heredita- ments, in the absence of any other evidence of intention, will be construed to cover the mortgages owned by the de- visor.^ But those decisions are fi'om the English courts, which sustain the common-law theory of mortgages, and it is to be supposed that in the States, in which the lien theory has been more or less followed, a different conclusion would be reached,^ § 321. Merger of interests. — The interests of the mort- gagor and mortgagee are not separate and distinct titles to the land. They constitute together the one title, which can alone be predicated of property. When, therefore, the two interests unite in one person, the lesser or subordinate interest will geiierally merge in the greater, and be extin- guished. The mortgagee's interest would be lost in the mortgagor's. But to effect a merger of interests, they must come together in one person at the same time, and in the same character or capacity. A conveyance of the equity to a trustee of the mortgagee, or to the mortgagee as trustee of another, would, in neither case, cause a merger.* It is Smith V. Dyer, 16 Mass. 18; Haskins v. Hawkes, 108 Mass. 379; Palmer V. Stevens, 11 Cush. 147; George v. Baker, 3 Allen, 326; Burton v. Iliut- rager, 18 Iowa, 351; Green ». Hunt, Cooke (Tenn.), 344; Demarestc. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch.l45. 1 Farrior v. New Eng. Mortgage, etc., Co., 88 Ala. 275. 2 Jackson ». Delancey, 13 Johns. 653-559; Winn v. Littleton, 1 Vem. 4; Gainers v. Moss, 9 B. & C. 267; Braybroke v. Inskip, 8 Ves. 417 n; Co. Lit. 205 a, Butler's note, 96; contra, Casborne v. Scarf e, 1 Atk. 605; Atty.-Gen. v. Vigor, 8 Ves. 276; Strode v. Russell, 2 Vem. 625; Wilkins ». French, 20 Me. 111. 3 Moore v. Cornell, 69 Pa. St. 3. 4 Hunt V. Hunt, 14 Pick. 384; Lockwood v. Sturdevant, 6 Conn. 387; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. 246 ; Harnett v. Deuniston, 5 Johns. Ch. 35 ; 285 § 321 MOETGAGOKS AND MORTGAGEES. [PAET I. also a general rule in equity that the union of the two es- tates in one person will not be permitted to work a merger, where from the circumstances, an injury would result to parties interested in either. The existence of an outstand- ing second mortgage would prevent a merger in the hands of a person holding the first mortgage and the equity of redemption.^ But if the senior mortgagee enters into possession, after the assignment to him of the equity, he is not accountable to the junior mortgagee for the rents.^ It is an almost universal rule, that equity wiU keep alive the mortgage in the hands of the holder of the equity whenever its merger would do injury to one in any way interested therein. Where, however, it is the plain in- tention of the parties, or in no wise injurious to their inter- ests, that a merger should result from the union of the Gardner v. Astor, 3 Johns. Cli. 63; Stantons v. Thompson, 49 N. H. 272; White V. Hampton, 13 Iowa, 259; Burhans v. Hutchinson, 25 Kan. 625; 37 Am. Rep. 274; Wilhelmi v. Leonard, Id. 330; Gregory o. Savage, 32 Conn. 264 ; Edgerton v. Young, 43 111. 464; Sliin v. Fredericks, 56 lU. 443 ; Warren v. Warren, 30 Vt. 530 ; Clary v. Owen, 15 Gray, 525 ; Bean v. Boothby, 57 Me. 295; Purdy v. Huntington, 42 N. Y. 334; 1 Am. Rep. S32; Barker v. Flood, 103 Mass. 474; Model Lodging House Assn. v. City of Boston, 114 Mass. 133; Pratt i). Bank of Bennington, lOVt. 293; Champney v. Coope, 32 N. Y. 543; Sherman ». Abbott, 18 Pick. 448; Bailey V. Richardson, 15 E. L. & E. 218; Dickason v. Williams, 129 Mass. 182; 37 Am. Rep. 316; Thomas c. Simmons, 103 Ind. 638 ; Bredenberg o. Landrum (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 956; Collins v. Stocking, 98 Mo. 290. 1 Wade V. Howard, 6 Pick. 492; s. c. 11 Pick. 289; Evans v. Kimball, 1 Allen, 240; Cook v. Brightly, 46 Pa. St. 439; Frazee v. Inslee, 1 Green Ch. 239; Vannice v. Bergen, 16 Iowa, 502; Lyon v. Mcllvaine, 24 Iowa, 12; Grover o. Thatcher, 4 Gray, 526; Belle. Woodward, 34 N. H. 90; Hancock ?). Hancock, 22 N. Y. 568; Hill ». Pixly, 63 Barb. 200; Warren U.Warren, 30 Vt. 630; Land v. Lane, 8 Mete. 617; Lyon v. Mcllvaine, 24 Iowa, 9; Grellet ». Heilshorn, 4 Nev. 626; New England Jewelry Co. o. Merriam, 2 Allen, 390; Button v. Ives, 5 Mich. 615; Stantons o. Thompson, 49 N. H. 272; Green v. Currier, 63 N. H. 663; Cohn v. Hoff- man, 45 Ark. 376; Hospes v. Ahn.stedt, 83 Mo. 473; Lowman v. Lowman, 19 111. App. 481; Georgia Chemical Works v. Cartledge, 77 Ga, 547; Clements v. Griswold, 46 Hun, 377; Scrivner v. Dietz, 84 Cal. 295; Will- iams V. Brownlee (Mo. 1890), 13 S. W. 1049. 2 Gray v. Nelson, 77 Iowa, 63. 28(5 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 322 interests, equity will not interfere in their behalf.^ When a judgment in personam is obtained against the mortgagor, on the note or bond which is secured by the mortgage, the note or bond is merged in the judgment, but not the mort- gage,^ and so likewise is there no merger of the judg- ment in personam, although the mortgage which secures it may become merged.^ § 322. Possession of the mortgaged premises. — It is a general custom in this country, for the mortgagor to retain possession until the breach of the condition, and even after- wards it is not usual for the mortgagee to enter into posses- 1 Forbes v. Moffatt, 18 Ves. 384; Gibson v. Crehore, 3 Pick. 475; Hunt V. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374; Hatch v. Kimball, 14 Me. 9; Bell v. Wood- ward, 34 N. H. 90; St. Paul v. Viscount Dudley and "Ward, 15 Ves. 167; Grover'i). Thatcher, 4 Gray, 626; Duncan ■». Drury, 9 Pa St. 322; Mar- shall V. Wood, 5 Vt. 254; Walker v. Baxter, 26 Vt. 710; Robinson w. Leavitt, 7 N. H. 73; Moore v. BeaSom, 44 N. H. 215; Hinds v Ballou, Id. 620; Millspaugh v. McBride, 7 Paige Ch. 509; Judd v. Seekins, 62 N. Y. 266; Bascom v. Smith, 34 N. Y. 320; Vanderkemp v. Shelton, 11 Paige Ch. 28; Loomer v. Wheelwright, 3 Sandf. Ch. 157; Simonton v. Gray, 34 Me. 50; Van Wagner v. Brown, 26 N. J. L. 196; Duncan v. Smith, 31 N. J. L. 325; Holden v. Pike. 14 Me. 437; Mallory v. Hitchcock, 29 Conn. 127; Dutton v. Ives, 5 Mich. 615; Edgerton v. Young, 43 HI. 464; Davis V. Pierce, 10 Minn. 376; Carter «. Taylor, 3 Head, 30; White v. Hampton, 13 Iowa, 259; Snyder v. Suyder, 6 Mich. 470; Wallace v. Blair, 1 Grant Cas. 75; Browne. Lapham, 3Cash. 551; Eaton u. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. 285; Savage v. Hall, 112 Gray, 864; Thompson V. Chandler, 7 Me. 377; Fletcher v. Chase, 16 N. H. 42; Bullard v. Leach, 27 Vt. 491; Weeks v. Ostrander, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 512; s. c, 15 Abb. N. C. 143; Carpenter v. Gleason, 68 Vt. 244; Ann Arbor Sav. Bank ». Webb, 56 Mich. 377; Watson v. Dundee Mortgage, etc., Co., 12 Or. 474; Clark «. Clark (Wis. 1890), 45 N. W. 121; McClain ■». Weise, 22 111. App. 272; Newton v. Manwaring, 10 N. Y. S. 347; Shipley v. Fox, 69 Md. 572; Citizens Bank v. Hejams (La. 1890), 7 So. 700; Crombie ». Rosen- bach, 19 Abb. N. C. 312; Christy v. Scott, 31 Mo. App. 331; Cox v. Ledward, 124 Pa. St. 335; Gray v. Nelson, 77 Iowa, 63; Mctlhaney v. Shoemaker, 76 Iowa, 416; Belknap ». Dennison, 61 Vt. 620; Collins o. Stocking, 98 Mo. 290; Beeckman v. Butler, 77 Iowa, 128; Sanford v. Van Arsdall, 53 Hun, 70. ' Lalanne ». Payne (La. 1890), 7 So. 481. = Clark V. Simmons, 66 Hun, 175. 287 § 322 MOKTGAGOE8 AND MOETGAGEE8. [PAET I. sion until the land has been decreed to him by foreclosure. But in those States where the common law theory prevails in its full force, the mortgagee may enter into possession at any time after the delivery of the mortgage. He pos- sesses the freehold, and can exercise all the rights of owner- ship over the land. And if the mortgagor should resist his demand for possession he may bring an action of ejectment for its recovery.^ But in some of the States, where the common law has been modified in this respect by statute or judicial legislation, the mortgagor is entitled to possession until condition broken, but after condition broken the mortgagee has the right of possession, the same as at com- mon law.^ In other States, where the lien theory has met 1 Erskine v. Townsend, 2 Mass. 493 ; Goodwin v. Richardson, 11 Mass. 473; Duval v. McCloskey, 1 Ala. 708; Knox v. Easton, 38 Ala. 345; Brad- ley V. Fuller, 23 Pick. 1; Page». Robinson, 10 Cush. 99; Wales v. Miller, 1 Gray, 512; Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. 243; Middletown Sav. Bk. V. Bates, 11 Conn. 519; Blaney ■». Bearce, 2 Greenl. 132; Ferbish b. Goodwin, 29 N. H. 321; Harper v. Ely, 10 III. 581; Delahay v. Clement, 3 Scam. 202; Karnes i>. Lloyd, 52 111. 113; Chellis v. Stearns, 22 N. H. 312; Howard v. Houghton, 64 Me. 445; Stewart v. Barrow, 7 Bush, 368; Sedman v. Sanders, 2 Dana, 68; Rev. Stat. Me. (1871), eh. 90, sec. 2; Treat v. Pierce, 63 Me. 77; Brown v. Stewart, 1 Md. Ch. 87; Sumwalt v. Tucker, 34 Md. 89; Annapolis, etc., R. R. v. Gault, 39 Md. 115; Hemphill V. Ross, 66 N. C. 477; Jackson v. Dubois, 4 Johns, 216; Jackson v. Hull, 10 Johns. 481 ; Ellis v. Hussey, 66 N. C. 501; Tryon v. Munson, 77 Pa. St. 250; Youngman v. R. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 278; Den v. Stockton. 12 N. J. L. 322; Shnteu. Grimes, 7 Blackf. 1; Ely v. McGuire, 2 Ohio, 223; Car- penter V. Casper, 6 R. I. 642 ; Waterman v. Matteson, 4 R. I. 539 ; Hen- shaw V. Wells, 9 Humph. 568; Vance u. Johnson, 10 Humph. 214; Faulkner v. Brockenbrough, 4 Rand. 245; Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Trustees v. Dickson, 1 Freem. Ch. 474; May ». Fletcher, 14 Pick. 525; Clark V. Beach, 6 Conn. 142. And he may likewise have trespass against the mortgagor, even before condition broken, for waste, or for resisting his entry. Smith v. Johns, 3 Gray, 517; Northampton Mills v. Ames, 8 Mete. 1; Page v. Robinson, 10 Cush. 99; Newall v. Wright, 3 Mass. 138; Furbi.sh«. Goodwin, 29 N. H. 321; Clark ij. Bench, supra. 2 Cheever v. Rutland & B. R. R., 39 Vt. 653; Wilson v. Hooper, 13 Vt. 653; Walcopw. McKinney, 10 Mo. 229; Sutton v. Mason, 38 Mo. 120; Mclntyre v. Whitfield, 13 Smed. & M. 88; Kannady v. McCarron, 18 Ark. 166; Doe v. Pendleton, 15 Ohio, 735; Frische v. Cramer, 16 Ohio, 125; 288 CH. X.j MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 322 with more or less favor, the mortgagee is not entitled to possession until the mortgage is foreclosed and the estate made absolute in the mortgagee.^ And it has been held in some of the last class of cases, that although the mortgagor is lawfully in possession, and cannot be ejected even after the condition has been broken, yet if he delivers the pos- session to the mortgagee, he cannot by any action regain it as long as the mortgage is not satisfied. This only remedy is to redeem the mortgage. ^ ■Watson V. Dickens, 12 Smed. & M. 608; Reynolds v. Canal & Banking Co. of N. 0., 30 Ark. 520; Hall v. Tennell, 1 Houst. 320; Newbold v. Newbold, 1 Del. Ch. 310; Hill v. Robertson, 24 Miss. 368; Jolinson o. Houston, 47 Mo. 227; Reddick v. Gressman, 49 Mo. 389; Pease v. Pilot Knob Iron Co., 49 Mo. 124; Sanderson v. Price, 1 Zab. 646; Shields v. Lozear, 34N,J. L. 496; 3 Am. Rep. 256; Hagar v. Brainerd, 44 Vt. 294; Walkers. King, 44 Vt. 601; Allen v. Everly, 24 Ohio St. 602; Rands v. Kendall, 15 Ohio, 671. 1 Civil Code Cal., sect. 2927; Nagle v. Macy, 9 Cal. 426; Dutton v. "Warschauer, 21 Cal. 609; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 26; Drake v. Root, 2 Col. 685; Bush Dig. of Stat. (Fla.) 1872, p. 611; Vason v. Ball, 56 Ga. 268; Elfe v. Cole, 26 Ga. 197; Davis v. Anderson, 1 Ga. 176; Iowa Code (1873), 357; 2 G. & H. Stat. 335 (Ind.); Smith v. Parks, 22 Ind. 61; Chase v. Abbott, 20 Iowa, 158 Dassler's Stat. Kan. (1876), ch. 68, sect. 1; Ducland v. Rousseau, 2 La. An. 168; Comp. Laws Mich. (1871) 1775; Gorham v. Arnold, 22 Mich. 247; Adams v. Corriston, 7 Minn. 456; Berthold v. Fox, 13 Minn. 501; Kyger v. Ryley, 2 Neb. 20; Webb. v. Hoselton, 4 Neb. 308; 2 Rev. Stat. N. Y., p. 312; sect. 57; Murray c. Walker, 31 N. Y. 396; Trimm v. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 604; Besser v. Haw- thorne, 3 Oreg. 129; Thayer v. Crammer, 1 McCord Ch. 395; Nixoa v. Bynum, 1 Bailey, 148; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 489; Durand w. Isaacks, 4 McCord, 54; Wright v. Henderson, 12 Texas, 43; Walker v. Johnson, 37 Texas, 127; Word v. Trask, 7 Wis. 566, But where the common-law rule has been changed by statute, the statute will not affect the mortgagee's right of possession under the mortgages already in ex- istence. The statute will only apply to future mortgages. Blackwood V. Van Fleet, 11 Mich. 252 ; Morgan v. Woodward, 1 Ind. 321 ; Shaw v. Hoadley, 8 Blackf. 165. 2 Hubbell V. Moulson, 53 N. Y. 225; Mickles v. Townsend, 18 N. Y. 584; Watson v. Spence, 20 Wend. 260; Den v. Wright, 7 N. J. L. 175; Mitchell V. Bogan, 11 Rich. L. 681; Hennesy v. Farrell, 20 Wis. 42; Stark V. Brown, 12 Wis. 572; Roberts v. Sutherlin, 4 Oreg. 219; Pace v. Chad- derdon, 4 Mmn. 49; Frink v. LeRoy, 49 Cal. 314; Dutton v. Warschauer, 19 289 § 323 MORTGAGOKS AND MORTGAGEES. [PAET T. § 323. Special agreements in respect to possession. — But the right to posses-sion before foreclosure may be changed by agreement of the parties. If, according to the law, the mortgagor is entitled to possession, by agreement the mortgagee may be given a right of entry at any time before foreclosure ; and if the mortgagee has by law the right of possession, his right of entry may be restrained until condition broken, or taken away altogether. If the purposes and the object of the mortgage require the possession to be given to the party not entitled thereto by law, the agreement to vest it in him will be implied from those circumstances. The implication must, however, be a necessary cue; otherwise nothing but an express agreement will have that effect.^ The mortgagor may also agree to pay rent for his occupation of the land during the contin- uance of the mortgage. In which case the relation of land- lord and tenant arises between the mortgagee and mortgagor, and on default in the payment of the rent, the mortgagee could recover the possession.^ 21 Cal. 609; Eyster v. Gaff, 2 Col. 228; Avery u. Judd, 22 "Wis. 262; Newton v. McKay, 30 Mich. 380; Cook u. Cooper, 18 Oreg. 142; Rodriguez v. Hayes, 76 Tex. 225. 1 Flags V. Flagg, 11 Pick. 475; Hartshorn v. Hubbard, 2 N. H. 453; SraitliB. Parks, 22 Ind. 61; Brown u. Cram, 1 N. H. 169; Chase v. Abbott, 20 Iowa, 158; Wales v. Mellen, 1 Gray, 512; Dearborn v. Dearborn, 9 N. H. 117; Clay B. Wren, 34 Me. 187; Norton c. Webb, 35 Me. 218; Brown 1). Leach, 35 Me. 39; Duval v. McLoskey, 1 Ala. 708; Knox v. Easton, 38 Ala. 345; Pogarty w. Sawyer, 17 Cal. 589; Carroll v. Ballance, 26 111. 9; Chicksi u. Willetts, 2 Kan. 384; Stewart v. Barrow, 7 Bush, 368; Redman u. Sanders, 2 Dana, 68; Brown u. Stewart, 1 Md. Ch. 87; Leighton V. Preston, 9 Gill, 201; George's Creed Coal, etc., Co. v. Dermoid, 1 Md. 237; O'Neill v. Gray, 39 Hun, 566; Brysou v. June, 55 N. J. Super. Ct. 374. But the right will not be Implied from a silent acquiescence in the mortgagor's possession, or inferred from a clause in the mortgage that the mortgagee shall take possession upon default. Stowell v. Pike, 2 Greenl. 387; Brown v. Cram, 1 N. H. 169; Rogers v. Grazebrook, 8 Q B. 898. But see Jackson v. Hopkins, 18 Johns. 487. Nor would a parol agreement change the law in reference to the right of possession. Col- man 11. Packard, 16 Mass. 39. 2 Murray u. Riley, 140 Mass. 490. 290 CH. X.] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 324 § 324. Bents and profits. — Whoever is in actual posses- sion is entitled to the rents and profits issuing from the mortgaged premises. If it be the mortgagor, he takes them free from any claim on the part of the mortgagee, even where he is in possession by sufferance only, and where the property is not sufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt.^ And even where the mortgagor is in possession by lawful right, if the property is an insufficient security, the mort- gagee may apply for the appointment of a receiver, and the rents and profits accruing thereafter will be applied to the liquidation of the debt.^ But to entitle the mortgagee to the appointment of a receiver, special equitable grounds must be alleged ; for example, that the mortgagor is insolv- ent, and the security insufficient. If the mortgagor is issolvent, or the mortgagee possesses other means of protecting himself, the insufficiency of the mortgRge security will not support an application for a receiver.' 1 Boston Bk. v. Eeed, 8 Pick. 459; Mayo v. Fletcher, 14 Pick. 625; Kunkle v. Wolfersberger, 6 Watts, 131; Noyes v. Eich, 52 Me. 116; Gil- man ». 111. & Miss, Tel. Co., 91 U. S. 603; Johnson v. Miller, 1 Wills", 416; Gelston v. Burr, 11 Johns. 482; Astor v. Turner, 11 Paige, 436; Mitchell V. Bartlett, 52 Barb. 319; Clasou ». Corley, 5 Sandf. 417; Wilder V. Houghton, 1 Pick. 87; Pullan v. C. & C. Air Line R. R., 5 Biss. 237; Childs V. Hard, 32 W. Va. 66. It is held in Massachusetts, that if the mortgaged property is not sufficient in value to satisfy the debt, after entry to foreclose, the mortgagee may recover of the mortgagor for past use and occupation. Merrill v. Bullock, 105 Mass. 486; Morses. Merritt, 110 Mass. 458. 2 Post V. Door, 4 Edw. Ch. 412; Lofsky v. Maujer, 3 Sandf. Ch. 69; Astor V. Turner, 11 Paige, 436; Clason v. Corley, 5 Sandf. Ch. 447; Mitchell ». Bartlett, 51 N. Y. 442; Myers v. Estell, 48 Miss. 372; Douglass V. Cline, 12 Bush, 608; Child v. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66. -3 Bk. of Ogdensburg v. Arnold, 5 Paige, 40; Williams v. Robinson, 16 Conn. 517; Shotwell v. Smith, 3 Edvr. Ch. 588; Quincy u. Cheeseman, 4 Sandf. Ch. 405; Cortteyen v. Hathaway, 11 N. J. Eq. 39; Hackett v. Snow, 10 Ired. 220; Oliver v. Decatur, 4 Cranch, C. Ct. 458; Frisbie v. Bateraan, 24 N. J. Eq. 28; WilliamsoQ v. New Albaby R. Co., 1 Biss. 201; Whitehead v. Wooten, 43 Miss. 523; Pullan v. C. & C. R. R, 4 Biss. 35, First Nat. Bk. v. Gage, 79 111. 206; Callanan v. Sliaw, 19 lo.wa, 183; Morrison?;. Buckner, lHempst.442; Syracuse Bk. w. Tallman,31 Barb. 201. 291 § 324 MOETGAQOES AND MORTGAGEES. [PAET I, The mortgagee is entitled to a judgment for rents and profits from the date of the decree of foreclosure, or, if he has a right to possession before foreclosure, from his demand for possession, when he follows up such demand either by foreclosure or an action of ejectment. ^ If the mortgagee is in possession he is entitled to the rents and profits accruing after his entry. And where the land has been leased by the mortgagor, the entry of the mortgagee vests in him the right to call upon the lessee to pay the rent to him.^ If, however, the lease be subject to the mortgage, i.e., executed subsequently, since there is no privity of es- tate between the mortgagee and the lessee, either party may consider the lease defeated by the entry, and no rent will become due thereon, if either party should so elect. And any agreement between the parties looking to a continuance of the lease, is in fact a new lease.^ But where the lease 1 Wilder t). Houghton, 1 Pick. 87; Mayo <;. Fletclier, 14 Pick. 525 Haven v. Adams, 8 Allen, 368; Northampton Mills v. Ames, 8 Mete. 1 Hill u. Jordan, 30 Me. 367; Bk. of Washington v. Hupp, 10 Gratt. 23 Forlouf V. Bowlin, 29 111. App. 471; Jones on Mort. 670. This rule natur- ally can apply only to strict foreclosure, where the mortgagee is not entitled to possession after default. And where in strict fore- closure a certain time is given after the decree, within which the land might still be redeemed, the judgment for rents and profits can only be had after this period of redemption. And where the property is sold under foreclosure, the rents and profits do not accrue to the purchaser until the delivery of the deed to him, and perhaps not until he has made a demand for possession under his deed. ClasoQ v. Corley, 5 Sandf. Ch. 447; Mitchells. Bartlett, 52 Barb. 319; Astor u. Turner, 11 Paige, 436. 2 Smiths. Shepherd, 15 Pick. 147; Stone v. Patterson, 19 Pick. 476; Kimball ». Lockwood, 6 R. 1. 139; Russell v. Allen, 2 Allen, 42; Welch V. Adams, 1 Mete. 494; Hill v. Jordan, 30 Me. 367; Northampton Mills v. Ames, 8 Mete. 1; Turner v. Cameron, 5 Exch. 932; Pope v. Biggs, 9 B. & C. 245; Bk. of Washington v. Hupp, 10 Gratt. 23. 3 Russell V. Allen, 2 Allen, 44; Smith v. Shepherd, 16 Pick. 147; Mayo ■0. Fletcher, 14 Pick. 525; Watts v. Coffin, 11 Johns. 495; Jones v. Clark, 20 Johns. 51; Jackson v. Delaucey, 11 Johns. 365; Kimball v. Lockwood, 6 R. I. 138; Syracuse City Bk. v. Tallman, 31 Barb. 207; Magill v. Hins- dale, 6 Conn. 464; McKircher v. Ilawley, 16 Johns. 289; Hemphill o. Giles, 66 N. C. 512; Sanders v. Vansickles, 8 N. J. L. 315; Pope v. Biggs, 292 CH.'X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 325 takes precedence to the mortgage, the entry of the mort- gagee will not defeat the lease in any event. The mortgagee may, however, compel the lessee to pay to him all rent ac- cruing after entry, which has not been paid over to the mort- gagor before the lessee received notice of the execution of the mortgage. But payment to the mortgagor before such notice, even of rent in advance which falls due afterwards, \f bona fide, will constitute a good defense to any action by the mortgagee.^ § 325. Mortgagee's liability for rents received. — The mortgagee receives the rents and profits, not in his own right, but as trustee or agent for himself and the mortgagor. After deducting the necessary expenses of managing the estate, he must apply them, first, to the liquidation of the 9 B. & C. 245; Peters v. Elkins, 14 Ohio, 344; Doe v. Hales, 7 Blng. 322; Knox V. Easton, 38 Ala. 345 ; Branch Bk. v. Fry, 23 Ala. 770 ; Lane v. King, 8 Wend. 584; Lynde v. Rowe, 12 Allen, 110; McDermott v. Burke, 10 Cal. 580; Gartslde i;. Outley, 58 111. 210; 11 Am. Eep. 59; Weaver v. Belcher, 3 East, 449; Rogers v. Httmphreys, 4 A. & E. 299; Higgin- botham?;. Barton, 11 Ad. & El. 307; Henshaw v. Wells, 8 Humph. 568; Morse v. Goddard, 13 Mete. 177; Field v. Swan, 10 Mete. 177. See Hog- sett V. Ellis, 17 Mich. 351 : The lessees in a subsequent lease must attorn In order to be liable to the mortgagee, A mere notice to pay rent will not render them liablie. But judgment for mesne profits may be had If they continue in possession after demand. Kimball v. Lockwood, 6R. I. 138; Hill V. Jordan, 35 Me. 367; Northampton Mills ». Ames, 8 Mete. 1; Morse v. Goddard, supra; Field v. Swan, supra; Rogers u. Humphreys, supra; Evans v. Elliott, 9 A. & E. 342. But without special agreement the acceptance of rent from the lessee will not bind the mortgagee to the terms and duration of the original lease. It creates only a tenancy from year to year. Hughes v. Bucknell, 8 C. & P. 566. 1 Rogers t>. Humphreys, 4 Ad.&E. 299; Moss u. Gallimore, Dougl. 279; Fitchburg Cotton Co. v. Melvin, 15 Mass. 268; Burdens. Thayer, 3 Me. 79; Mirick v. Hoppin, 118 Mass. 582; Babcock v. Kennedy, 1 Vt. 457; McKircher^. Hawley, 16 Johns. 289; Russellu. Allen, 2 Allen, 42 ; Demarest u. Willard, 8 Cow. 206; Kimball o. Lockwood, 6 R. I. 138; Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Coker v. Pearsall, 6 Ala. 542; Henshaw w. Wells, 9 Humph. 568; Myers v. White, 1 Rawle, 353; Weidner «. Foster, 2 Penn. 23; Hemphill u. Giles, 66 N. C. 512. See De Nicholls v. Saunders, L. B. 5 C. P. 589; Castleman v. Belt, 2 B. Mon. 157. 293 § 325 MORTGAGOES AND MORTGAGEES. [PAET I. accruing interest, and then of the principal of the debt. Whatever surplus remains he holds in trust for the mort- gagor, and all others claiming under him.^ The mort- gagee in possession cannot apply such surplus to the liquid- ation of any other debts due to him from the mortgagor, except with the latter's consent.^ But where the mort- gagor consents, a judgment creditor cannot interpose his objection.^ If the mortgagee in possession holds under a second mortgage, it has been held that he must apply the rents first to the liquidation of the first mortgage debt.* But it would seem that the first mortgagee would in that ' Bailey v. Myrick, 52 Me. 136; King i'. Ins. Co., 7 Cash. 7; Ten Eyck V. Craig, 62 N. C. 406 ; Clark v. Bush, 3 Cow. 151 ; Harrison v. Wyse, 24 Conn. 1; Reitenbaugh u. Ludwick, 31 Pa. St. 131; Seaver u. Durant, 39 Vt. 105; Kellogg?). Kockwell, 19 Conn. 446; Hunt v. Maynard, 6 Pick. 489; Thorp, v. Feltz, 6 B. Mon. 6; Breckenridge u. Brook, 2 A. K. Marsh. 336; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Davis v. Lassiter, 20 Ala. 661; Wal- ton V. Wittington, 9 Mo. 645; Anthony v. Rogers, 20 Mo. 281 ; McConnell V. Holobush, 11 111. 61; Bi'ayton v. Jones, 5 Wis. 117; Ten Eycku. Casad, 15 Iowa, 524; Hill v. Hewitt, 35 Iowa, 663; Freytag v. Hoeland, 23 N. J. Eq. 36; Anderson i). Lauterman, 27 Ohio St. 104; Chapman v. Smith, 9 Vt. 153; Strang v. Allen, 44 111. 428; Gilman v. Wills, 66 Me. 273; Roul- hac «. Jones, 78 Ala. 398 ; Murdock v. Clarke (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. 272; Caldwell v. Hall, 49 Ark. 508. But the mortgagee is only accountable lor the rents and profits in equity, and then only as an incident to an action for foreclosure, or for the redemption of the mortgaged premises. Farrall v. Lovel, 3 Atk. 723; Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Story, 243; Hubbell v. Moulson, 53 N. Y. 225; Boston Iron Co. v. King, 2 Cush. 400; Seaver ». Durant, 39 Vt. 103; Weeks v. Thomas, 21 Me. 465; Givens v. McCalmott, 4 Watts, 464; Bell v. Mayor N. Y., 10 Paige, 49. And where the rents ancTprofits collected by the mortgagee are more than sufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt, and the mortgagee is irresponsible, a receiver may be appointed, pending the action to redeem, to take charge of subsequently accruing rents. BoUes v. Duff, 35 How. Pr. 481; Quinn v. Brithaige, 3 Edw. Ch. 314. Until applied by judgment of the court to the payment of the debt, there is no legal satisfaction of the mortgage by the receipt of rents and profits to the full amount of the mortgage-debt. Hubbell v. Moulson, 53 N. . 225; 13 Am. Rep. 519. 2 Caldwell v. Hall, 49 Ark. 508; Demick v. Cuddily, 72 Cal. 110. But see, contra, Borel «. appeler, 79 Cal. 342. 3 Whitney v. Paynor, 74 Wis. 289. * Crawford v. Munford, 29 III. App. 445. 294 CH. X.] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 325 case have no more claim to the rents than he would when the mortgagor is in possession. ' Although the mortgagee does not, by taking possession of the land, assume the responsibilities of a guarantor of the rents, in the collection of the rent he is under an obligation to use that care, which might be expected from a reasonably prudent man. And if, by reason of his negligence in respect thereto, any portion of the rents and profits was lost, he would be held responsible for them to the same extent as if he had actually received them. Where he enters into possession before the breach of the condition, a much greater degree of care is required of him than after the breach.^ And as a corollary to this 1 Hood V. Easton, 2 GifE. 692; Robertson ». Campbell, 2 Call, 421; Hughes V. Williams, 12 Ves. 493 ; Sparhawk v. "Wills, 5 Gray, 429 ; StroDg V. Blanchard, 4 Allen, 638; Richardson v. Wallis, 5 Allen, 78; Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 259; Bernard v. Jennison, 27 Mich. 230; ShaefEer v. Cham- bers, 5 Halst. 548; Milliken v. Bailey, 61 Me. 316; Van Buren «. 01m- stead, 5 Paige Ch. 9; Walsh v. Rutgers Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 33; Barron V. PauUing, 38 Ala. 292 ; Hogan v. Stone, 1 Ala. 496 ; Moore v. Titman, 44 111. 367 ; Strong v. Allen, 44 111. 428 ; Bainbridge v. Owen, 2 J. J. Marsh. 463; Benham?;. Rowe, 2 Cal. 387; Harper v. Ely, 70 111. 581; Georges. Wood, 11 Allen, 42; Hubbard v. Shaw, 12 Allen, 122; Givens j;. McCal- mont, 4 Watts, 460; Lupton v. Almy, 4 Wis. 242; Aekerman v. Lyman, 20 Wis. 454; Guthrie u. Kahle, 46 Penn. 333; Qerrish v. Black, 104 Mass. 400; Miller v. Lincoln, 6 Gray, 556; Brandon v. Brandon, 10 W. R. 287; Hagthrop v. Hook, 1 Gill & J. 270; Reynolds v. Canal & B'k'g Co., 30 Ark. 520; Murdock v. Clarke (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. 272. If he has kept no account of the rents and profits received, the mortgagee will be charged with a reasonable rent, i. e., what might be had with proper diligence. Dexter v. Arnold, 2 Sumn. 108; Gordon v. Lewis, lb. 150; Van Buren v. Olmstead, 5 Paige, 9; Clark v: Smith, 1 N. J. Eq. 121; Montgomery v. Chadwick, 7 Iowa, 114. And if the mortgagee remains in possession himself, he will be charged for rent to the full value of the land, the amount being determined by expert testimony. Gordon v. Lewis, supra; Montgomery v. Chadwick, supra; Holabird v. Burr, 17 Conn. 566; Kellogg B.Rockwell, 19 Conii. 446; Moore v. Cable, 1 Johns. Ch. 386; Chase v. Palmer, 25 Me. 341; Trulock v. Robey, 16 Sim. 265; Van Buren v. Olm- stead, supra; Moore v. Degraw, 5 N. J. Eq. 346; Powell v. William.'!, 14 Ala. 476; Johnson v. Miller, 1 Wils. 416; Saunders v. Wilson, 34 Vt. 318; Barrett v. Nielson, 54 Iowa, 41 : 37 Am. Rep. 183; Clark v. Clark, 62 N. H. 267. 295 § 326 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. rule, if the mortgagee fails to obtain as high a rent as he might have secured — as where he refuses to let to the tenant offering the highest rent — he will be liable for this loss. But a clear case of negligence or willful disregard of the mortgagor's interest must be established, in order to hold him to account on this ground. The mere failure to obtain the highest rent possible is not a sufficient ground of liability.^ Where the rents and profits have been increased by permanent improvements made by himself, whether he is accountable for such increase to the mortgagor depends upon the character of the improvements. If they be in the nature of accessions to the land, or, in other words, fixtures, the erection of costly buildings, etc., he need not account for the increased rents and profits, unless the mortgagor has indemnified him for the cost of their erection, or he has been so paid by the use of them. But where the improve- ment is the result of his labor upon the land, or where wild lands have been cleared, he must make returns of such improved rents.^ § 326. Tenure between mortgag'or and mortgagee — Adverse possession. — Whether the actual possession is held by the mortgagor or mortgagee, there is such a tenure ex- isting between them that, for the purpose of protecting each other's title and seisin, the possession of one is deemed the possession of the other. If the one in possession is dis- seised, it will work the disseisin of the other ; and where one is seised, a third person cannot- set up a title by adverse 1 Hughes V. Williams, 12 Ves. 493; Hubbard v. Shaw, 12 Allen, 123; Rowe V. Wood, 2 J. & W. 553; Anon., 1 Vein. 45; Jones on Mort., sect 1123, Brown v. South Boston Sav. Bant, 148 Mass. 300. 2 Moore v. Cable, 1 Johns. Ch. 385; Bell v. Mayor of N. Y., 10 Paige Ch. 49; Morrison v. McLeod, 2'lred. 108; Montgomei-y ». Chadwick, 7 Iowa, 134 ; Clark v. Smith, 1 N. J. Eq. 121 ; Givens v. McCalmont, i Watts, 460. See 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 224, 225; but see Merrlam v. Barton, 14 Vt. 501 ; Stoney v. Shultz, 1 Hill, 464. 296 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 326 possession against the other .^ The mortgagee is estopped by his deed from denying the title of the mortgagor, and if he procures releases from persons claiming a superior title to the mortgaged premises, such deeds inure teethe benefit of the mortgagor upon his payment of the expenses incurred in purchasing the superior title.^ So. also, will the mort- gagor not be permitted to set up against the mortgagee a paramount title which he has acquired subsequently to the execution of the mortgage.^ But it seems that a junior incumbrancer, a judgment creditor, for example, is not subject to any such estoppel as against the mortgagor or prior mortgagee. If he purchases a paramount title, he can enforce it against either or both.* Before condition broken, neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee can disseise the other by any denial of title; but after the breach of the condition, the party in possession may acquire, by acts of hostility, such an adverse possession 1 Birch V. Wriglit, 1 T. E. 383; Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Merlv. 360; Poignard v. Smitli, 8 Pick. 272; Sheaf e v. Gerry, 18 N. H. 247; Dadmun V. Lamson, 9 Allen, 85; Lincoln v. Emerson, 108 Mass. 87; Doei;. Barton, 11 A. &E. 307; Partridge v. Bere, 6 B. & Aid. 604; Nichols v. Reynolds, 1 E. I. 30; Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Piclj. 374; Newman v. Chapman, 2 I?and. 93; Herbert v. Hanrick, 16 Ala. 581; Boyd v. Beck, 29 Ala. 703; Root v. Bancroft, 10 Me. 44; Sheridan v. Welch, 8 Allen, 166; Currier v. Gale, 9 Allen, 522; Woods v. Hildebrand, 46 Mo. 284; 2 Am. Rep. 513. 2 Brown V. Combs, 5 Dutch. 36; Doe v. Tunnel, 1 Houst. 320; Parmers' Bank v. Bronson, 14 Mich. 369; Connor v. Whitmore, 53 Me. 185; contra, Wright v. Sperry, 25 Wis. 617; Walthall v. Rives, 34 Ala. 91; Hall V. Westcott, 15 E. I, 373 ; Drew v. Morrill, 62 N. H. 565 ; Roger v. Lomax, 22 111. App. 628. 3 Tefft V. Miinson, 57 N. Y. 97; Lincoln v. Emerson, 108 Mass. 87; Puller V. Hodgdon, 25 Me. 243; Conner ». Whitmore, 52 Me. 185; Miami Ex. Co. e. U. S. Bank, Wright, 249; Fair u. Brown, 40 Iowa, 209; Porter V. Lafferty, 33 Iowa, 257; Stears v. HoUenbeck, 38 Iowa, 550; Smitli v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 360; Clark v. Baker, 14 Cal. 632; Avery v. Judd, 21 Wis. 262; Eyan v. McGehee, 103 N. C. 282; Cook v. Eounds, 60 Mich. 310. But if the mortgagee is under obligation to pay the taxes, the mortgagor may demand of him satisfaction for the expenses of the tax-title pur- chased In by him. Eaton v. Tallmadge, 22 Wis. 526. * Wilson V. Gadient, 36 Minn. 59. 297 § 326 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. as will bar the other's title under the Statute of Limita- tions. The statute begins to run from the time of for- feiture ; it cannot before. After the lapse of the statutory- period of limitation the mortgagor loses his equity of redemption, and the mortgagee his right to foreclose; and whoever is in possession acquires an absolute title to the land. The respective assignees are governed by the same rules. ^ But any act by the party in possession, 1 Hunt V. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374 ; Sheppard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. 32 ; Noyes ». Stnrdivant, 18 Me. 104; Roberts v. Welcli, 8 Ired. 287 ; Evans v. Huffman, 6 N. J. L. 354; Wilkinson v. Flowers, 37 Miss. 579; Waldo v. Rice, 14 Wis. 286; Chick v. Rollins, 44 Me. 104; Tripe w.Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Inches v. Leonard, 12 Mass. 379; Crawford v. Taylor, 42 Iowa, 260; Roberts v. Lit- tlefleld, 48 Me. 61; Richmond v. Aiken, 26 Vt. 324; Haskell v. Bailey, 22 Conn. 569; Chick v. Rollins, 44 Me. 104 ; Rockwell ». Servant, 63 111. 424; Elkins v. Edwards, 8 Ga. 326; Giles v. Baremore, 6 Johns. Ch. 545; Bacon v. Mclntire, 8 Mete. 87; Knowlton v. Walker, 13 Wis. 264; Bollin- ger o. Chouteau, 20 Mo. 89; Harris v. Mills, 28 III. 46; Hughes «. Ed- wards, 9 Wheat, 489; Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212; Humphrey t). Kurd, 29 Mich. 44; Green v. Turner, 38 Iowa, 112; Belmont u. O'Brien, 12 N. Y. 394; Moore v. Cable, 1 Johns. Ch. 385; Hodgdon v. Heidman, 66 Iowa, 645 ; McKeighan v. Hopkins, 19 Neb. 333 ; Rodriguez v. Hayes, 76 Texas, 225; Wilson v. Albert, 89 Mo. 537; Seawrlght v. Parmer (Ala. 1890) 7 So. 201; Holmes v. Turner's Falls, etc., Co., 150 Mass. 535;23]Sr. E. 305; Leonar^f i;. Binford, 122 Ind. 200; 23 N. E. 704; Orr v. Rode (Mo. 1890), 12 S. W. 1066. Where the mortgagee enters into possession before con- dition broken, notice must be given to the mortgagor that he holds pos- session for the purpose of foreclosure, before the statute will run against the mortgagor's right to redeem. Newall v. Wright, 3 Mass. 138; Good- win V. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469; Scott v. McFarland, 13 Mass. 308. See Yarborough v. Newell, 10 Yerg. 876; Green u. Turner, 38 Iowa, 112; Hammonds v. Hopkins, 3 Yerg. 525. And where, by agreement of the parties, the mortgagee Is to hold possession, until the mortgage-debt was paid out of the rents and profits, the statute does not begin to run, until his claim has been satisfied and he has given the mortgagor notice of his adverse holding. Anding u. Davis, 38 Miss. 674 ; Kohlheim v. Harri- son, 34 Miss. 457 ; Quint v. Little, 4 Me. 495 ; Frink v. Le Koy, 49 Cal. 314. And no length of possession will bar the right to redeem, if by agreement the mortgagor has an unlimited time, within which to pay off the mort- gage. Wyman v. Babcock, 2 Curtis, 386; Teulon v. Curtis, 1 Younge, 610. The possession of either party must be exclusive as well as adverse, in order that the statute may run. Burke v. Lynch, 2 Ba. & Be. 426; Archbold v. Scully, 9 H. L. Cas. 360; Drummond v. Sant, L. R. 6 Q. B. 298 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 327 which involves the recognition of the other's title, or is an acknowledgment that the mortgage-debt still exists, will I'febut the presumption of adverse possession. Where the mortgagor is in possession, payment of the interest or a part of the principal of the mortgage-debt, and in the case of the mortgagee's possession, the acceptance of such payment, or rendering an account for the rents and profits, would be cir- cumstances and facts, which would negative the hostility of the possession, and prevent the statute from running against the one out of possession.^ § 327. Insurance of the mortgaged premises. — Both the mortgagor and the mortgagee have insurable interests in the premises, and they may insure their respective inter- ests at the same time. The mortgagee can only insure to the amount of his debt. AVhere he takes out a policy in his own name, pays the premium, and cannot, by the terms of the mortgage, call upon the mortgagor to refund such 763 ; Eakestraw v. Brewer, Seld. Cas. in Ch. 56. But see Lake v. Thomas, 3 Ves. Jr. 17. ' To bar foreclosure, see Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige, 465 ; Hughes ». Ed- wards, 9 Wheat. 490; Howard v. Hildreth, 18 N. H. 106; Cheaver v. Per- ley, 11 Allen, 584; Noyes u. Sturdivant, 18 Me. 104; Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Zeller ». Eckert, 4 How. 295; Wright v. Eaves, TO Rich. Eq. 582; Drayton v. Marshall, Rice's Eq. 383; Howland v. Shurlteff, 2 Mete. 26; Ayres v. Waite, 10 Cush. 72; Carberry v. Preston, 13 Ired. Eq. 455; Hough .V. Bailey, 32 Conn. 288; Ward v. Carter, L. R. 1 Eq. 29; Frear v. Drinker, 8 Pa. St. 520; Hughes v. Black well, 6 Jones Eq. 73; Jackson v. Slater, 5 Wend. 295; Brocklehurst u. Jessop, 7 Sim. 438. And see Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 482; Cunningham v. Hawkins, 24 Cal. 409; Harris v. Mills, 28 111. 44; Perkins v. Sterne, 23 Texas, 563. Benton Co. «. Czarlinsky (Mo. 1890) 14 S. W. 114. To bar the equity of redemption, see Demarest «. Wyn- koop, 3 Johns. Ch. 129; Limerick v. Voorhis, 9 Johns. 129; Pendleton v. Booth, 1 Giff. 35; Stansfleld v. Hobson, 16 Beav. 236 ; Edsell v. Buchanan, 2 Ves. Jr. 83; Barron v. Martin, 19 Ves. 327; Hansard u. Hardy, 18 Ves. 455; Richardson v. Young, L. R. 10 Eq. 297; Calkins u. C;Ukins, 20 N. Y. 147; Marks «?. Pell, 1 Johns. Ch. 594; Dexter ij. Arnold, 3 Sumn. 151; Morgan v. Morgan, 10 Ga. 297; McNair v. Lee, 34 Mo. 285; Quint v. Lit- tle, 4 Greenl. 495; Shepperd v. Murdock, 3 Murph. 218; Roberts v. Lit- tlefleld, 48 Me. 61; Knowlton v. Walker, 18 Wis. 264; Jackson v. Lynch, 129. 111. 72. 299 § 327 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. payments, he takes the insurance money, in case of loss by fire, free from any right of the mortgagor to have it applied to the liquidation of the mortgage-debt. He can re- cover the insurance, and then proceed to collect the debt.^ But if he insures the premises at the request of the mort- gagor, or does to in consequence of the neglect of the mortgagor, and at his expense, as he may do if the mort- gage contains a covenant providing for the insurance of the premises by the mortgagor, the mortgagor will be subrogated to the ber.efit of the insurance, and the insurance money must be applied to the debt.^ Under such circumstances, the 1 Ring V. State Ins. Co., 7 Cush. 1; Sussex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Woodruff, 2 Dutch. 541; Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 343; 14 Am. Rep. 271; Kernschan ». Bowery Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 428; Norwicli Ins. Co. c. Boomer. 52 111. 442; 4 Am. Rep. 618; Carpenter w. Ins. Co., 16 Pet, 495; Russell V. Southard, 12 How. 139; ^tna Ins. Co v. Tyler, 16 "Wend. 385; Springfield Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 43 N. Y. 389; 3 Am. Rep. 711; White V. Brown, 2 Cush. 412; Harding u.Townsend, 43 Vt. 536; Dobsonc. Land, 8 Hare, 216; Fowler v. Palmer, 5 Gray, 549; Clark v. Wilson, 103 Mass. 219; Williams v. Ins. Co., 107 Mass. 377; 9 Am. Rep. 41; Bellamy ». Brickenden, 2 Johns. & H. 137; Ely v. Ely, 80 111. 532; Cushingi;. Thomp- son, 34 Me. 4^6; Bean v. A. & St. L. R. R., 58 Me. 82; King ». Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Cush. 1 ; Brant v. Gallup, 111 111. 487. 2 Concord, etc., Ins. Co. v. Woodbury, 45 Me. 447; Graves v. Hamp- den Ins. Co., 10 Allen, 285; Callahan v. Linthicnm, 43 Md. 97; 20 Am. Eep. 106; Gordon v. Ware Sav. Co., 115 Mass. 588; King «. Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Cush. 1; Clark v. Wilson, 103 Mass. 2'.'1 ; Larrabell v. Lumbert, 32 Me. 97; Suffolk Ins. Co. v. Boyden, 9 Allen, 123; Waring v. Loder, 53 N. Y. 581; Mix v. Hotchkiss, 14 Conn. 32; Norwich Ins. Co. v. Boomer, 52 Ul. 442 ; 4 Am. Rep. 618 ; Fowler v. Palmer, 5 Gray, 549 ; Martin v. Frank- lin Fire Ins. Co., 38 N. J. L. 140; 20 Am. Rep. 372; Nichols v. Baxter, 5 R. I. 491. And when the mortgage contains an insurance clause, and an insurance policy is taken out by the mortgagee upon the default of the mortgagor to do so, the policy is presumed to be taken out for the bene- fit of both parties, and the mortgagee cannot refuse to apply it to the debt. Foster v. VanReed, 5 Hun, 321; BufCalo Steam Engine Works ». Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 406; Blinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 454; Waring v. Loder, 53 N. Y. 581; Honore v. Lamar Ins. Co., 51 111. 409. And in such cases, the fact that the debt has been paid will not prevent a recovery of the insurance money. The mortgagor's interest in the policy keeps It alive. Norwich Ins. Co. ». Boomer, supra; Concord Ins. Co. v. Wood- bury, supra; Waring v. Loder, supra. 300 CH. X.] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 327 mortgagee would have a claim against the mortgagor and against the mortgaged property of re-irabursement for the premiums paid by him.^ But, although the mortgagee is en- titled, as against the mortgagor, to the full benefit of the in- surance, where there is no covenant of insurance, it is not so certain that he will, as against the insurance company, be per- mitted to recover to his own use both the debt and the insurance money. Some of the courts hold that the insurance company will be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee under the mortgage in the proportion that the insurance paid bears to the mortgage-debt;^ while the courts of Massachusetts sustain the doctrine that he may recover both the insurance and the debt, discharged of any right of subrogation in the insurance company, on the ground that the premiums paid on the policy are a good and adequate consideration for the risk assumed, and pre- vent any claim on the part of the company to the equitable right of subrogation.^ The mortgagor may insure to the 1 McLean ». Burr, 16 Mo. App, 240. 2 Concord Ins. Co, u. Woodbury, 45 Me. 447; .aitnalns. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend. 397; Sussex Ins. Co. v. Woodruff, 2 Dutch. 641 ; Kernochan v. N. Y. Bowery Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 428; Ulster Co. Sav. Inst. v. Leake, 73 N. Y. 161; 29 Am. Rep. 115; Excelsior lus. Co. v. Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 343; 14 Am, Kep. 271; Smith v. Columbia Ins. Co., 17 Pa. St. 253: Honore V. Lamar Ins. Co., 51 111. 409; Norwich Ins. Co. v. Boomer, 52 III. 442; 4 Am, Eep. 618; Callahan v. Linthicum, 43 Md. 97; 20 Am. Rep. 106. 8 Kins V. Ins. Co., 7 Cush. 1; Suffolk Ins. Co. v. Boyden, 9 Allen, 123; Clarke. Wilson, 103 Mass. 221; Foster w. Equitable Ins. Co., 2 Gray, 216; Dobson V. Land, 8 Hare, 216. In King v. Ins. Co., supra, Chief Justice Shaw said : " He (the mortgagee) surely may recover of the mortgagor, because he is his debtor, and on good consideration has contracted to pay. The money received from the underwriters was not a payment of his debt; there was no privity of contract between the mortgagor and the underwriters; he had not contracted with them to pay it for him, on any contingency; he had paid them nothing for so doing. They did not pay because the mortgagor owed it; but because they had bound them- selves, in the event which has happened, to pay a certain sum to the mortgagee." * * * " What, then, is there inequitable, on the part of the mortgagee, towards either party in holding both sums? They are 301 § 327 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. full value of the premises, irrespective of the mortgagee's interest. A mortgage is not such an alienation as will de- feat the policy of insurance — not even so far as to reduce the mortgagor's insurable interest to the equity of redemp- tion.* And in the absence of the covenant requiring the both due upon valid contracts with him, made upon adequate considera- tions paid by himself. There is nothing Inequitable to th'o debtor, for he pays no more than he originally secured in money loaned; nor to the underwriter, for he has only paid upon a risk voluntarily taken, for which he was paid by the mortgagee a full and satisfactory equivalent." Perhaps the true theory lies between these opposite positions of the courts. The Massachusetts court is undoubtedly correct in its position, that there Is no equitable ground for the application of the doctrine of subrogation. But it is incorrect to go farther and hold that the mortga- gee may recover both sums to his own use. A mortgagee Insures only his interest In the mortgaged premises, abd that interest is exhausted when the debt is paid. Graves v. Hampden Ins. Co., 10 Allen, 283; Sussex Ins. Co. III. Woodruff, 2 Dutch. 541. From this position it is an easy step to say, that when the mortgage property after the loss by fire is sufficient to satisfy the mortgage-debt, and it is actually satisfied, either by fore- closure or by payment by the mortgagor, the mortgagee has sustained no loss. See iEtua Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend. 385; Kernochan v. Bowery Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 428; Carpenter v. Providence, etc., Ins. Co., 16 Pet. 495; Smith v Columbia Ins. Co., 17 Pa. St. 253. Contra, Excelsior Ins. Co. V. Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 343. The mortgagee may proceed either against the insurance company on the policy, or against the mortgagor on the mortgage, and neither of them can object, or compel him to pro- ceed against both. Nor has either a claim against the other. But if the mortgagee does recover from both, the positioa of the mortgagee, in re- spect to the insurance company, is the same as if the mortgagor had paid the debt, before application had been made for the iusursnce money. In the latter case, he could not recover of the insurance company, for he had suffered no loss. And it would seem but natural, that the insurance company may be permitted to institute a suit against the mortgagee for money had and received, if after the payment of the insurance money the mortgagor satisfied the mortgage. Tiie position does not conflict with the rules of equity in reference to subrogalion, while it is at tlie same time more consonant with the general principles underlying the law of insurance. 1 Strong V. Ins. Co., 10 Pick. 40; Tuck v. Hartford Ins. Co., 56 N. H. 326; Nichols !). Baxter, 5 R.I. 494; Quarrier t?. Peabody Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 507; 27 Am. Rep. 582; Fame u. Weuans, 1 Hopk. Ch. 283; Ste- phens V. Mut. Ins. Co., 43 ifl. 325; Dyers ». Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St. 606; 35 Am. Kcp. 623; Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Weill, 28 Gratt. 882; 26 Am. 302 CH. X.] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 327 mortgagor to keep the premises insured, the mortgagee has not the right to demand the appropriation of the insurance money to the payment of the mortgage-debt.^ But where the mortgage calls for the insurance of the premises, and the mortgagor performs the covenant, the mortgagee ac- quires therein a beneficial interest, and is entitled to have the insurance money applied to the debt.^ And so, also, if the insurance covers one of two or more pieces of property included in the same mortgage, .the owners of the other pieces of property have the right to require the application Eep. 364; 111. Ins. Co. v. Stanton, 57 111. 354; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Spankaeble, 52 111. 53; 4 Am. Rep. 582; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 54 111. 1G4; Am. Kep. 115. And the mortgagor continues to have an insur- able interest in the property, as long as his right of redemption is not completely barred. Gordon v. Ins. Co., 2 Pick. 249; Buffalo Steam Engine Co. v. Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 401; Cheney v. Woodruff, 54 N. Y. 98; Strong V. Ins. Co., supra; Waring v. Loder, 53 N. Y. 581. Although the ey.isteuce of a mortgage does not reduce the insurable interest of the mortgagor, still it is held in some of the States that, if inquiry Is made as to them, it becomes a material fact, and misrepresentations, concern- ing their existence or the amountsecured by them, will vitiate the policy. Davenport v. Ins. Co., 6 Cu^h. 340; Brown v. People's Ins. Co., 11 Cush. 280; Bowditch Ins. Co. v. Winslow, 8 Gray, 38; Packard v. Agawan Ins. Co., 2 Gray, 334; Smith v. Columbia Ins. Co., 17 Pa. St. 253. Contra, Norwich Ins. Co. v. Boomer, 52 111. 442; 4 Am. Rep. 618. 1 Carter i;. Kockett, 8 Paige Ch. 427; Nichols v. Baxter, 5 R. I. 491; Hancox v. Fishing Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. 132; Stearns v. Quincy Mut. Ins. Co., 124 Mass. 61; 26 Am. Rep. 647; Wilson v. Hill, 3 Mete. 66; Van- degraff v. Medlock, 3 Port. 389; Plimpton v. Ins. Co., 43 Vt. 497; Columbia Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 10 Pet. 507; Foster v. Van Reed, 70 N. Y. 19; 26 Am. Rep. 544; Carpenter v. Providence, etc., Ins. Co., 66 Pet. 495; Thomas v. Vonkapff, 6 Gill & J. 372; McDonald v. Black, 20 Ohio, 185; Powles D. lanes, 11 M. & W. 10; Vernon!). Smith, 5 B.&A. 1; De Forest v. Fulton Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 103; Fame v. Winnons, 1 I-Iopk. Ch. 283; Neale v. Reed, 3 Dowl. & Ry. 158. 2 Concord, etc., Ins. Co. v. Woodbury, 45 Me. 447; Gordon v. Ware Savings Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 588; Cromwell v. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 44 N. Y. 42; Carter v. Rockett, 8 Paige,. 437; Norwich Ins. Co. v. Boomer, 52 111. 442; In re Sands Ale Brewing Vo., 3 Biss. 175; Miller v. Aldrich, 31 Mich. 408; Giddmgs v. Seevers, 24 Md. 363; Burns v. Collins, 64 Md. 215; Thomas v. Vonkapff, 6 GiU & J. 372; Nichols v. Baxter, 5 R. I. 491; Brant*. Gallup, 111 111. 487. 303 § 328 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. of the insurance money to the payment of the debt.^ But where the loss is made payable to the mortgagor, or is as- signed to the mortgagee without the consent of the company, alienation by the mortgagor of his interest will defeat the policy, even as to the mortgagee. For the complete protec- tion of the mortgagee, the policy should be assigned to him with the consent of the company, and the assignment should be made to appear on the company's books as well as on the face of the policy. When the policy is in this shape, the mortgagee, in case of loss, receives the insurance money in trust to apply it to the debt, and such application may be en- forced, not only by the mortgagor, but by every one claim- ing through him and subject to the mortgage. The surplus, if any, goes to the mortgagor and those in privity with him.* § 328. Assignment of the mortgage. — Whether the mortgagee's interest be considered a legal estate or only a lien, it is clear, since the mortgage is in form a conveyance, and is required to be recorded like all other conveyances, that the proper mode of assigning it is by deed or instru- 1 Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Scammon, 117 U. S. 634. ' Macomber v. Cambridge Ins. Co., 8 Cusli. 133; Grosvenor v. Atlan- tic Ins. Co., 17 N. R. 391; Luckey v. Gannon, 37 How. Pr. 134; Boyd v. Cddderback, 31 111. 119; King v. State Ins. Co., 7 Cush. 1; Fowley t;. Palmer, 5 Gray, 549; Graves v. Hampden Ins. Co., 10 Allen, 382; Con- cord, etc., Ins. Co. v. Woodbury, 45 Me. 447; Larrabee v. Lumbert, 32 Me. 97; Waring ». Loder, 53 N. T. 581; Clark v. Wilson, 103 Mass. 221; Mix V. Hotchkiss, 14 Conn. 32. Where the insurance is obtained in tiie name of the mortgagor, but the policy contained a provision, that the loss, if any, is to be paid to the mortgagee ; generally it is required that snit on the policy must be instituted in the mortgagee's name, or jointly with the mortgagor. Ennis v. Harmony Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 516; Concord Mut. Ins. Co. «. Woodbury, 45 Me. 447; Grosvenor v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 391; Norwich Ins. Co. v. Boomer, 52 111. 442; 4 Am. Kep. 618; Frink v. Hampden Ins. Co., 45 Barb. 384; Martin v. Franklin Ins. Co., 88 N. J. L. 140. But with the consent of the mortgagee, the mortgagor may bring the suit alone in his own name. Patterson v. Triumph Ins. Co., 64 Me. 500; Farrow v. Ins. Co., 18 Pick. 53; Jackson i». Farmers' Ins. Co., 5 Gray, 62; Turner v. Quincy Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 568; Illinois Ins. Co. V. Stanton, 57 111. 354. 304 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 329 ment of the same character as the mortgage itself, either separate from or written on the back of the mortgage, to- gether with the assignment and delivery of the instrument of indebtedness, if there be any. Such an assignment would vest the entire legal interest of the mortgagee in the assignee.^ Whether a deed is absolutely required to assign the legal interest of the mortgagee depends upon the con- struction placed upon mortgages in the State in which the question arises. And, in determining this question, it must be observed that, although the assignment of the mortgage debt, irrespective of its effect upon the mortgage, will be governed by the lex loci contractus, the assignment of the mortgage itself must conform to the law of the place where the mortgaged land is situated.^ § 329. Common law assignment. — At common law, and under the prevailing common-law theory, nothing less than a deed will be sufficient to pass the legal interest of the mortgagee.^ But the deed need not in express words be the assignment of the mortgage. A quit-claim deed or an or- dinary deed purporting to convey an absolute estate in fee will carry whatever legal interest the mortgagee has in the 1 Jones on Mort., sect. 786; 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 113-118. 2 Story on Confl., sects. 363, 364 ; Goddard v. Sawyer, 9 Allen, 78. But this is not the case in regard to the equitable assignment of the mortgage, effected by the transfer of the debt. The equitable rights of the parties are governed by the lex loci contractus. See Hoyt v. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 207; Dundas v. Bowler, 3 McLean, 397; Murrell v. Jones, 40 Miss. 565. 3 "Warden v. Adams, 15 Mass. 233 ; Gould v. Newman, 6 Mass. 239; Par- sons V. Welles, 17 Mass. 419; Adams v. Parker^, 12 Gray, 53; EugglesB. Barton, 13 Gray, 506; Prescott v. EUingwood, 23 Me. 345; Douglass w. Durin, 51 Me. 121; Warren v. Homestead, 33 Me. 256; Mitchell v. Burn- ham, 44 Me. 286; Givan 17. Tout, 7 Blacltf. 210; Burton u. Baxter, 7 Blackf. 297; Henderson u. Pilgrim, 22 Texas, 464; Cottrell v. Adams, 2 Biss. 351; McChandles v. Engle, 51 Pa. St. 309; Twitchell v. McMurtrie, 77 Pa. St. 383; Klnna ■». Smith, 3 N. J. Eq. 14; Graham v. Newman, 21 Ala. 497; Sanders v. Cassaday, 86 Ala. 246; but in New Jersey a seal is not now necessary. Mulford v. Peterson, 35 N. J. L. 127; Hammond v. Lewis, 1 How. 14. 20 305 § 329 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. mnrtofaged promises, although it seems that it would have no effect upon the mortgage debt, unless it, too, was as- signed. But a deed with a general warranty will in equity work an assignment of the debt, wherever the grantee has paid a valuable and substantial consideration for the sanie.i Under this theory an assignment of the mortgage debt would not 0|)erate as an assignment of the mortg;ige.^ If the assignment of the mortgago does not carry with it the mortgage-debt, or the mortgage is assigned to one person and tlie debt to another, the assignee of the mortgage re- ceives only the legal estate, which he holds in trust for the one who owns the debt."* Such is also the rule at commoa 1 Hunt V. Hunt, 14 P ck, 374; Welsh v. Priest, 8 Allen, 165; Savajre v. Hall, 12 Gray, 36-t; Hill v. More, 40 Me. 525; Dorkey». Noble, 8 Me. 278; Connor v. Whitmore, 52 Me. 186; Collamer v. Langdon, 29 Vt. 32; Givan V. Doe, 7 B ackf. 210; Severance v. Griffith, 2 Lans. 38; Weeks v. Eaton, 15 N. II. 145; Thompson v. Kenyon, 100 Ma-s. 108; Crooker v. Jewell, 31 Me. 306; Rorlri<:uez v. Hayes, 75 Tex 225. But where there is a separate instrument of indebieduess, in order to pass the debt, it must al.so be de- livered, unless the deed is a warranty deed, when there will be an equit- able assignment of the debt. Lawrence v. Stratton, 6 Cush. 163; Bug- gies t!. Barton, 13 Gray, 500; Olmsteadw. Elder, 2 Sandf. Ch. 325; Uixflild V. Newtim, 41 Me. 221 ; Hobsou v. Boles, 20 N. H. 41; Furbusb v. Good- win, 25 N. H. 425; Dearborn v. Taylor, 18 N. H. 154; Givan v. Doe, 7 Blackf. 210; Welsh v. Phillips, 54 Ala. 309; 25 Am. Rep. 679; but see Weeks V. Eaton, 15 N. H. 145; Hinds v. Ballou, 44 N. H. 621; Rodriguez V. Hayes, 76 Tex. 225; Fitts v. Beardsley, 8 N. Y. S. 567. But see post, p. 248, note 1. 2 Adams v. Gray, 12 Gray, 53; Stanley v. Kempton, 59 Me. 472; Young V. Miller, 6 Gray, 152; Bourland «. Kipp, 55 111. 376. 8 Story Eq., sect. 1023 n; Parsons v. Welles, 17 Mass. 419; Merritt o. Bartholick, 36 N. Y. 44; Thayer v. Campbell, 9 Mo. 280; Moore v. Ware, 38 Me. 496; Johnson v. Cauflage, 31 Me. 28; Warren ». Homestead, 33 Me. 256; Keyes v. Wood, 21 Vt. 331; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johns. 41; Aymar v. Bill, 5 Johns. Ch. 570; Ceuter v. P. & M. Bank, 22 Ala. 743; Swan». Jupple, 35 Iowa, 248; Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla. 283; Bell v. Morse, 6 N. H. 205; Hutchius v. Carletou, 19 N. H. 478; Bailey v. Gould, Walk. (Mich.) 478; Peters v. Jamestown Bridge Co., 5 Cal. 334; Johnson V. Cornett, 29 Ind. 59; Langster u. Love, 11 Iowa, 580; Pattone. Pearson, 57 Me. 434. To pass the beneficial- interest in the mortgage, the mort- gage-note or bond, if there be such, must be assigned with the mortgage, at least as against the mortgagor and subsequent assignees ot the debt 306 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 329 law, where the debt upon the death of the mortgagee vested in the personal representatives, while the mortgage de- scended to his heirs in trust for the personal estate.^ The assignee cannot acquire by such an assignment any beneficial interest in the mortgage, and the trust is binding upon him and all his privies who have actual or constructive notice. And where the morttjagor has notice of the assignments of the mortgage and debt to different persons, he cannot dis- charge the mortgage by payment or tender of payment to the assignee of the mortgage.^ In a number of the States Bowers v. Johnson, 49 N. Y. 432; Kellogg v. Smith, 26 N. Y. 18; Merritt ». Biirtholick, 36 N. Y. 4-t; King u. Harrington, 2 Aik. 33; Edgell «. Staufordi, 3 V;.. 202; Hitchcock v. Merrick, 18 Wis. 357; Warden v. Adams, 15 Mass. 233; Kursheedt v. McCane, 20 Abb. N. C. 2G5. And tlie note or bond need not be indorsed, if delivered. Pratt v. Skolfleld, 45 Me. 386; King v. Harrington, supra; Pease v. Warren, 29 Mich. 9; con- tra, Kelly V. Burnham, 9 N. H. 20. But where the debt has not been assigned to another, it may, as against the mortgagee, pass by assign- ment in equity to the assignee of the mortgage without any formal transfer, if it be the intention of the parties that the assignee should acquire a beneflcial interest in the mortgage. Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 N. Y. 44; Buckley v. Chapman, 9 Conn. 5; Northampton Bk v. Balliet, 8 W. & S. 311; Pliillips v. Bk. of Lewiston, 18 Pa. St. 394; Campbell v. Burch, 1 Laus. 178; Cooper v. Newland, 17 Abb. Pr. 342. And where there is no separate instrument of indebtedness, the beni;flcial interest will always pass with the assignment of the mortgage unless it Is ex- pre.ssly reserved. Severance v. GriflStt, 2 Lans. 38; Caryl v. Kussell, 7 lb. 416; Coleman u. Van Renssalaer, 44 How. Pr. 368. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 120, 121, 141; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 145; Jackson v. "Delancey, 11 Johns. 365; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill; Smitli v. Dyer, 16 Mass. 23; Dewey v. Van Deusen, 4 Pick. 19, Kinua v. Smith, 2 Green Ch. 14; Chase v. Lockerman, 11 Gill & J. 185; T.itt V. Stevens, 3 Gray, 504; Dexter v. Arnold, 1 Sumn. 109; Green v. Hunt, Cooke, 344; White y. Rittenmyer, 30 Iowa, 272. 2 Mitchell V. Burnham, 44 Me, 302; James v. Johnson, 6 Johns. Ch. 417; Gregory v. Savage, 32 Conn. 250; Henderson v. Pilgrim, 22 Texas, 464; Bank v. Anderson, 14 Iowa, 544; Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 176. But the notice must be actual. The record of the assignment is not constructive notice to the mortgagor. Williams v. Sorrell, 4 Ves. Jr. 389; Mitchell v. Burnham, supra; Wolcott v. Sullivan, 1 Edw. Ch. 399; Reed v. Marble, 10 Paige Ch, 409; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 316; see post, sect. 340, , 307 § 330 MORTGAGOES AND MOETGAGEES. [PART I. it is now held that the assij^nment of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity; it conveys no estate to the assignee, and he may be treated as a trespasser by the mortgagor or the assignee of the debt.^ § 330. Assignment under the lien theory. — Although it is still held in those States which have, to a greater or less deo-ree, discarded the common-law theory, that an effectual legal assignment of the mortgage requires a deed proved and acknowledged like all other deeds of conveyance, it is there held that, the debt being the principal thing and the mortgage only a security or lien, an assigiiment of the debt will operate as an equitable assignment of the mortgage, binding upon all persons having notice, and giving to the assignee the power in equity to exercise all the rights of the mortgagee.^ Under this theory, whatever constitutes in I Wilsou V. Troup, 2 Cow. 195; Jackson ». Willard, 4 Johns. 43; Merritt u. Bartholick, 36 N. Y. 44; Purdy v. Huntington, 42 N. T. 346; Huntington c. Smith, 4 Conn. 235; Ellisons. Daniels, 11 N. H. 274; Furbish v. Goodwin, 25 N. H 425; Thayer v. Campbell, 9 Mo. 280; Burdett ». Clay, 8 B. Mon. 287; "Willis v. Vallette, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 195; Hays V. Lewis, 17 Wis. 212; Hill v. Edwards, 11 Minn. 29; Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 345; Eaakin v. Major, 9 Iowa, 297; Blair v. Bass, 4 Blackf. 539; Dick v. Ma wry, 9 Smed. & M. 448; Bayley v. Gould, Walk. (Miss.) 478; McGao v. Marshall, 7 Humph. 121; Doe v. McLoskey, 1 Ala. 708; Martin v. Reynolds, 6 Mich. 73; Ladue v. R. R. Co., 13 Mich. 396; Perkins v. Stearne, 23 Texas, 503; Peters v. Jamestown Bridge Co., 5 Cal. 335; Nagle c. Marcy, 9 Cal. 428; Bloomingdale t. Bowman, (N. Y. 1889), 4 N. Y. 860. But if the mortgagee is in possession the rule is different, and sufficient title passes to the assignee of the mortgage to give him the right of possession, which he can "maintain against all who do not show a better title. Smith v. Smith, 15 N. H. 58; Lamprey «. Nudd, 29 N. H. 299; Hinds «. Ballon, 44 N. H. 487; Wallace ». Goodall, 18 N. H. 439; Pickett u. Jones, 63 JIo. 195. " Wolcott V. Winchester, 15 Gray, 461; Vose ». Handy, 2 Greenl. 322; Southerin v. Mendum, 5 N. I-I. 420; Northy v. Northy, 45 N. H. 144; Blake v. Williams, 36 N. H. 39; Langdon v. Keith, 9 Vt. 299; Keyes v. Wood, 21 Vt. 331; Lawrence v. Knap, 1 Root, 248; Dudley v. Caldwell, 19 Conn. 218; Neilson «. Blight, 1 Johns. Ca«. 205; Evertson V. Booth, 19 Johns. 491; Parmelee u. Daun, 23 Barb. 461; Kortright t). Cady, 21 N. Y. 261; Wilson v. Troup, 2 Cow. 242; Craft ii. Webster, 4 308 CH. X. ] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 330 the law of commercial paper a good assignment of the debt, will operate as an equitable assignment of the mort- gage. Thus a parol sale aud transfer of the debt is a good equitable assignment of the mortgage. "^ Where the mort- gage is given to secure two or more debts, the assignment Eawle, 242; Danley v. Hays, 17 Sers. & li. 400; Partridge v. Partridge, 38 Pa. St. 78; Hyraan v. Devereux, 63 N. C. 624; Muller v. Wacllington, 5 S. C. 242; Wright V. Eaves, 10 Rich. Eq. 585; Scott v. Turner, 15 La. An. 346; Wilson c. Hey ward, 2 Fla. 27; s. c. 6 Fla. 191; Emanuel v. Hunt, 2 Ala. 190; Graham v. Newman, 21 Ala. 497; Diclj v. Mawry, 17 Miss. 448; Holmes v. McGinty, 44 Miss. 94; Martin v. McReynolds, 6 Mich. 70; Ladue w. R. R. Co., 13 Mich. 396; U. S. Bank v. Covert, 13 Ohio, 240; Paine I). French, 4 Ohio, 318; Mills ■«. Gray, 4 B. Mon. 117; Bur- ■dett V. Clay, 8 lb. 287; Lucas v. Harris, 20 HI. 165; Mapps v. Sharpe, 32 111. 165; Laberge v. Chauvin, 2 Mo. 179; Andersons. Baumgartner, 27 Mo. 80; Potter v. Stevens, 40 Mo. 229; Burton v. Baxter, 7 Blackf. 297- French v. Turner, 15 Ind. 59 ; Crow B.Vance, 4 Iowa, 434 ; Bank of Indiana V. Anderson, 14 Iowa, 544; Fisher v. Otis, 3 Chand. 83; Andrews c. Hart, 17 Wis. 297; Ord v. McKee, 5 Cal. 575; Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 497; Kurlz V. Sponable, 6 Kau. 395; Chilton v. Brooks, 71 Md. 445; Lee v. ■Clark, 89 Mo. 553. But as a general proposition, such an assignee ac- quires no legal interest, aud can therefore exercise none of the rights of a legal owner, such as the maintenance of an action ot ejectment or a writ of entry. Cottrell v. Adams, 2 Biss. 351; Young v. Miller, 6 Gray, 152; Dwiuel B. Perley, 32 Me. 197; Edgerton u. Young, 43 111. 464; Gra- ham V. Newman, 21 Ala. 497; Partridge v. Partridge, 38 Pa. St. 78; Warden v. Adams, 15 Mass. 232. But in the code States where all actions are lustituted m the name of the party beneficially interested, the equitable assignee may enforce the mortgage in his own name. Gower v. Howe, 20 Ind. 396; Sangston v. Love, 11 Iowa, 580; Rankin v. Major, 9 Iowa, 297; Clearwater «. Rose, 1 Blackf. 138; Paine u. French, 4 Ohio, 320; Garland v. Richeson, 4 Rand. 266; Kurtz v. Sponable, 6 Kan. 395; see also to the same effect, Kinney v. Smith, 2 Green Ch. 14; Mulford ». Peterson, 35 N. J. Eq. 127; Williams v. Moraucy, 3 La. An. 227; South- erin v. Mendum, 35 N. H. 420; Rigney v. Lovejoy, 13 N. H, 247; Austin V. Burbank, 2 Day, 396; Clarksoas v. Doddridge, 14 Gratt. 44; Eunyan v. Mersereau, 11 Johns. 534. And in those States where the legal title of the mortgage does not pass with the assignment of the debt, equity may compel the holder of the legal title to transfer it to the assignee of the debt, or to maintain the suits necessary for the protection of the as- signee, Wolcott V Winchester, 15 Gray, 461; Crane v. March, 4 Pick. 131; Mount v. Suydam, 4 Sandf. Ch. 399; Lyon's App., 61 Pa. St. 15; Baker v. Terrell, 8 Minn. 195. 1 Lane v. Buehae, 73 Wis. 646; Tiedeniaa Com. Paper, § 250. 309 § 330 MOETGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PAKT I, of one of them will operate as an assignment of pro rata share in the mortgage, unless it is the expressed intention of the parties that the enlire mortgage-security should he retained for the benefit of the remaining debts. ^ This is always the case, in the absence of an express contract, where the debts secured by the same mortgage fall due at the same time. But where they fall due at different periods, in very many of the States one is generally held to have priority over the other in the order in which they fall due. The effect is the same as if there had been successive and independent mort- gages one for each debt.^ But it is always competent for the parties to control the priority of the debts secured by the same mortgage, and they may altogelhir exclude one or more from the enjoyment of the security.^ It has also been held that the mortgage-debts in the hands of as- signees will have priority in the order of their assignment.* ' Donley v. Hays, 17 Serg. & R. 400; Belding b. Manly, 21 Vr. 550; Miller v. Rutherlaud, etc., R. R., 40 Vt. 39; Keyes v. Woorls, 21 Vt 331 ; Cooper v. Ulraan, Walk. (Mich.) 251; Warden v. Adams, 15 M:i>s 233; Lane a. Davis, 225; Blair v. White, 61 Vt. 110; Pauzel u. Brookmire, 51 Ark. 105; In re Preston, 54 Hun, 10. 2 Stanley v. Beatty, 4 Ind. 134; Hough v. Osborne, 7 Ind. 140- Mc- Vay V. Bloodgood, 9 Port. 547; U. S. Bk. v. Covert, 13 Ohio, 240; Wood c. Trask, 7 Wis. 566; Preston v. Hod2;es, 50 111. 66; Funk v. McRey- nolds, 33 111. 497; Mitchell v. Laden, 36 Mo. 532; Thompson v. Field, 38 Mo. 325; Sangster v. Love, 11 lovca, 580; Reeder v Carey, 13 Iowa, 274; Isett v. Lucas, 17 Iowa, 506; G. Wathmeys v. Ra^land, 1 Rand. 466; Wilson v. Hayward, 6 Fla. 171; Hunt v. Styles, 10 N. H. 466; Lar- rabee v. Lambert, 32 Me. 97; contra. Darby v. Hays, 17 Serg. & R. 400; Henderson v. Herrod, 10 Smed. & M. 631 ; English u. Carney, 25 Mich. 178; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 30; Gordon v. Hazzard (S. C. 1890), 11 S. E. 100. 3 Bryant ». Damon, 6 Gray, 165; Langdon v. Keith, 9 Vt. 299; Mechanic's Bk. v. Bk. o{ Niagara, 9 Wend. 410; Eastman u. Foster, 8 Mete. 19; Stevenson v. Black, 1 N. J. Eq. 338; Wright v. Parker, 2 Aik. 2-'2; Collum u. ErwiQ, 4 Ala. 452; Walker ». Dement, 42 111 272; Bk. of England v. Tarleton, 23 Miss. 178; Co.iper v. Ulmaii, Walk. (Mich.) 251; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 30; WiUett v. Johnson, 84 Ky. 411; Morgan v. Kline, 77 lovpa, 681. * Eastman m. Foster, 8 Mete. 19; Noyes b. White, 9 Minn. 640; contra. Page v. Pierce, 26 N. II. 317; Stevenson v. Black, 1 N. J. 310 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 332 Inasmuch as under the lien theory the mortgagee has very few, if any, rights which are enforceable only in law, the equitable assignment of the mortgage affords sufficient protection for the assignee. This is [)articulai'ly the case in those States where the mortgagee is prohibited from assign- ing the mortgage without the debt. § 331. Assignment of tbe mortgagor's interest. — The mortgagor's interest, whether before or after condition broken, at common law or under the lien theory, can only be assigned by deed, for in any case and under all circum- stances the mortgagor is considered, as against all the world, except tlie mortgagee, as the owner of the legal estate, which he can convey as long as his equity of redemption has not been barred or foreclosed.^ As against the mortgagee, tlie mortgagor's assignee has merely the rights of the mortgagor under tlie mortgage ; he takes the estate subject to the mort- gage. And this is the case with a second mortgagee, as well as with the absolute purchaser.^ § 332. Rights and liabilities of assignees. — In respect to the mortgaged premises, the assignees enjoy all the rights, and assume all the liabilities, of their respective assignors. If the mortgagee is entitled to possestiion, his assignee will al-'O be entitled to possession ; he may appropriate the rents and profits while in possession and, in the same manner as the mortgagee, maintain all the actions given for the protec- Eq. 338; Betz v. Heebner, 1 Perm. 280; Henderson v. Herrod, 18 Miss. 631. 1 Co. Lit. 205 a, Butler's note, 96; White v. Whitney, 3 Mete. 81; White V. Rittenmyer, 30 Iowa, 272; Bigelow v. Wilson, 1 Pick. 485; Bu- chanan V. Monroe, 22 Texas, 537; Newell v. Wright, 3 Mass. 1.S8; Hoc son V. Treat, 7 Wis. 263. 2 Hartleys. Harrison, 2i N. Y. 170; Andrews v. Fisk, 101 Mass. i2i; Flanagan 17. Westcott, 11 N.J. Eq. 264; Kruse u.Scripps, 11 111. 98; Frost ■0. Sliaw, 10 Iowa, 491; First National Bank v. Honeyman (^Dak. 1889), 42 Mo. 771. 311 ^332 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. tion of his interests. ^ Whether the assignee of the mort- gage takes it and the debt subject to all existing equities between the original parties, depends in the first instance upon the nature of the instrument of indebtedness. If it be a bond or any other non-negotiable instrument, the assignee will take both it and the mortgage subject to all the defenses, which might be set up against the mortgagee.^ But in some of the States if the instrument of indebtedness be a negotiable note, the mortgage, being treated as incident to the debt, receives from the note a negotiable character, and passes to the assignee free from the equities existing between the mortgagee and mortgagor, unless by express terms the mortgage is assigned subject to the equities. And to be free from them, the assignment must be made before the debt is due.^ But if a mortgage covers more than one 1 Jackson v. Minkler, 10 Johns. 480; Jackson v. Bowen, 7 Cow. 13; Jackson v. Hopkins, 18 Johns. 487; Eastman v. Batchelder, 36 N. H. 141; Belding v. Manly, 21 Vt. 551; Erskine v. Townsend, 2 Mass. 493; North- ampton Mills V. Ames, 8 Mete. 1; Henshaw v. Wells, 9 Hnmph. 568; Phyfei). Riley, 15 Wend. 248; Strang •«. Allen, 44 111.428; Barraque ». Manuel, 7 Ark. 516; Bolles ■». Carli, 72 Minn. 113; Whitney ». McKinney, 7 Johns. Ch. 144; Miller v. Henderson, 10 N. J. Eq. 320; Andrews v. McDaniel, 68 N. C. 385; Walker v. Bank of MobUe, 6 Ala. 452; McGuftey V. Finley, 20 Ohio, 474; Garrett v. Puckett, 16 Ind. 485; Green ». Marble, 37 Iowa 95; Phillips v. Bank of Lewiston, 18 Pa. St. 394; Macomb v. Prentiss (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 324; Barnes ii. Boardman, 149 Mass. 106; trotfert V. Wallace, 66 Mich. 618; but the assignee can only maintain actions which accrue after the assignment. Gobbert v. Wallace, 66 Miss. 618. 2 Trustees Union College v. Wheeler, 61 N. Y. 88 ; Ingraham v. Dis- boroush, 47 N. Y. 421; Davis u. Bechstein, 69 N. T. 440; 25 Am. Eep. 218; Pendleton v. Fay, 2 Paige Ch. 202; Ellis v. Messervie, 11 Paige Ch. 467; s. c. 2 Denio, 640; Mott v. Clark, 9 Pa. St. 399; Twitchell ». McMurtrie, 77 Pa. St. 383; Losey w. Simpson, ION. J.Eq.247; Musgrove V. Kennell, 23 N. J. Eq. 75; Reeves v. ScuUy, Walk. (Mich.) 248; Nicholls v. Lee, 10 Mich. 526; Croft v. Bunster, 9 Wis. 503; Coulding v. Buaster, 76. 503; Hortsman v. Gerker, 49 Pa. St. 282; Moffatt v. Hardin, 22 S. C- 9; Morris v. Peck, 73 Wis. 482; Morgan's Appeal, 126; Pa. St. 500; Harrison v. Burlingame, 48 Hun, 212. 8 Scott ». Magloughlin (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 1030; Barnumo. Phenix, 60 Mich. 388; Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271; Keulcott u. Supervisors, 312 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 332 note, and one of the notes is overdue when all of them are assigned, the assignment is considered as to all of the notes SO far made after maturity, as to destroy the negotiable character of the mortgage as a security for the notes which are not yet due.^ But in other courts, the negotiable char- acter of the note is held not to extend to the mortgage, which secures its payment. And although, as far as the personal liability of the mortgagor on the note is concerned, the assignee takes it free from the equities, the mortgage in his hands is subject to them .^ If the mortgagee or other holder of the mortgiige makes an assignment when the mortgage debt had been paid in whole or in part, he will be liable in damages to his assignee for such failure of the subject-matter of the assignment.^ The assignee of the mortgagor on the other hand, has a right to redeem the estate and call the mortgagee to account for the rents and profits received by him while in possession, even though he has permitted the mortgagor to enjoy them after notice of the assignment. For while in possession the mortgagee is trustee as to the rents and profits, not only of the mortgagor, but also of the mortgagor's assignees, and he cannot after notice of the assignment pay them over to the mortgagor. He must apply them to the satisfaction of the mortgaged debt.* But although the mortgagor's 10 Wall. 452; Sprague v. Graham, 29 Me. 160; Pierce o. Faunce, 47 Me. 607; Gould v. Marsh, 1 Hun, 666; Jackson v. Blodgett, 5 Cow. 203; Green v. Hart, 1 Johns. 580; Taylor v. Page, 6 Allen, 86; Young v. Miller, 6 Gray, 152 ; Breen v. Seward, 11 Gray, 118; Dutton v. Ives, 2 Mich. 515; Bloomer v. Henderson, 8 Mich. 395; Cornells. Hichens, 11 Wis. 353; Webb v. Haselton, 4 Neb. 308; 19 Am. Eep. 638. 1 Abele v. McGuigan (Mich. 1890.), 44 N. W. 393. See to same general effect, Whitney v. Traynor, 74 Wis. 289. 2 Olds V. Cummings, 31 111. 188; Sumner v. Waugh, 56 111, 531 ; White V. Sutherland, 64 111. 181; Baily v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 396; Bouligny v. Fortier, 17 La. An. 121; Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 176; Kedia v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 283 ; Boone v. Clark, 129 111. 466. * Eaton V. Knowles, 61 Mich. 625. ■* Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 317; Mannisig v. Markel, 19 Iowa, 104; Merrlam v. Barton, 14 Vt. 601; Smith, v. Manning, 9 Mass. 422; Bell v. 313 § 332 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART 1. assignee has a right to redeem the mortgaged premises, he does not by the assignment assume the personal liabil- ity of the mortgagor, unless the deed of assignment in ex|)ress terms imposes such liability upon the assignee as a piut of the consideration. ^ Where there is an agreement of that kind, it is clear that the mortgagor may enforce it, and recover of his assignee, if he, the mortgagor, has been compelled to pay the mortgage debt ; but how far. Mayor of N. Y., 10 Paige Ch. id; Kruse v. Scripps, 11 111. 98; Buckman V. Astiir, 9 Paige Ch. 517; Getston v. Thompson, 29 Md. 595; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Gordon v. Lewis, 2 Sumn. 143. 1 Furnas v. Durgin, 119 Mass. 500; 20 Am. Rep. 341; Mclnteer v. Shaw, 6 Allen, 85; Strong v. Converse, 8 Allen, 559; Pike v. Goodnow, 12 Allen, 474; Braraan v. Dowse, 12 Cush. 227; Belmont v. Coman, 22 N. Y. 43S, Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 286; 25 Am. Rep. 195; Comstock V. Hitt, 37 111. 542 ; Johnson v. Morrell, 13 Iowa, 301 ; Auf richt v Northrop, 20 Iowa, 62; Tichenor v. Dodd, 4 N. J. Ch. 454; Shepherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505; Scheppelman v. Fuerth, 87 Mo. 351; Gage v. Jenklns^on, 58 Mich. 161; Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 417; Brown ». South Boston Sav. Bk., 148 Mass. 300; Searing v. Benton, 41 Kan. 758. A covenant to assume a mortgage Is equivalent to a covenant to pay it. Schley v. Fryer, 100 N. Y. 71; Ludington v. Low, 53 N. Y. Super. 391; Rice v. Sanders (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 1079; Moran v. Pellifant, 28 111. App 278; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Aitkin, 57 N. Y. Super. 42. But see contra, Chancellor v. Traphagen, 41 N. J. Eq. 369. But if a deed only contains a clause to the efEect that the conveyance is subject to a mortgage, it will not impose upon the grantee any personal liability for the debt. Trotter v. Hughes, 12 N. Y. 74; Tillotson v. Boyd, i Sandf. Ch. 516; Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Emerson 115 Masti. 554; Fihke v. Tolman, 124 Mass. 254; 26 Am. Rep. 659; Baum- gardner v. Allen, 6 Munf. 439; Hull v. Alexander, 26 Iowa, 569; Dunn ». Bodgers, 43 111. 260; Fowler v. Fay, 62 111. 375; Chilton v. Brooks (Ind. 1890), 20 Atl. 125; Brown v. Stillman, 43 Minn. 126; Gordon v. Avery, 105 N. C. 532. Nor where are added the words, the said mort- gage debt "forms part of the consideration, and is deducted therefrom." Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Bostwick, 100 N. Y. 628. In such a case, the only effect produced is that the grantee cannot impeach the validity of the mortgage. Rilter v. Phillips, 53 N. Y. 586 ; Green v. Turner, 38 Iowa, 112; Perry v. Kearus, 13 Iowa, 174; Sweetzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 817. But it will not qualify a general covenant against incumbrances, so as to relieve the mortgagor froria liability, unless the mortgage is expressly excepted from the operation of the covenant. Spurr v. Andrew, 6 Allen, 420; Esiabrook v. Smith, 6 ^Jray, 592; Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. 66. 314 CH. X.] MORTGAGOES AND MORTGAGEES. § 332 and whether if at all, the mortgagee may take advantage of this agreement to which he is not a privy, and sue the assignee upon it, is a question upon which the authorities are not agreed. The better opinion seems to be that, though the mortgagee cannot maintain an action at law upon the covenant for the want of privity between him and the assignee, he will in equity be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagor in the agreement, and can in equity enforce its performance in his own behalf.* He could also, 1 Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y. 2C8; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 N. Y. 223; Klapworth B. Dressier, l.S N. J. Ch. 62; Hi card v. Saunderson, 41 N. Y. 179; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 N. Y. 25G; Campbell v. Smith, 71 N. Y 2G; 27 Am. Rep 5; Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Mich. 354; Thompson V. Bertram, 14 Iowa, 47G; Burr v. Beers, 24 N. Y. 178; Corbettc. Water- man, 11 Iowa, 77; Wilson v. King, 23 N. J. 150; Herbert v. Doussan, 8 La, An 267; Converse v. Cookf 8 Vt. 61, 64; Lennig's Estate, 52 Pa. St. 138; Fithian v. Monks, 43 Mo. 520; Fitzgerald u. Birkcr, 85 Mo. 13; Kelso V. Fleming, 104 Ind. 180; Palmeter v. Carey, 63 Wis. 426; Keller V. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610; Cooper v. Foss, 15 Neb. 516; Shamp v. Meyer, 20 Neb, 223; Keedle v. Flack (Neb. 1890), 44 N. W. 34. Contra, Mellon V. Whipple, 1 Gray, 317; Drury v. Tremont Improvement Co., 13 Allen, 168; Marsh v. Pike, 10 Paige Ch. 505; s. c. 1 Sandf. Ch. 210; Morris v. Oakford, 9 Pa. St. 498; Carpenter v. Koons, 20 Pa. St. 222. And the obligation is binding upon the grantee, although he does not sign the deed. By his acceptance of the deed he undertakes to perform all the conditions and obligations incident thereto. Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Mich. 354; Spauldin? v. Hallenbeck, 35 N. Y. 204; Huyler v. Atwood, 26 N. J. Eq, 504; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 N. Y. 35. And his igno- rance of the fact that the deed contains such a stipulation is no defense, if the transaction is free from the taint of fraud. Keller v. A-hford, 133 U. S. 610; Morau v. I'ellifant, 28 111 App. 278. The statememt in the text, that the mortgagee cannot maintain an action at law on the pur- chaser's promise to pay the mortgage debt, is not in accord with the majority of the decisions. It involves the question whether a stranger can maintain an action on a contract, which was made to another for his benefit; and upon this genefal que.stion, the authorities are not agreed. The author believes that there is not a sufficient privity of contract to support an action at law upon the promise to pay, unless the contract creates a bailment. If money be given to A. tp hand to B., \t is a mnn- dalvm, and B. may recover it from A ; B. U a. qttasi cestui que trust. But if A. promises B to pay a sum of money to C, in satisfaction of a debt owing by A. to B., there is no bailment, and therefore, no obligation to C. But see the author's article on the subject in 11 Cent. L. J. 161. See 315 § 333 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. in thorie States where ckoses in action may be levied upon and sold under execution, pursue that remedy in a court of law. So completely vested is the right of the mortgagee to sue the purchaser of the land on his agreement to assume the payment of the mortgage, that a release of the pur- chaser from the obligation by the mortgagor has been held to have no effect as to the mortgagee's right of action.^ Likewise, so independent of the mortgagor's liability is the grantee's liability to the mortgagee on his covenant to assume or pay the mortgage debt, that such a grantee can- not escape the liability thereby assumed by questioning the validity of the mortgage or the mortgage debt.^ And where, by mistake, a mortgage did not include within the descrip- tion one tract of land, which the mortgagor subsequently sold under an agreement that the puirchaser shall assume the pa.j- ment of the mortgage debt, it was held that the lien of the mortgage attached to the land in the hands of the grantee.^ On the other hand, the obligation of the mort- gagor on his note or bond for the mortgage debt is not in any wise affected by the purchaser's agreement to assume the payment of the mortgage debt, unless the mortgagee has consented to the novation.* § 833. Effect of payment or tender of payment. — If payment or tender of payment, by parties having the right to redeem, be made when the debt falls due, it works a com- plete discharge of the mortgage, divests the mortgagee of to the same effect Willard «. Wood, i Mackey, 538; s. c. 135 U. S. 809; Keller v. Asliford, 133 U. S. 610. 1 Bay ». Williams, 112 III. 91; 54 Am- Bep. 209; Gifford v. Corrivan, 117 N. T. 257. 2 Altman v. Banholzer, 8G Minn. 57. 8 Sidwell V. Whealon, 114 111. 267. * Sbtpherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505; Union Mat. L.Ibs. Co.?). Hanford, 27 Fed. Rep. 588; Kelso u. Fleming, 104 Imd. 180; Hutchinson w. Wells, ■07 Iowa, 430; BlaUev. Moore, 10 N. Y. 674; Chilton v. Brooks (Ind. 1890), 20 Atl. 125; Searing v. Beuton, 41 liaa. 758. 316 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 333 all his rights and remits to the mortgagor all his rights at commoa law, as fully as if there had been no mortgage. And if the mortgagee is in possession, ejectment will lie, and he will be ousted without any formal release or discharge of the mortgage. 1 A formal discharge of the mortgage would, however, be required, if the mortgage contained a clause which provides for a conveyance when the condition is performed.^ This will be found to be the general rule in all the States. But where the tender or payment is made after the conditiou has been broken, the same variance of opinion is encountered as in other branches of the law of mortgages, where the common-law and lien theories con- flict. At common law, since the default made the estate absolute in the mortgagee, and left in the mortgagor only the equity of redemption, the mere payment or tender of payment will not- revest the legal title in the mortgagor. A formal discharge is requisite, and if the mortgagee refuses to make it, the mortgagor's only remedy is in equity, a proceeding to redeem the property. He cannot maintain an action of ejectment, for he has no legal estate.^ In those 1 Whitcomb v. Simpson, 39 Me. 21; Camp v. Smith, 6 Cona. 80; Erskine v. Townsend, 2 Mass. 495; Holman «. Bailey, 3 Mete. 55; Doody V. Pierce, 9 Allen, 141; Stewart v. Crosby, 50 Me. 130; Currier v. Gale, 9 Allen, 622; Maynard «.Hunt, 6 Pick. 240; Munson v. Munson, 30 Conn. 426. But the payment cannot be enforced by either party before the debt falls due, and the mortgagee may refuse to acccept it. But if the debt and interest up to the fixed day of payment be tendered, it -will have the same effect upon the mortgage as if tendered on the proper day. Bur- goyne v. Spurling, Cro. Car. 283; Brown v. Cole, 14 Sim. 427; Scott v. Prink, 53 Barb. 533; Abbe v. Goodwin, 7 Conn. 377; Hoyle v. Cazabat, 25 La. An. 438. And although nothing but actual payment will extin- guish the debt, a simple tender of payment will discharge the mortgage, and prevent a subsequent foreclosure. Co. Lit. 299 b; Martindale v. Smith, 1 Q. B. 389; Willard.j;. Harvey, 5 N. H. 252; Kortright «. Cady, 21 N. y. 343; Darling v. Chapman, 14 Mass. 101; Maynard v. Hunt, supra; Grain v. McGoon, 86 111. 431; 29 Am. Eep. 37. 2 See cases cited in preceding note (1). 3 Smith V. Kelly, 27 Me. 237; Stewart v. Crosby, 50 Me. 130; Howard 0. How, 3 Mete. 548; Holman v. Bailey, lb. 55; Howe v. Lewis, 14 Pick. 317 § 334 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. States where the mortgage is regarded as a lien, even after condition broken, a tender of payment as well as payment will operate as a discharge or extinguishment of the mort- "■ao-e both before and after the default. And if the mort- o-ao-ee is in jjossession, an ejectment suit may be instituted ao-amst him. The mortgagor is not obliged to resort to equity to obtain a formal cancellation of the mortgage.' If there are two or more mortgagees, payment to one of them, unless it is made with the consent of the others, will not affect the rights of the others in the mortgage. ^ § 334. Who may redeem. — If the mortgage-debt is actually paid, the payment will, as against the mortgagee, extinguish the mortgage and the mortgagee's rights there- under, whoever pays the debt. But in order that a tender of payment may have that effect, it must be made by some 329; Grover v. Flye, 5 Allen, 543; Pillsbury », Smyth, 25 Me. 427; Dyerw. Toothaker, 51 Me 380; Smith v. Vincent, 15 Conn. 1; Phelps v^ Sage, 2 Day, 151, Cross u. Robinson, 21 Conn. 379. Technically, this is true. But even in those States, proof of payment or tender of payment will prevent the enforcement of the mortgage a2;alnst the mortgagor. Wade V. Howard, 11 Pick. 289; Breckenridge v. Brooks, 2 A K, Marsh 337; Slayton v. Mclntire, 11 Gray, 271; Gray v. Jjaks, 3 Mason, 520; Will- iams V. Tliurlow, 31 Me. 392; Faulkner v. Breckenbroiigh, 4 Kand, 245 •, Pike V. Goodnow, 12 Allen, 472, Arnot v. Post, 6 Hill. 65 1 Jackson j). Stackhouse, 1 Cow. 122; Kortright v Cady, 21 N. Y, 343; Farmers' Ins., etc , Co. v. Edwards, 2fi Wend. 541 ; ]{unyan v Mersereau, llJohns. 538; Stoddard v. Hart, 23 N. Y. 556; Den v Spinning, 1 Halst, 471; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496; Southerin, v. Mendum, 5 N. H 431; Swett B. Horn, 1 N. H. 382; Rickett v. Madeira. 1 Kawle, 325; Tliomas' Appeal, 3 Pa. St. 378; Paxon v. Paul, 3 Har & McH. 399, Furbi->h V. Goodwin, 25 N. H 425; Howard v Gresham, 27 Ga. 347; Champncy v. C.)ope, 32 N. H. 543; Ledyard v Chapin, G Ind 320; Griirin V. Lovill,42 Miss 402; Ryan v. Dunlap, 17 111, 40; Holt v. Rees, 44 III 30; Arraiiage v, Winkliffe, 12 B, Men 488; Perkins v. Dibble, 10 Ohio. 433; M'S'air v Picotte, 33 Mo. 57, Caruthers v. Humphrey, 12 Mich. 270; Schinkel v. Ilanewinkle, 19 La. An. 260; Ladue v. Detroit, etc , R R., 13 Mich. 396; Briggs v Seymour, 17 Wis. 255; Fisher « Otis,3Chand (Wis ) 83; McMillan u. Richards, 9 Cal 365, Johnson w. Sherman. 15 Cal. 287; Grain v. Mc:Goon. 86 111. 431; 29 Am. Kep. 37. " Modilox V. Bramlett, 84 Ga. 84. . 318 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 334 one who is entitled to redeem.^ Any one, who has an in- terest in the mortgaged premises, claiming under the niort- gngor, has this right. And this is the case, whether his interest be legal or equitable, an estate or a lien. The only requisite is a privity of estate with the mortgagor. Among such may be enumerated grantees, subsequent incum- brancers, whether they be junior mortgagees or judgment- creditors, heirs, devisees, personal representatives, tennnts for years, the husband for his curtesy, and the widow for her dower or jointure.^ And in tendering payment the mortgagee or assignee may be required to deliver up the notes or other evidences of indebtedness before actual pay- ment, such a demand would not affect the efTectiveuess of the tender.* But, in order that tender of payment may have the effect of extinguishing the mortsjage, the whole debt must be tendered, together with all the interest and 1 McCulIac. Beadleston (R. I. 1890), 20 Atl. 11. 2 Lorn IX u. Bird, 1 Vera. 182; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Grant «. Duane, 9 Johns. 591 ; Ex parte Willard, 5 Weud. 94; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44; Manning v. M.irkel, 19 Iowa, 104; Boarman v. Catletr, 13 Smed. & M. 149; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 113; Moore v. Beasom, 44 N. H. 215; Mcrriam ». Barton, 14 Vt. 501; Smitli i;. Manning, 9 Ma-s. 422 Fray u. Drew, 11 Jur. (n. 8.) 130; Burnett u. Dennistor, 5 Jolius. Cti 35; Tliorapson v. Ctiandler, 7 Greenl. 377; Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick, 259; Bacon v. Bowdoin, 22 Pick. 40J ; Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 317 Newhall v. Savings Bank, 101 Mass. 431; Briiuard v. Cooper, 10 N Y, 356; Hoyt V. Martense, 16 N. Y. 231; Dunlap v. Wilson, 32 111. 517 Hellish V. Robertson, 25 Vt. 603; Rogers v. Myers, 68 III. 92; Kim- mel «. Willard, 1 Dougl. (Mich) 217; Wiley «. Ewing, 47 Ala. 418 Calkins v. Munsell, 2 Root, 333; Young v. Williams, 17 Conn. 393 McLaughlin v. Carts, 27 Wis. 644; Hamilton v. Dobbs, 19 N. J. Eq. 227 McArthur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 193; HiLt v. Holiday, 2 Litt. 332; Van Burea v. Olmstead, 5 Paige Ch. 9; Stainback v. Geddy, 1 D. v. & B, Eq. 479; Chaadler v. Dyer, 37 Vt. 345; Bridgeport v. Blinn, 43 Conn 274; Kingsbury B. Bnckner, 70 111.514. Casserly «, Witherbee, 119 N Y. 522; Buchanan u Reid, 43 Minn. 172; Saatord v. Kane, 24 111. App 504; s. c. reversed, 127 III 591; Ryan v. Newcorab, 23 III. App. 113; s. c reversed, 125 111. 91; Willard v. Finnegan, 43 Minn. 476; Barr u. Van Alstine, 120 Ind. 590. 8 Stiger V. Bent, 111 111. 328. 319 § 335 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I.. costs that have accrued thereon to the date of the tender. Therefore, if the widow, for example, desires to redeem for the preservatiou of her dower right, she must offer to pay the whole debt. The mortgagee can refuse to accept only her share of it. And this is true of any one who owns only a portion of the mortgaged premises. ^ § 335. What acts extinguish the mortgage. — No acts, which do not amount to a payment of the debt or a re- lease of the mortgage, will cause an extinguishment of the mortgage. A mere change in the form of the debt — as the substitution of a bond for a note, or the execution of a new note in the place of the old one — will not have that effect, unless such substitution or change is made with the intention that the new instrument of indebtedness shall be accepted as an actual payment of the old debt. And this has been held to be the case where a note for a smaller amount has been substituted. When and howthe intention of payment can be shown in such a case is a very difficult matter to explain by any concise and comprehensive state- ment. It depends upon the facts of each case, and is itself a question of fact, whether the person making the change intended it to operate as a satisfaction of the old debt.* 1 McCabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray, 148; McCabe v. Swap, 14 Allen, 191; Gibson v. Ciehore, 5 Pick. 146; Smith v. Kelly, 27 Me. 237; Chittenden r. Barney, 5 Vt. 28; Bell v. Mayor, etc., 10 Paige Ch. 49; Fletcher r. Chase, 16 N. H. 42; Norris v. Moulton, 34 N. H. 392; Downer v. WilsOQ, 38 Vt. 1; Seymour v. Davis, 35 Conn. 264; MuUanphy v. Simpson, 4 Mo. 319; Douglass v. Bishop, 27 Iowa, 216; Gliddon v. Andrew, 14 Ma.. 733; Knowles v. Rablin, 20 Iowa, 101; Lamb v. Montague, 112 Mass. 352; Frauklin v. Gorham, 2 Day, 142; Hunter v. Dennis, 112 111. 568; Watts «. Bonner, 66 Mich. 629; Detweiler v. Breckenkamp, 83 Mo. 45. 2 Parkhiirst v. Cumraings, 56 Me. 159; Dana v. Binney, 7 Vt. 493i Davis V. Maynard, 9 Mass. 242; Fowler v. Bush, 21 Pick. 230; Baxter o. Mclntire, 13 Gray, 168; Grafton Bk. v. Foster, 11 Gray, 265; Elliott r. Sleeper, 2 N. H. 525; Mitchell v. Clark, 35 Vt. 104; Pond p. Clark, It Conn. 334; Boxheimer v. Gunn, 24 Mich. 376; Duushee v. Parmelee, 13 Vt. 172 ; Hadlock u. BuUflnch, 81 Me. 246 ; Markell v. Eichelberger, 12 Md.. 320 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 336 The mortgagee may, of course, release any part of the mortgaged property from the mortgage liens. This is a very common transaction, where the mortgagor sells a part of such property. 1 And the jDarties may, and often do, stipulate for such partial release, on payment of install- ment of the debt.^ It is doubtful what is the effect of a substitution of a new mortgage. If a new note and mort- gage is given for the balance after part payment, the old mortgage is held to be completely extinguished, and the new mortgage cannot claim priority over junior incum- brances already recorded.^ On the other hand, it has been held that the substituted mortgage may take the place of the original mortgage, on the ground that there had not in that case been any absolute payment or , extinguishment of the original debt.* § 336. The effect of a discharge. — Where the mort- gage is discharged by - the mortgagor's payment of the debt, it is extinguished altogether ; particularly, where there are junior incumbrances. The mortgagor cannot keep it alive, even though he goes through the formality of an assignment. A merger results from the union of the 78; Euston v. Friday, 2 Rich. Eq. 427; Banlt u. Rose, 1 Strobli. Eq. 257'; Brinclserlioff v. Lansing, 4 Johns. Ch. 65; Barker v. Bell, 37 Ala, 359 Vogle V. Ripper, 34II1. 106; Cleveland v. Martin, 2 Head, 128; Gault ■(). McGrath, 32 Pa. St. 392; Rogers v. Traders' Ins. Co., 6 Paige, Ch. 583; Applegate ■e. Mason,. 13 Ind. 75; Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 648; Jordan v. Smith, 30 Ohio, 500; Dillon v. Byrare, 5 Cal. 455; Citizen's Bank ii. Day- ton, 116 111. 257; Reid v. Abernethy, 77 Iowa, 438; Burson u. Andes, 83 Va. 445. 1 Werner v. Tuch, 52 Hun, 269; Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn. 14; Boone e. Clarke, 129 111. 466. 2 Vawter u. Crafts, 41 Minn. 14; McComber u. Mills, 80 Cal. Ill; Boone v. Clark, 129 111. 466; Werner v. Tuch, 52 Hun, 269. 8 Smith B. Bynum, 92 N. C. 108; Edwards v. Thorn, 25 Fla. 222. < Clark V. BuUard, 66 Iowa, 747; Council Bluffs Lodge u. Bullards, 67 Iowa, 674; Van Duyne u. Shaun, 41 N. J. Eq. 311, reversing s. c. 39 N. J. Eq. 6; Ponder v. Ritzinger, 102 Ind. 571; s. c. 119 Ind. 597. 21 321 § 336 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. two interests in one person.^ This is, however, not the rule where the assignee of the mortgagor has assumed the payment of the debt. Payment by the mortgagor in that case operates as an equitable assignment.^ And so, also, will there be a merger, where the payment is made by an assignee of the mortgagor who has assumed the payment of the debt.' It has, also, been held that if there are no junior incumbrancers, a satisfied mortgage maybe revived, and be made a good and effectual security for a new debt between new parties. But the position is not without 1 Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 126; Strong?). Converse, 8 Allen, 559; Wade v. Beldmeir, 40 Mo. iSfi; McGiven v. Wheelock, 7 Barb. 22; Mead i;. York, 6 N. Y. 449; Thomas' Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 378; Richard ». Talbird, Rich. Ch. 158; Swift v. Kraeraer, 13 C>il. 526; Ledyard u. Chapin, 6 Ind. 320; Pflton v. Knapp, 21 Wise. 63; Robinson v Urqhart, 12 N. J. Eq. 515; Peckhara v. Haddock, 3G 111. 38; Fewellw. Kessler, 30 Ind. 195; Perkins v. Steame, 23 Texas, 561; Brown v. Lapham, 3 Cush. 554; Gard- ner V. James, 7 R. I. 396; Champney v. Coope, 32 N. Y. 543; Bowman v. Manter, 33 N. H. 530 ; Larije v. VanDoren, 14 N,. J. Eq. 20S ; Carlton c. Jack- son, 12 Mass. 592; Kemerer v. Bloom, 65 Iowa, 363; Shipley v. Fox, 69 Md. 572; Eaton v. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98; Crafts v. Crafts, 13 Gray, 360; Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 12G; Cherry v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. 618; Brown v. Lapham, 3 Cush. 551, 554; Wedge v. Moore, 6 Id. 8; Rob- iusou V. Urquhart, 1 Beasl. 515; Comm. ti. Chasapeake, etc., Co., 32 Md. 501; Swift V. Kraemer, l.S Cal. 526; Kilborn v. Robbins, 8 Allen, 466, 471; Strong u. Converse, 8 Id. 557; Butler v. Seward, "lO Id. 466; Bemis a. Call, 10 Id. 512. 2 Baker v. N. W. Guaranty Loan Co., 36 Minn. ; Robinson v. Leavitt, 7 N. H. 73, 100; Funk v. McReynold, 33 111. 481, 495; Baker v. Terriil, 8 Minn. 195, 199; Halsey v. Reed, 9 N. J. Eq. 446; Iviunear v. Lowell, 34 Me. 299; Fletcher v. Chase, 16 N. H. 38, 42; StiUman v. Stillman, 21 N. J. Eq. 126; Jumel v. Jumel, 7 Paige, 591; Cox v. Wheeler, 7 Id. 248, 257. 3 MickleSB. Townsend, 18 N. Y. 575; Stoddard u. Rotton, 5 Bosw. 378; Butler V. Seward, 10 Allen, 466; Mickles'i). Dillayi', 15 Hun, 296; Pike v, Goodnow, 12 Allen, 472; Stronp; v. Converse, 8 Id. 557; Campbell v. Knights, 24 Me. 332; Weed, etc., Co. ». Emerson, 115 Ma5.s.554; Belmont ■V. Comau, 22 N. Y. 438; Trotter u. Hughes, 12 Id. 74; Fowler o. Fay, 62 Hi. 375; Hull v. Alexander, 26 Iowa, 569; Russell v. Pistor, 7 N Y. 171; Fitch v. Colhoal, 2 Saudf. Ch. 29; Lilly v. Palmer, 51 III. 331; Fry v. Vanderhoof, 15 Wise. 397. See Kellogg v. Ames, 41 N. Y. 250. 322 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 336 doubt as to its soundness. ^ And it is certainly not recog- nized as valid against junior incumbrancers.^ If the mort- gage has been delivered up and cancelled through fraud, accident or mistake, the court of equity will revive it and enforce it, at least against the mortgagor and all parties claiming under him, who have notice of the equity. And a subsequent purchaser will be bound by the equity if the mortgage has not been satisfied on the records; for he is compelled to take notice of that fact, and it is suiEcient to put him on his inquiry.^ 1 Marvin v. Vedder, 5 Cow. 671; Beardsley v. Tuttle, 11 Wis. 74; Walker u. Snediker, 1 Hoffm. Ch. 145; Star u. Ellis, 6 Johns. Ch. 392; Whiting V. Beebe, 12 Ark. 428; Johnson v. Anderson, 30 Ark. 745; Hur- ser V. Anderson, 4 Edw. Ch. 17; International Bk. v. Bowen, 80 111. 541; Jordan v. Furlong, 19 Ohio St. 89. And it seems the objection to this principle is greatly lessened, if not altogether removed, if the assign- ment is made at the mortgagor's request to a third person. Although lifeless in this third person's hands, it will be a good and binding security when assigned to a new creditor upon a new or different consideration. Belles V. Wade, 4 N. J. Eq. 458; Sheddy v. Gervan, 113 Mass. 378; Hoy V. Bramhall, 11 N. J. Eq. 563; Goulding v. Bunster, 9 Wis. 513; Wilson •u. Schoenlamb, 99 Mo. 96. 2 Man V. Elkius, 10 N. Y. S 488. s Grimes ,!<. Kimball, 4 Allen, 578; Joslyn v. Wyman, 5 Allen, 63; Howes. Wilder, 11 Gray, 267; Lawrence v. Stratton, 6 Cash. 163; Stover V. Wood, 26 N. J. Eq. 417; Fassett v. Smith, 23 N. Y. 252; Middlesex v. Thomas, 20 N. J. Eq. 39; Weir i;. Mosher, 19 Wis. 311; Vannice v. Ber- gen, 16 Iowa, 555; De Yampert v. Brown, 28 Ark. 166; Stanley v. Valen- tine, 79 111. 544; Mallet v. Paige, 8Ind. 364; Robinson u. Sampson, 23 Me. 388. And such relief will also be afforded where mortgage has been satisfied, instead of being assigned. Dudley v. Bergen, 23 N. J. Eq. 397; Champlin v. Laytin, 18 Wend. 407; Russell v. Mixer, 42 Cal. 475; Bruce V. Bonney, 12 Gray, 107; Hughes v. Torrence, 111 Pa. St. 611; Charles- ton City Council v. Ryan, 23 S. C. 339; 53 Am. Kep. 713; Crippen v. Chappel, 35 Kan. 495; Stiger v. Bent, 111 111. 328. But it must be a mistake of fact. If the satisfaction is obtained through a mistake of law, no relief will be granted, unless from the tender age or weak mind of the person injured, the charge of undue influence may be established. Peters v. Florence, 38 Pa. St. 194; Hampton v. Nicholson, 23 N. J. Eq. 423; Bentley v. Whittlemore, 1 Id. 366; Smith v. Smith, 15 N. H. 55. 323 § 337 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. § 337. When payment will work an assigmnent Pay- ment of the debt by the mortgagor, as has been explained, always discharges the mortgage, though the satisfaction by the mortgagee be in form an assignment to himself or to one in trust for hiin.^ And where the debt is paid by a volun- teer — a stranger Who is not interested in the mortgaged premises — the mortgage will be discharged and extin- guished, unless an assignment has actually been made to him. He cannot set up the claim to an equitable assignment, although he may have paid the debt at the mortgagor's request.^ On the other hand, if there is au actual assign- ment to the volunteer payor, no additional circumstances can make the transaction work a discharge of the mort- gage.^ But when the payment is made by one who is not under a primary personal obligation to pay, who is second- arily liable as surety or indorser, or who has an interest in the mortgaged property, and, consequently, a right to ^ redeem, payment does not always operate as a discharge. And the question is not determined so much by the form of the acknowledgment of payment as the intention of the party paying. That intention may be derived from the facts connected with the transaction and established by parol evidence. And where it is, beyond a doubt, to the interest of the one paj'ing that the mortgage should be kept alive, equity will look upon the transaction as an assignment and not a discharge. Especially is this the case where the per- son paying has only a part interest in the premises, or is a surety, and by paying becomea entitled to contribution or 1 See ante, sects. 333, 336. 2 Downer v. Wilson, 33 Vt. 1. See Guy v. De Uprey, 16 Cal. 196. But see Crippen v. Chappel, 35 Kan. 495; where it lias been lield tiiat out- paying the debt at the request of the deceased mortgagor's administrator, in reliance upon the validity of a new mortgage given by the administra- tor, can claim the rights of an assignee .of the old mortgage, although it has been duly cancelled. 3 Brown v. Scott, 87 Ala. 453. 324 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 337 satisfaction from the mortgagor and others interested in the property. Payment in such cases never worlis a discharge ; the mortgage survives, and may afterwards be enforced against all parties affected Tvith notice. ^ But when such a person pays the mortgage debt, he can insist upon the transfer to him of the notes or other evidences of indebted- 1 Hinds V. Ballou, 44 N. H. 619: Stantons v. Thompson, 49 N. H. 272; Butler V. Seward, 10 Allen, 466; Mickles v. Townsend, 18 N. Y. 675; Leavitt v. Pratt, 53 Me. 14; Kellogg v. Ames, 41 N. Y. 259; Abbott v. Kasson, 72 Pa. St. 185; "Walker v. King, 44 Vt. 601; Wadsworth v. Will- lams, 100 Mass. 126; Wade v. Baldmier, 40 Mo. 486; Champlin v. Laytin, 18 Wend. 407; Skillman v. Teeple, 1 N. J. Eq. 232'; Dudley ,v. Bergen, 23 N. J. Eq. 397; Russell v. Mixer, 42 Cal. 475; Baker v. Flood, 103 Mass. 47; Ebert v. Gerdmg, 116 111. 216; Stelzich v. Weidel, 27 III. App. 177; Averilli). Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44; Loud v. Lane, 8 Met. 617; Bacon v. Bowdoln, 22 Pick. 401; McCabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray, 118; Gibson v. Crehore, 3 Pick. 475; Houghton v. Hapgood, 13 Pick. 158; Carll v. Butman, 7 Me. 102, 105; Spencer v. Waterman, 36 Conn. 342; Foster V. Hilliard, 1 Story, 77; Swaine v. Ferine, 5 Johns. Ch. 490; Bell v. Mayor, etc., 10 Paige, 49; Lamson v. Drake, 105 Mass. 567; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 63; McCabe v. Swap, 14 Allen, 191; Newhall v. Sav- ings Bank, 101 Mass. 431. And payment by a purchaser of the equity Of redemption will not operate in equity as an extinguishment of the mort- gage, as against the , mortgagor, sureties and junior incumbrancers, although the mortgage is formally satisfied and cancelled, unless he has become primarily liable by his assumption of the payment of the mortgage, as the consideration of the conveyance to him. Savage v. Hall, 12 Gray, 363; Pitts V. Aldrich, 11 Allen, 39; Abbott v. Kasson, 72 Pa. St. 183; Pool V. Hathaway, 22 Me. 85; Hatch v. Kimball, 16 76. 146; Skeel v. Spraker, 8 Paige Ch. 182; Millspauch v. McBride, 7 Paige Ch. 509; Shin v. Fredericks, 56 111 443; Mobile Branch Bank v. Hunt, 8 Ala 876; Lyon v. Mcllvaine, 24 Iowa, 12; Fitch v. Cotheal, 2 Sandf. Ch, 29; Lilly v. Palmer, 51 111. 331; Mickels v. Townsend, 18 N. Y. 575; Frey v. Vanderhoof, 15 Wis 397; Carpenter v. Gleason, 58 Vt, 244; Georgia Chemical Works ». Cartledtfe, 77 Ga. 547; "Gerdine v. Menage, 141 Minn. 417. But in law, an actual formal assignment is required to keep the mortgage alive. Den v. Dimon, 10 N. J. L. 156; Kinnac. Smith, 17 N. J. Eq. 14; Wade u, Howard, 1 1 Pick 289. And a part owner who pays the debt may require a formal assignment to him, Bayles v. Hunted, 40 Hun, 376. But if the mortgage IS paid off by such part owner with funds, in which all the owners are interested, as where the widow pays the debt with the proceeds of the growing crop, she cannot enforce the mortgage against the deceased mortgagor's heirs and distributees. Skinner v. Chapman, 78 Ala. 376. 325 § 338 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. ness and the mortgage. ^ It has, however, been held that he cannot require them to be assigned to him.^ § 338. Registry of mortgages and herein of priority It is a general rule in this country that if a mortgage is duly registered in the recorder's office, the record will be cou- structive notice of the mortgage to all subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers, and gives to it a priority over such sub- sequently acquired interests.^ But the record is only notice of the mortgage as recorded ; and if there is an error in the registration, as, for example, showing the mortgage to be security for a less amount, it has priority over subsequent purchasers for the amount recorded, and not for the actual amount expressed in the mortgage. The purchaser is not required by the registry laws to inspect the original deeds, for he is permitted to presume that the record is a correct copy. So, also, if a mortgage appears on the record, through an error in registration, to be invalid from defec- tive execution, the investigator of titles is not required to go behind the registry and inquire into the cause of the inva- lidity ; nor is he affected by such a record with notice of the equities which might arise out of the irregular deed between the parties to the same.* But the index is not a part of 1 Stiger V. Bent, 111 111. 328. 2 Holland v. Citizen's Sav. Bank (R. I. 1890), 19 Atl. 654; McCulla v. Beadlestor (R. I. 1890), 20 Atl. 11. But see contra, Nelson v. Loder, 55 Hun, 173. 2 See post, sects. 814-816, where the recordins law is discussed generally. ^ Russell V. Shields, 11 Ga. 636; Dewitt v. Moulton, 17 Me. 418; Frost V. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 288; s. c. 18 Johns. 544; Peck v. Mallams, 10 N. Y. 509; Johns v. Scott, 5 Md. 81; Taylor v. Hotchkiss, 2 La. An. 917; Barrett u. Shaubhut, 5 Minn. 323; Terrell v. Andrew Co., 44 JIo. 309; Farmers' Bk. v. Bronson, 14 Mich. 369. A different rule is held In other States, under the peculiar phraseology of their statutes of registration. Brook's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 127; Wood's Appeal, 82 Pa. St. 116; Tousley V. Tousley, 5 Ohio St. 78 ; Mims v. Mims, 35 Ala. 23; Merrick v. Wallace, 19 111. 486 ; Atkinson v. Hewett, 63 Wis. 396. 326 CH. X.] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 339 the record, and an error appearing therein will not preju- dice the rights of the mortgagee. It is not even neces- sary for the mortgage to be indexed.^ It has also been held that the subsequent purchaser is not charged with constructive notice of the existence of a mortgage, because the land had been previously sold under the order of a court of record in which the execution of a mortgage to secure the unpaid balance of the purchase money was ex- pressly required.^ The registration must also comply with the essential requirements of the registry laws, in order to raise a constructive notice of the mortgasje.^ What con- stitutes a proper record is the same in most of the States, whether the deed be a mortgage or an absolute conveyance. The subject, therefore, will be more clearly elucidated under the head of titles to real property.* § 339. Rule of priority from registry. Its force and ef- fect. — But, notwithstanding the registry laws provide for the recording of mortgages like other deeds, the general rule is that an unrecorded mortgage is still good between the parties themselves, and all other persons claiming under them, without a valuable consideration, or with notice of the mortgage.^ If the subsequent purchase is for value and 1 Curtis ». Lyman, 24 Vt. 338; Dodge v. Potter, 18 Barb. 193; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. N. C. 381; Green v. Garrington, 16 Ohio St. 548; Throckmorton w. Price, 28 Texas, 605; Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; 2 Am. Rep. 533; Shell v. Stein, 76 Pa. St. 398; 18 Am. Rep. 416; contra, Gwyn v. Turner, 18 Iowa, 1; Walley v. Small, 25 Iowa, 184; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; 19 Am. Rep. 772. 2 Piester v. Piester, 22 S. C. 139. 3 Wood V. Reeves, 23 S. C. 382. ^ See post, sects. 816-818. In respect to the priority of a substituted mortgage over incumbrances already recorded, see ante, § 335. s And the rule is the same if the mortgage has been defectively exe- cuted. Nice's Appeal, 54 Pa. St. 200; Boyce v. Shiver, 3 S. C. 515; Phillips V. Pearson, 27 Md. 242; Raconillet v. Sansevain, 33 Cal. 376; Bibb V. Baker, 17 B. Mon. 292 ; Dorrow v. Kelly, 2 Dall. 142 ; Copeland v. Copeland, 28 Me. 525; Sparks v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 469; Harris©. Norton, 16 Barb. 264 ; Leggett v. Bullock, Bnsb. L. 283 ; Woodworth v. 327 § 339 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. without notice, the recorded deed has the priority over the unrecorded mortgage. And a recorded mortgage has been held to take precedence to a prior unrecorded mortgage, even though the debt of the former mortgage was incurred at a time anterior to the execution of the latter. Though the record be destroyed, the priority gained by registration will not be affected thereby, if it can be established by other evidence.^ The parties may also by agreement change the order of priority, and give to a subsequently recorded deed priority over one already recorded, but the agreement will only bind the parties and their privies with notice.* But where two mortgages are executed and recorded simultaneously, they are concurrent liens on the property.^ And where they are executed simultaneously, and by the understanding of the parties, express or implied, one is not to have priority, an earlier record of one will not give it priority over the other.* But if one of the mortgages is for the purchase-money, it will have priority over one for some other debt, although they are simultane- ously recorded.^ If both are for purchase money they will Guzman, 1 Cal. 203; Bearing v. Watkins, 16 Ala. 20; Belli). Thomas, 2 Iowa, 384 ; "Wyatt v. Stewart, 34 Ala. 716 ; Bay o. Hallenbeck, 42 Fed. 381; Short 1). Fogle, 42 Kan. 349; Mann v. State, 116 lud. 363; contra, White V. Denman, 1 Ohio St. 110 ; Henderson v. McGee, 6 Helsk. 55. But see post, sects. 816, 817. 1 Alvis V. Morrison, 61 111. 181; 14 Am. Rep. 354; Steele v. Boone, 75 m. 457; Alston v. Alston, 4 S. C. 116. = Gillig V. Maass, 28 N. Y. 191; Ehoades v. Canfleld, 8 Paige Ch, 545; Freeman v. Shroeder, 43 Barb. 618; Conover v. Van Mater, 18 N. J. L. 481; State Bank «. Campbell, 2 Rich. Eq. 179; Glason ». Shepherd, 6 Wis. 369; Sparks v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. 469; Iowa College Trustees v. Fenno, 67 Iowa, 244; Raleigh Bank v. Moore, 94 N. C. 734; Dinsmore c. Matthews, 58 Mich. 616; Brower v. Witmeyer, 121 Ind. 83;FoxweU». Slaughter, 5 Del. Ch. 396. 5 Stafford v. Van Rensselaer, 9 Cow. 316; Green v. Tomlinson, 23 N. J. Eq. 405. * Daggett?). Rankin, 31 Cal. 327; Howard v. Case, 104 Mass. 249. Clark V. Brown, 8 Alien, 509; Turk v. Funk, 68 Mo. 18; 30 Am. Rep. 771; Brower v. Witmeyer, 121 Ind. 83; Boies v. Gardner, 53 Hun, 236. 328 CH. X.] MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. § 339 be concurrent liens. ^ A mortgage will have the character- istics of a purchase money mortgage even though it be executed subsequently, provided it is done in performance of a contemporaneous agreement for such a mortgage. ^ So, also, will a purchase money mortgage have priority over a prior judgment lien.^ Whether a mortgage unrecorded will be postponed to the lien of a judgment docketed subsequently has been decided differently in different States. In some of the States the judgment is invariably given priority,* while in others the unrecorded mortgage will take precedence, unless the mort- ■ gaged property has been levied upon in execution of the judgment and sold to a purchaser for value. ^ If there is any doubt as to the priority of the judgment in such a case, the true rule would seem to require the question to depend upon the priority in execution of the debts, represented respect- 1 Jones V. PiieJps, 2 Barb. Ch. 440; iPomeroy v. Layting, 16 Gray, 435. 2 Stewart v. Smith, 36 Minn. 82; see ante, sect. 124. 3 Stewart v. Smith, 36 Minn. 82; Jacoby v. Crowe, 36 Minn. 93. 4 Sample v. Bird, 7 Serg. & E. 290 ; Priedley v. Hamilton, 17 Serg. & R. 70; Vhliav. Hutchinson, 23 Pa. St. 110; Davidson v. Cowan, 1 Dev. Eq. 470; Van Thorniley v. Peters, 26 Ohio St. 471; Barker ». Bell, 37 Ala, 354; Reichert v. McClure, 23 111. 516; Moore i7. Watson, 1 Root, 388; Smith V. Jordan, 25 Ga. 687 ; Hawkins v. Files, 51 Ark. 417. But if the Judgment-creditor has notice of the prior unrecorded mortgage, the mortgage will of course take precedence to the judgment. Wertz's Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 306 ; Britton's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 172 ; "Williams o. Tatnall, 29 III. 553. fi Finch u. Winchelsea, 1 P. Wms. 278; Burn v. Burn, 3 Ves. 582; Schmidt v. Hoyt, 1 Edw. Ch. 652 ; Jackson v. Dubois, 4 Johns. 216 ; Knell ». Green St. Building Assn., 34 Md. 67; Hackett v. Callender 32 Vt. 97; Hampton v. Levy, 1 McCord Ch. 107 (but see Miles v. King, 5 S. C. 146;; Righter t). Forester, 1 Bush, 278; Morton v. Robards, 4 Dana, 258; Orthj). Jennings, 8 Blaiikf. 420; Kelleyt;. Mills, 41 Miss. 267; Norton V, Williams, 9 Iowa, 529; Greenleaf v. Edes, 2 Minn. 264; First Nat. Bank «. Hayzlett, 40 Iowa, 659; Pixley v. Huggins, 15Cal. 127; Iowa Loan & T. Co. V. Mowery, 67 Iowa, 113; Laidley ». Aikin (Iowa, 1890), 45 N. W. 384; Flayler v. MaUoy, 9 N. Y. S. 573; Devin v. Eagleson (Iowa, 1890), 44 JS. W. 545. 329 § 340 MOETGAGORS A>;D MORTGAGEES. [PART I. ively by the mortgage and the judgment. If the judgment debt was incurred subsequently to the execution of the mortgage, the judgment when docketed should have priority over the unrecorded mortgage, for the judgment-creditor, in entering into the contract which caused the debt, may have relied upon the apparently unincumbered condition of the debtor's property. § 340. Registry of assignments of mortgages and equi- ties of redemption. — Since the registration of a deed is constructive notice only to subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers, the recording of an assignment of the mortgage, although a protection against other assignees and purchasers from the mortgagee, is no notice to the mort- gagor and his assigns, both before and after the execution of the mortgage, which has been the subject of assignment ; in other vrords to senior mortgagees as well as to pur- chasers of the equity of redemption.^ In order not to be bound by the acts of the mortgagee after the assignment, which have the effect of extinguishing the mortgage — as, for example, acceptance of payment from the mortgagor — actual notice of the assignment must be brought to the mortgagor and subsequent purchasers of his equity of redemption.^ But the absence of the instrument of in- debtedness which has been secured by the mortgage from the possession of the mortgagee, is sufficient notice to all I ' Holliger v. Bates, 43 Ohio St. 437. 2 Jones u. Gibbons, 9 Ves. 410; Mitchell u. Burnhara, 44 Me. 302; James v. Johnson, 6 Johns. Ch. 417; Walcott v. Sullivan, 1 Edw. Ch. ,S99; Ely v. Schofleld, 35 Barb. 330; Belden v. Meeker, 47 N. T. 307; Bank v. Anderson, 14 Iowa, 514; Johnson ». Carpenter, 7 Mina. 176; Titus w. Haynes, 9 N. Y. S. 742; Castle u. Castle (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 378. In some of the States, notably California, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Min- nesota, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin, Maryland, the same rule is established by statute. Jones ou Mort., sect. 473; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 148. See Watsou v. Duudee Mortgage, etc., Co., 12 Or. 474, and see post, sect. 815. 330 CH. X.J MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. '§ 341 parties of the equitable assignment of the mortgage.' So, also, must actual notice be given to the mortgagee of the assignment of the mortgagor's estate, in order that the rights of the assignee may be fully protected against the unlawful acts of the mort<>ao;or.^ § 341. Tacking of mortgages. — In England if there are three or more mortgages upon the same property, and the first and third or other subsequent mortgages are held by the same person with the intervening second mortgage outstanding in another, by obtaining possession under the first mortgage, the mortgagee ma\' hold the mortgaged prem- ises against the second mortgagee, until the third or other subsequent mortgage in his possession has been satisfied. This doctrine is called "the tacking of mortgages," and is based upon the theory that, since one mortgagee has no no- tice of the other mortgages, the equities of successive junior mortgagees are equal ; and the first mortgagee, having the full legal title in possession, may use his possession for the benefit of whatever liens he may have upon the premises to the exclusion of other subsequent mortgagees, who would otherwise have taken subject only to the first mortgage.^ But in this country the general prevalence of recording laws has taken from the doctrine its practical value, since the record is constructive notice to all subsequent incumbranc- ers, and such notice destroys the equality of the equities said to exist between junior mortgagees. It may be said that the doctrine does not prevail at all in the United States.* ^ Rice ». McFarland, 34 Mo. App. 404; Kellogg «. Smith, 26 N. Y. 18, 23. •■' i Kent's Com. 174; Stuyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb. Ch. 158; Bell v. Fleming, 12 N. J. Eq. 16 ; Blair v. Ward, 10 N. J. Eq. 126 ; Groesbeck v. Mattison, 43 Minn. 547; Claris v. McNeal, 114 N, Y. 287; First Nat. Bank V. Honeyman (Dak. 1889), 42 N. W. 771. See post, sect. 815. 3 Young i;. Young, L. E. 3 Eq. 805; Marsha. Lee, 2 Vent. 337; s. c. 1 Ch. Cas. 162; Brace v. Marlborough, 2 P. Wms. 491. * Grant v. Bissett, 1 Calne's Cas. 112; McKinstry v, Merwin, 3 Johns. Ch. 466 ; Burnett v. Denniston, 5 Johns. Ch. 35; Thompson v. Chandler, 1 331 § 342 MORTGAGORS AND MORTGAGEES. [PART I. But the same principle is now applied to the right of the mortgagee in possession to apply the rents and profits to the liquidation of any one of the mortgages which he may hold, and the intervening mortgagee has no right to object to the application of them to a third or other subsequent mortgage. 1 § 342. Priority in mortgages for future advances. — Where the first recorded mortgage is to secure future ad- vances, it becomes a question of importance to what extent will such a mortgage have priority over a subsequently recorded mortgage ; and, although there was at one time a considerable diversity of opinion, the general rule now i^re- vailing seems to be the followino;: If the mortgagee has entered into a binding contract to furnish the advances under all circumstances, and his failure to do so would expose him to an action on the covenant, even if such refusal or failure occurred after the execution of the second mortgage, then his mortgage will take precedence to the second mortgage for the amounts advanced both before and after the execu- tion of the latter.^ But if the continuance of the advances Me. 381; Chandler v. Dyer, 37 Vt. 345; Osborn v. Carr, 12 Cona. 195; Loring V. Cooke, 3 Pick. 48; Green v. Tanner, 8 Mete. 411; Anderson ». Neff, 11 Serg. & E. 208; Thomas' App., 30 Pa. St. 378; Brigdenii. Carhart, 1 Hopk. Ch. 231; Averill v. Guthrie, 8 Dana, 82; Brazee v. Lancaster Bk., 14 Ohio, 318; Wing v. McDowell, Walk. (Mich.) 175. But it has been held in a number of the courts that, as between mortgagor and mort- gagee, the mortgagee may hold the mortgage and refuse a satisfaction, until all subsequent advances made by the mortgagee shall have been paid. Orvis v. Newell, 17 Conn. 97; Chase v. McDonald, 7 Har. & J. 160; Lea V. Stone, 5 Gill & J. 611 ; Jo>553; O'Neill v. Douthitt, 40 Kan. 689. But contra, Lewis v. Kirk, 28 Kan. 497; Fisher V. Cowles, 41 Kan. 418. ' Chandler v. White, 84 111. 435; Meley v. Collins, 41 Cal. 663. See Costello V. Meade, 55 How. Pr. 356. 3 Hale V. Morgan, 68 111. 244; Stiger v. Bent, lU 111. 328; Ferguson v. Glassford, 68 Mich. 36; Wilton v. Mayberry, 75 Wise. 191 ; Beal v. Cong- don, 75 Mich. 77. * Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, 81 N. Y. 474; Radcliffe v. Rowley, 2 Barb. Ch. 23; Tuthill v. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94; Sweet v. Ward, 43 Kan. 695; Campbell v. Seeley, 38 Mo. App. 298; Dodson v. Clark, 38 Mo. App. 150; Stelner v. Ellis (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 803; Ashbey v. Ashbey, 41 La. An. 138; Murdock ». Cox, 118 Ind. 266; Woolsey u. Bohn, 41Mich. 235; Hall v. Hurd, 40 Kan. 740. 5 Kingman v. Sinclair (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 187. 6 Smith V. Smith, 8 N. Y. S. 637. 335 SECTION III. REMEDIES AND EEMEDIAl EIGHTS IKCIDENT TO MOKTGAGES. Section 351. Actions lor waste. 362. Process to redeem. 353. Accounting by the mortgagee. 354. Continued — What are lawful debits? 355. Continued — What are lawful credits? 356. Making rests. 357. Balance due. 358. Foreclosure — Nature and kinds of. 359. Continued — Who should be made parties? 360. Parties to Foreclosures — Continued. 361. Effect of decree in foreclosure upon the land, 362. The effects of foreclosure upon the debt. 363. Mortgages, with power of sale. 864. Character of the mortgage in relation to the power. 365. Purchase by mortgagee at his own sale. 366. Extinguishment of the power. 367. Application of purchase-money. 368. Deeds of trust. 369. Contribution to redeem — General statement. 370. Mortgagor u. his assignees. 371. Contribution between assignees of the mortgagor —Effect of release of one of them. 372. Contribution between the surety and the mortgagor. 373. Between heirs, widows, and devisees of the mortgagor. 374. Between the mortgaged property and the mortgagor's per- ' sonal estate. 375. Special agreements affecting the rights of contribution and exoneration. 376. Marshalling of assets between successive mortgagees. § 351. Actions for waste. — If the party in possession — whether mortgagor or mortgagee, or their respective as- signees — does anything in respect to the mortgage prop- erty which constitutes waste, and as such essentially impairs the value of the inheritance, he will be responsible in dam- age to the other parties who are interested in the property. 336 CH. X.J REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 351 But a mortgagor is not guilty of waste, on account of acts of omission. In the absence of an express covenant to repair, he is not guilty of waste, as against the mortgagee, if he fails to keep the premises in repair.^ The action is not the technical legal actic'n, but is one in the nature of waste, and in the code pleading would be simply an action for damages.^ But the most effective remedy for the prevention of waste by the parties to a mortgage is a bill in equity for an injunction, or the appointment of a re- ceiver to take charge of the mortgage property. Any one who has an interest, either in the mortgaged premises or in the mortgage debt, may avail himself of these remedies.* ^ Union Mut. etc., Ins. Co. v. Union Mills, etc., 37 Fed. Rep. 286. 2 Stowell V. Pike, 2 Greenl. 387; Smith u. Goodwin, Zd. 173; Frothlng- ham V. McKusick, 24 Me. 403; Hagar ». Brainard, 44 Vt. 302; Sanders v. Eeed, 12 N. H. 558 ; Burnside ». Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390 ; Mayo v. Fletcher, 14 Pick. 525; Wilmarth «. Bancroft, 10 Allen, 348; Page v. Robinson, 10 Cush. 99; Waterman v. Matteson, 4 R. I. 539; Mitchell v. Bogan, 11 Rich. Eq. 686; Lane v. Hitchcock, 14 Johns. 205; Haskin v. Woodward, 45 Pa. St. 44; Van Pett ». McGraw, 4 Conast. 110; Gardner v. Heatt, 3 Denio, 232; Barnett v. Nelson, 54 Iowa, 41; 37 Am. Rep. 183; Morlarty u. Ash- worth, 43 Minn. 1. And after condition broken, in the common-law States, the mortgagee may have trover or replevin for the timber cut by the mortgagor, against the purchaser of the mortgagor, as well as against the mortgagor himself. Langdon v. Paul, 22 Vt. 205; Gore v. Jennison, 19 Me. 53; Watermann v. Matteson,' 4 R. I. 539; Frothingham v. Mc- Kusick, 24 Me. 403; Adams v. Corriston, 7 Minn. 456; Kennerly v. Bur- gess, 38 Mo. 440; Kimball v. Lewiston, etc., Co., 55 Me. 494; contra, Peterson v. Clark, 14 Johns. 205; Wilsou v. Malthy, 59 N. T. 126; Cooper V. Davis, 15 Conn. 556; Clark v. Reyburn, 1 Kan. 281. 3 Brady v. Waldron, 2 Johns. 148; Johnson v. White, 11 Barb. 194; Cooper V. Bavis, 15 Conn. 556 ; Salmon v. Claggett, 3 Bland Ch. 126 ; Cap- ner v. Farmington Co., 2 Green Ch. 467; Brick y. Getsinger, 1 Halst. Ch. 391; Ensign ». Colburn, 11 Paige, 503; Scott v. Wharton, 2 Hen. & M.25; Parsons v. Hughs, 12 Md. 1; Gray v. Baldwin, 8 Blackf. 164; McCaslin v. The State, 44 Ind. 151; Nelson u. Pinegar, 30 111. 473; Mooney v. Brink- ley, 17 Ark. 340; Morrison u. Buckner, Herapst. 442; Adams c. Corriston, 7 Minn. 4^6; Bunker v. Locke, 15 Wis. 635; Fairbanks. Cudworth, 33 Wis. 358; Robinson v. Russell, 24 Cal. 467; Hampton v. Hodges, 8 Ves- 105; Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 210; Goodman v. KIne, 8 Beav. 379. But the mortgagee is under no obligation to enjoin, or bring action for waste, and a subsequent incumbrancer or purchaser cannot hold him 22 337 § 352 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. § 352. Process to redeem. — -In those States where the payment or tender of payment after condition broken ex- tinguishes the mortgage, and enables the mortgagor to re- cover the ])ossession by an action yf ejectment, no further process is needed to resttsre him to the complete title in the land. But where payment or tender of payment, i. e., after breach of the condition, does not have that effect — as is the case under the common law theory — the mortgagor is obliged to resort to a bill in equity to enforce a redemp- tion and cancellation of the mortgage. This equitable remedy maybe instituted by the mortgagoror anyone claimingunder him. Thebillmust beaccompanied with atender of payment into the court or with the statement of a willingness to pay if a balance is found to be due after an accounting, ^ and the decree orders the mortgagee to cancel and deliver up the mortgage and the instrument of indebtedness.^ The action for redemption must be instituted within the period of limitation prescribed for such actions. =* Where there are several parties before the court claiming the right to re- deem, the court will grant the right of redemption to them in the order of their priority, the one who is last in point of priority being required to redeem all the preceding mortgages, in order that he may acquire the first lien or liable for falling thus to protect the inheritance, and reduce the debt. Knarr v. Conaway, 42 Ind. 260. ' Pryori). HoUinger, 88 Ala. 405; Franklin v. Aj-er, 22 Fla. 654. 2 Beekman v. Frost, 18 Johus. 544; Silsbee v. Smith, 41 How. Pr. 418; Barton v. May, 3 Sandf. Ch. 450; Perry v. Carr, 41 N. H. 371; Edgerton V. McRea, 6 Miss. 183; Daugtdrill v. Sweeney, 41 Ala. 310; Anson v. Anson, 20 Iowa, 55; Pitraaa v. Thornton, 66 Me. 469; Gerrish v. Black, 122 Mass. 76; Halt u. Bees, 46 111. 181; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 536; Manning v. Elliott, 92 N. C. 48; Washburn v. Hammond (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 33; Hazard «. Robinson, 15 R. I. 226; Payors. Hallinger, 88 Ala. 405. In Pennsylvania redemption may be asked for in an action of eject- ment. Mellon V. Lemmon, 111 Pa. St. 66; Franklin v. Ayer, 22 Fla. 654 But see contra, Casserly v. Witherbee, 119 N. Y. 522. 3 See ante, sect. 326. See, also, Schlawig v. Fleckenstein (Iowa, 1890), 45 N. W. 770. 338 CH. X.] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 353 absolute title. ^ All persons who are interested in the mortgage, either as privies of the mortgagor or mortgagee, are proper parties to an action for redemption. The mort- gagee and his assigns are necessary parties. And where there are several parcels of land covered by the mortgage, and the owner of the equity of one wishes to redeem, the owners of the other parcels must be made parties. But this rule does not apply where there are separate mort- gages over each for the same debt.^ § 353. Accounting by the mortgagee. — In the action for redemption, in order to determine the amount then due on the mortgage it is sometimes necessary to have an accounting. An accounting may be ordered whenever the mortgage debt involves a long and tedious account of charges 1 Mbore v. Beasum, 44 N. H. 215; Brewer v, Hyndraan, 18 N. H. 9; Arcedechare v. Bowes, 3 Meriv. 216; Raymond v. Holborn, 23 Wis. 57; Buchanan 17. Reld, 43 Minn. 172; Pamperin v. Scanlan, 28 Minn. 345; Parke v. Hush, 29 Minn. 434. See ante, sect. 334, for a discussion of the persons who may redeem. ' 2 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 306, 307; Wlnslow v. Clark, 47 N. Y. 261; Dias v. Merle, 4 Paige, 259; Hilton «. Lathrop, 46 Me. 297; BrowQ u. Johnson, 53 Me. 246; Wigg v. Davis, 8 Greenl. 31 ; McCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen, 269; Barker v. Wood, 9 Mass. 419; Elliott v. Patton, 4 Yerg. 10; Wolcott w. Sullivan, 6 Paige Ch. 117; Enos v. Southerland, 11 Mich. 538; Shaw v. Hoadley, 8 Blackf. 165; Woodward v. Wood, 19 Ala. 213; Beals v. Cobb, 51 Me. 348; Doody v. Pierce, 9 Allen, 141; Boyd v. Allen, 15 Lea 81, Per- kins V. Brierl3eld & Co., 77 Ala. 403. Upon the death of the mortgagor, either his heir or the personal representatives may bring the suit, because both are interested In the liquidation of the mortgage. Enos v. Souther- land, 11 Mich. 538; Guthrie v. Sorrell, 6 Ired. Eq. 13; Gen. Stat. Mass. (1860), sects. 32, 33. And at common law, upon the death of the mort- gagee, both the heirs and personal representatives had to be made parties. Anon. 2 Freem. 52; Osbourn o. Fallows, 1 Rus<. & M. 741; Story's Eq. PJ., sect. 188; Haskins v. Homes, 108 Mass. 379. But under the lien theory of mortgages, the personal representatives of the mortgagee are the only necessary parties. Copeland v. Yaakum, 38 Mo. 349. And where a junior mortgagee redeems, he must make the mortgagor, as well as the prior mortgagee, parties defendant. Farmer v. Curtis, 2 Sim. 466; Caddick v. Cook, 32 Beav. 70; Rhodes ». Buckland, 16 Beav. 212; Palk V. Clinton, 12 Ves. 48 339 § 354 REMEDIES I>'CIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I, and counter-charges, but it is particularly necessary when the mortgagee has been in possession of the premises, has received the rents and profits of the land, and expended sums of money in keeping the premises in repair. The mortgagor, or other person, praying for redemption, asks for an accounting by the mortgagee. An accounting is an equitable remedy which may be instituted independently of, or in conjunction with, another and the-principal suit. The mortgagor and his assigns may ask for an accounting with- out filing a bill to redeem, or they may request it in connectiou with the action for redemption. The case is referred to a master in chancery, if there be one, or to a special referee, who ascertains and determines the proper debits and credits of the account between the parties, and reports to the court the balance found due.^ The approval by a court of competent jurisdiction of the mortgagee's account fixes his liability thereon definitely, and the account cannot thereafter be attacked collaterally.^ § 354. Continjied — What are lawful debits? — In the first place the mortgagee will be charged with whatever rents he may have received, or which he could have received but for his negligence in the management of the estate. This matter has been already discussed in a previous section., and a complete statement of the mortgagee's liability in this connection need not here be repeated.' The mortgagee is 1 Hunt V. Maynard, 6 Pick. 439; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Bail- ley V. Myrick, 52 Me. 136; Davis u. Lassiter, 20 Ala. 561 ; Doody v. Pierce, 9 Allen, 141; Harper's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 315; 5 Wait's Prac. 288 ; Barnard V. Jennison, 27 Mich. 230; Adams «. Brown, 7 Cusli. 220; Hubbell v. Moulson, 53 N. Y. 225; Farris v. Houston, 78 Ala. 250; Pryor v. Hol- linger, 88 Ala. 405; Shuler v. Bonander (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 487. Tlie mortgagee's assigns, as well as tlie mortgagee, are liable to be called to account, and the mortgagor's assigns have a right to demand an account. Brayton v. Jones, 5 Wis. 117; Harrison w. Wise, 24 Conn. 1; Strange. Allen, 44 111. 428; Ruckman u. Astor, 9 Paige Ch. 517; Gelston v. Thomp- son, 29 Md. 595. 2 In reHelfenstein's Estate (Pa. 1890), 20 Atl. 161. 5 See ante, sect. 325. 340 OH. X.j KEMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 355 also chargeable with all damage done to the inheritance by himself, or by others with his authority or permission, whether the acts constitute affirmative O'- negative waste. Thus he is liable for damages resulting from the opening and working of a mine, as well as from letting the premises fall into decay.^ § 355, Contmiied — What are lawful credits? — Since the mortgagee in possession is under an obligation to keep the premises in repair, he is entitled to credit himself with all sums expended for that purpose. But he will not be allowed the expenses incurred in making costly improve- ments — such as the erection of new buildings, or for any repairs which are not of permanent benefit to the inheritance. The true rule seems to be, that he will be allowed only such expenses as he incurred in making repairs, which were ne- cessary to keep the premises in the same condition as he received them, and for such improvements beyond that limit which were necessary to the ordinary and reasonable enjoyment of the premises. For any other expenses of re- pair he can be credited only when he has incurred them by and with the consent of the mortgagor.^ But it has been held in some of the States that where lasting and permanent improvements of a truly beneficial character were made by the mortgagee in possession, or by a purchaser, under the w ^ See ante, sect. 351. 2 Russell V. Blake, 2 Pick. 505; Reed v. Reed, 10 Pick. 398; Crafts v. ■Crafts, 13 Gray, 303; Mickles v. Dillaye, 17 N. Y. 80; Moore v. Cable, 1 Jolins. Ch. 385; Gordon v. Lewis, 2 Sumn. 143 ; Clark v. Smith, 1 N. J. Eq. 121; Norton v. Cooper, 39 Eog. Law & Eq. 130; Sparhawk v. Wills, 5 Gray, 423; Daugherty v. McColgan, 6 Gill & J. 275; Harper's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 315; Lowndes u.Ciiisolm, 2 McCordCh. 455; Hopkinson ». Steph- enson, 1 J. J. Marsh. 341; McConnel v. Holsbush, 11 Hi. 61; M,cCumber V. Gilman, 15 111. 381; McCarron v. Cassidy, 18 Ark, 34; Tharpe v.'Eeltz, 6 B. Mon. 15; Hidden v. Jordan, 28 Cat. 301 ; Neale v. Hagthorp, 3 Bland Ch. 590; Montgomery v. Chadwiok, 7 Iowa, 114; Adkins v. Lewis, 6 Oreg. 292; Ballinger v. Choultan, 20 Mo. 80; Ford w. Philpot, SHar. & J. .312; Millers. Curry (Ind. 1890), 24 N.E. 219, 374. 341 § 355 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. mistaken belief that he had, by foreclosure, acquired the absolute title, he will be allowed the value of them.^ This, probably, is but a deduction from the general betterment laws, which have been enacted in several of the States.^ Although the mortgagee is not obliged to purchase a supe- rior or paramount title held by a third person, or to pay the taxes due upon the estate, or to effect an insurance where the mortgage requires the mortgagor to insure, yet if he does any of these acts and incurs expenses for the protection of their joint interests against such forfeiture or loss, he will be permitted to charge them against the mort- sragor.^ But in all of these cases the claim for reimburse- ment is against the mortgaged property, and not a personal one which may be enforced against the mortgagor in a personal action.* The mortgagee, however, cannot charge for his personal services in the management of the estate ; but if it is necessary to employ others — as, for example, a person to collect the rents — he will be allowed such expenses. And, in some of the States, notably Massachu- setts, he is allowed a commission where he collects them 1 Miner v. Beekman, 50 N. Y. 337; Putnam v. Ritchie, 6 Paige Ch. 390; Vanderhaise v. Hughes, 2 Beas. 410; Harper's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 815; Barnard v^ Jennisou, 27 Mich. 230; Neale v. Hagthorp, 3 Bland, 590; Gillis v. Martin, 2 Dev. Eq. 470; Troost v. Davis, 31 Ind. 34; Roberts v. Fleming, 53 HI. 198; McLorley v. Larissa, 100 Mass. 270; Greene v. Wescott, 13 Wis. 606; Bacon «. Cottrell, 13 Minn. 194. 2 See post, sect. 702. s Clark v. Smith, 1 N. J. Eq. 421; Riddle v. Bowman, 27 N. H. 236; Mailer v. Whittier, 36 Me. 577 ; Hubbard v. Shaw, 12 Allen, 122 ; Williams V. Hilton, 35 Me. 547; Robinson v. Ryan, 25 N. Y. 320; Mixu. Hotchkiss, 14 Conn. 32; Harvie ?;. Banks, 1 Rand. 408; Slee v. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige Ch. 81; Folny v. Palmer, 5 Gray, 649; Nichols v. Baxter, 5 R. I. 404; Hagthorp v. Hook, 1 Gill &. J. 270; McCumber v. Gilmau, 15 HI. 381; Weatherby u. Smith, 30 Iowa, 131; Davis v. Bean, 114 Mass. 360; Harper i). Ely, 70 111. 581; Rowan w. Sharpe Rifle Co., 29 Conn. 282; Burr V. Veeder, 3 Wend. 412; Miller v. Carry '(Ind. 1890), IM N. E. 219, 374; Young «. Omohundro, 69 Md. 424; West v. Hayes, 117 lud. 290; Mc- Creeryu. Shaffer (Neb. 1889), 41 N. W. 996. < Kersenbrock ?). Muff (Neb. 1890), 45 N. W. 778; Zabriskie v. Ban- distel (N. J. 1890), 20 Atl. 263. 342 CH. X.] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 357 himself. But the general rule is that he will not be per- mitted to make any charge for his own services, whatever may be their nature.^ § 356. Mating- rests. — In applying the rents and profits received from the estate the mortgagee may first deduct therefrom the expenses incurred in the management of the mortgaged premises, and then he must apply the remainder toihe liquidation of the interest and principal of the debt in that order. If, in making the account, it is ascertained that in any one period — determined by the time when the interest falls due — the rents and profits received are more than sufficient to cover the expenses and the accrued inter- est, the balance is applied to the principal ; and the interest subsequently accruing is computed on the reduced princi- pal. This is called making a rest. And rests will be made under such circumstances as often as the interest falls due.^ § 357. Balance due. — If, when the account is stated, it is found that there is a balance still due on the mortgage to the mortgagee, a decree for redemption will be granted upon 1 And any agreement that he shall be permitted to charge for such services will not be binding upon the mortgagor. French v. Barron, 2 Atk. 120; Gilbert v. Dyneley, 3 Man. & G. 12; Eaton u. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98; Moore v. Cable, 1 Johns. Ch. 385; Elmer v. Loper, 25 N. J. Eq. 475; Breckenridge v. Brooks, 2 A. K. Marsh, 335; Benham ». Rowe, 2CaI. 387; Harper v. Ely, 70 111. 381; Snow v. Warwick Institution of Savings (R. I. 1890), 20 Atl. 94. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the mortgagee may charge a reasonable percentage, usually 5 per cent., for the collection of the rents. Gerish v. Black, 104 Mass. 400; Waterman v. Curtis, 26 Conn. 241; Wilson v. Wilson, 3 Binn. 557; Cranberry a. Granberry, 1 Wash. (Va.) 246; Brown v. South Boston Sav. Bk., 148 Mass. 300. 2 Reed V. Reed, 10 Pick. 398; Shaffer v. Chambers, 6 N. J. Eq. 548; Van Vronker v. Eastman, 7 Mete. 638; Connecticut v. Jackson, 1 Johns. Ch. 13; Stone u. Seymour, 15 Wend. 16; Jencks v. Alexander, 11 Paige Ch. 619; Gordon v. Lewis, 2 Sumn. 147; Green v. Westcott, 13 Wis. 606; Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 259; Patch v. Wilde, 30 Beav. 100; Glad- ding V. Warner, 36 Vt. 54; Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. S02; JohflBon v. Miller, 1 Wils. 416; Knight v. Houghtaling, 91 N. C.246 343 § 358 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. the payment of that sum. And the report of the referee or master, when coufirmed by the court, is conchisive as to the amount still owing. On the other hand, if the report shows that the rents and profits received by the mortgagee exceed the expenses and the amount of the mortgage com- bined, redemption will be decreed, together with an order, directing the mortgagee to pay over to the mortgagor what- ever balance is found due to him.^ § 358. Foreclosure — Xature and kinds of. — In order to bar the mortgagor's equity of redemption, and acquire the absolute title to the property, or to satisfy his debt by a sale of the premises, the mortgagee must bring an action for foreclosure. And the action lies on a deed which is abso- lute on its face, as soon as it is shown that it was intended to operate as a mortgage, as well as on one which has been executed in proper form.'^ (The decree in such a case bars completely the right to redeem.!' There are two principal kinds of foreclosure, although the details in both are different in different States, and are governed more or less by local statutes. The piore ancient kind is what is called strict foreclosure. This is an action in which a decree is rendered barring the mortgagor's equity, and vesting the absolute estate in the mortgagee if the debt is not paid within a certain time after the rendition of the decreei This kind of foreclosure is generally resorted to in the New England States, although in some of them — particu- larly Massachusetts — the form of the proceeding has been somewhat changed from the old common-law foreclosure. But the decree is essentially the same.'"* But strict fore- 1 Pitman v. Thornton, 66 Me. 469 ; Holt c. Eees, 46 111. 181; Gerrish v. Black, 122 Mass. 76; Seaver v. Durant, 39 Vt. 103; Belle. Mayor of N. Y., 10 Paige Ch. 49; Freytag u. Hoeland, 23 N. J. Eq. 36; see Wood ». Felton, 9 Pick. 171. 2 Lyon V. Powell, 78 Ala. 351. ' In Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, the action for strict foreclosure is called a writ of entry, in form, an action at law, but in e£- 344 CH. X.j REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MOKTGAGES. § 358 closure, if the mortgagee is out of possession, he may re- cover the possession in action of ejectment.^ The other so-called equitable foreclosure is effected by a decree order- ing the property to be sold, and the proceeds of sale applied to the payment of the expense of the foreclosure suit and sale of the property,^ and the liquidation of the mortgage-debt. If any surplus remains, it is paid over to the mortgagor and his assigns,* and the junior incum- brancers will be entitled to share in the surplus in the order of their equities.* This mode of foreclosure is juster and fairer to all parties, and, very probably, everywhere in this country, except the New England States, foreclosure is always made by a sale of the premises, even though the right to a strict foreclosure may still exist. Courts of equity will exercise their ordinary power of discretion, and will order a sale of the premises whenever a strict foreclosure feet, an equitable proceeding. Gen. Stat. Mass,, ch. 140, sects. 1-11; Me. Rev. Stat., ch. 90; Gtin. Slat. N. H., ch. 112,213; Bartlett «. San- born, 64 N. B. 70; Snow v. Piessey, 82 Me. 552. But in addition to this action, a strict foreclosure may be effected in the New Enjtland States, by entry into possession after condition broken, with a formal notice to the mortgagor, attested by witnesses, that the entry is for the purpose of foreclosure. Generally this notice is also required to be published in the newspapers, and a certificate of the entry recorded in the general recording office. And after the lapse of a certain time, fixed by the statute, usually three years, the equity of redemption Is foreclosed with- out any resort to the courts. 2 Jones on Mort., sects. 1237-12r5. 1 Kershaw v. Thompson, 4 Johns. Ch. 609; Schenclt v. Couover, 13 N. J. L, 220; Montgomery v. Middlemlss, 21 Cal. 106; Sutton v. Stone, 2 Atk. 101. But the . Walters, 12 Kan. 282; Markel v. Evaus, 47 lad. 326; Miller w. Sharp, 49 Cal. 233; but see Brindernasle v. German Ref . Church, 1 Barb. Ch. 15. " Brainard v. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 359; Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 322; Bradley v. Chester Val. K. R., 36 Pa. St. 150; Kendall ». Treadwell, 14 How. Pr. 165; Farrell v. Parller, 50 111. 274; Osborne v. Tunis. 25 N. J. L. 633; Swift v. Edson, 5 Conn. 531. ■< Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 96, sects. 10, I B, 14; Fifleld v. Sperry, 20 N. H. 338. 356 ■CH. X.J REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 361 he may take advantage of such error within a redsonable time after arriving at his majority. And this is the rule, whether the foreclosure is ia equity or at law; but for the protection of his interests, it is generally required that the infant be represented in the suit by a guardian ad litem. ^ So also is the decree binding upon married women, if their husbands are joined with them as parties to the suit. And the failure of the husband to defend will not constitute a ground for setting aside the decree ; at least, where the foreclosure is by a sale of the premises.^ But the decree only transfers whatever interest is claimed by or through the mortgagor. It vests that interest in the mortgagee or purchaser, but cannot bar the interests held by persons who are not privies to the mortgagor. The decree, there- fore, does not affect an}"^ paramount title which is held or claimed by such persons, even though they have been made parties to the suit.^ Nor does the decree determine the ' If it be a strict foreclosure, the infant would be bounci by the de- cree, if he does not show some defect In the foreclosure proceeding within a reasonable time alter his arrival at majority. 2 Cruise Dig. 199 ; Mills V. Dennis, 3 Johns. Ch. 367. But the infant is bound by a sale under the ■decree, if he has been properly made a party to the action notwithstand- ing the irregularity. Mills v. Dennis, supra; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 259. 2 Mallack v. Galton, 3 P. Wms. 352; Mooney v. Maas, 22 Iowa, 380; Wolf V. Banning, 3 Minn. 202; Mavrick v. Grier, 3 Nev. 52. But in the States where married women hold their property independent of their husbands, it seems tinnecessary to make the husband a party. Som-. erset, etc., Assn. o. Camman, 11 N. J. Eq. 382; Thornton v. Pigg, 24 Mo. 249. And the same rule now prevails in Massachusetts for a dif- ferent reason. Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 62 ; Newhall v. Sav. Bk., 101 Mass. 430. 3 Concord, etc., Ins. Co. ». Woodbury, 45 Me. 447; Broome t). Beers, 6 Conn. 198; Corning v. Smith, 6 N. Y. 82; Lewis v. Smith, 9 N. Y. 614; Eagle F. Ins. Co. v. Lent, 6 Paige Ch. 635; Mooney v. Maas, 22 Iowa, 22; Strobe v. Downer, 13 Wis. 10; Peltoa v. Farmin, 18 Wis. 227; Palmer v. Yager, 20 Wis. 103; Banning v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 308; 18 Am. Rep. 398; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 32; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 2 Barb. 20; Brun- ■dage V. Missionary Society, 60 Barb. 205; Kinsley v. Scott, 68 Vt. 470; Weil V. Uzzett, 92 N. C. 515; Bozarth v. SaDders, 113 III. 181; Ord ». Rartlett, 83 Cal. 428, , 357 § 362 eejMedies incident to mortgages. [part I. priorities of the junior mortgagees and their relative claims to a share in the surplus of the proceeds of sale.^ Where, however, the foreclosed mortgage covers only one undi- vided interest in a joint-estate, the plaintiff may secure by the same judgment a partition of the joint-estate.^ This statement of the effect of the decree in foreclosure is true in all technical suits for foreclosure; but where, as in Maine and Massachusetts, the suit for foreclosure is in the nature of an action at law for the recovery of posses- sion, if the person in possession holds under a superior title, it would be necessary, or at least proper, to assert such title. But this is really not an exception to the rule above cited, since wherever the mortgagee may maintain the action of ejectment the question of a paramount title might be raised by the party in possession, if he is not the mortgagor.' § 362. The effect of foreclosure upon the debt. — If the suit be for strict foreclosure, all actions on the surplus of the debt remaining unsatisfied are barred as long as the foreclosure is upheld ;* but if the mortgagee — in the case that the value of the property is not sufficient to satisfy the entire debt — wishes, to pursue his remedy for the unsatis- fied balance, it will re-open the foreclosure, and the property will or may be sold under judicial decree, in order to ascer- tain its actual value, and the amount of the judgment to be entered up against the debtor.^ Where the decree directs ' Burchell v. Osborne, 119 N. Y. 486. ' Lyon V. Powell, 78 Ala. 851. " Hunt V. Hunt, 17 Pick. 118; Keith v. Swau, 11 Mass. 21G; Johnson v. Phillips, 13 Gray, 198; Churchill v. Loring, 19 Pick. 465; "Wheelwright v. Freeman, 12 Mete. 154; Whittier v. Dow, 14 Me. 298. ■* Griesbaum v. Baum, 18 111. App. 614. 'Lovell V. Leland, 3 Vt. 581; Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. L. 633; Bpeucer v. Harford, 4 Wend. 381. Morgan v. Plumb, 9 Wend. 287; Andrews v. Scotton, 2 Bland, 666; Paris v. Hulett, 26 Vt. 308; Edgerton V. Young, 43 111. 470; Bean v. Whitcomb, 13 Wis. 431; Bassett v. Mason, 18 Conn. 136; Porter u. PiUsbury, 36 Me. 278; Patten v. Pearsen, 67 Me. 358 CH. X.J REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 362 a sale of the premises, the proceeds of sale are applied to the liquidation of the debt, and if they are not sufficient to pay the whole debt, the mortgagee has his remedies for the balance, which are the ordinary actions at law for the re- covery of a debt. It is usual, however, for the court of equity, in rendering a decree in foreclosure for the sale of the mortgaged premises, to give Judgment for the unpaid surplus against the mortgagor and others who may be jointly liable with hini.^ And the court may grant this judgment for the unsatisfied surplus, although the com- plaint or bill in foreclosure contains no such prayer.^ The remedies of the mortgagee are twofold: first, against the property mortgaged, and secondly, on the personal liabil- ity of the mortgagor. These remedies are independent of each other, and although there can be but one pnyment of the debt, the prosecution of one of these remedies does not bar the right to pursue the other, and they may be em- ployed simultaneously in separate proceedings.^ But in 43i; Hunt v. Stiles, 10 N. H. 466; Smith v. Packard, 19 N. H. 575: Armory v. Fairbanks, 3 Mass. 563; Leland v. Loring, 10 Mete. 122; Lansing v. Goelet, 9 Cow. 346. ^ Dunkley v. Van Buren, 3 Johns. Ch. 330; Deare v. Carr, 3 N. J. Eq. 513; Pierce v. Potter, 7 Watts, 475; Mott v. Clark, 9 Pa. St. 399; Andrews V, Scotten, 2 Bland, 666; Hale v. Riderj B Gush. 231; Jones v. Conde, 6 Johns. Ch. 77; Payne v. Harrell, 40 Miss. 498; Stark u. Mercer, 3 How. (Miss.) 377; Marston v. Marston, 45 Me. 412; Gage i;. Brewster, 31 N. Y. 220; Joiinson v. Harmon, 19 Iowa, 58; Drayton v. Marshal), Rice Eq. 386; Rollins v. Forbes, 10 Cal. 299; Lee v. Kmgsbury, 13 Texas, 69; Shep- herd «;. Pepper, 133 U. S. 626; Weir v. Field (Miss. 1890), 7 So.« 355; Hilton V. Otoe Co. Bank, 29 Fed. Rep. 202; Shields v. Riopelle, 63 Mich. 468; Ohio Central E. R. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83. There are statutory provisions, for rendering a judgment for any unsatisfied balance in the foreclosure suit, in Arkansas, California, Indiana, Michi- gan, Minnesota, New York, Missouri, Texas and Iowa. See Washb. on Real Prop. 261-269, note. 2 Watkins v. Vrooman, 51 Hun, 175. ' Booth V. Booth, 2 Atk. 343; Hale v. Rider, 5 Gush. 231; Jones u. Conde, 6 Johns. Ch. 77; Burnell o. Martin, 2 Dougl. 417; Atty.-Gen. v. Wlnstanley, 5 Bligh. 130; Wiswell v. Baxter, 20 Wis. 680; Tappan v. Evans, 11 N. H. 311; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 487; McCaU v. 359 § 363 KEMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. some of the States — notably New York — judgment will not be rendered in an actionat lawonthedebt, while a suit for foreclosure is pending, without leave of the court in which such suit is filed. 1 This rule of practice, no doubt, rests upon the ground that the entry of judgment in the pro- ceedinff at law would be useless, since in the foreclosure suit, judgment will be given for any balance remaining unsatisfied. § 363. Mortgages with power of sale. — In order to avoid the burdensome and expensive proceedings for fore- closure, the idea was conceived of giving to the mortgagee' the power to sell the mortgaged premises upon the breach of the condition, and apply the proceeds of sale to the liqui- dation of the mortgage-debt. It was at first doubted whether such a power was valid, when granted either in the mortgage or in a separate instrument. It was considered as a contemporaneous agreement, which, in its exercise, curtailed the mortgagor's right to redeem, and, therefore, was void. But the power of sale is now geuerally held to be good, since it does not abridge or take away the ordinary remedies for foreclosure, aud is not in theory a means of Lenox, 9 Serg. & R. 302; GUman v. 111. & Miss. Tel. Co., 91 U. S. 603; Thornton ». Pigg, 24 Mo. 249; Very v. Watklns, 18 Ark. 546; O'Leary v. Snedlker, 16 Ind. 404; Eiblett v. Davis, 24 Ohio St. 114; Slaughter v. Foust, 4 Blackf. 379; Payne v. Hanel, 40 Miss. 498; Delahay ». Clement, 4111. 201; Longworth v. Flagg, 10 Ohio, 300; Downing v. Palmeteer, I B. Mon. 64; Christy «. Dyer, 14 Iowa, 443; Baum v. Tomkin, 110 Pa. St. 569; Shepherd v. Pepper, 133 U. S. 626. 1 Williamson v. Champlin, 8 Paige, Ch. 70 ; Suydam v. Bartle, 9 Paige Ch. 294; 3 Rev. St. N. Y. (1875) 198; Mutual L. Ins. Co. u. Smith, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 400; Schultz v. Meade, 8 N. Y. S. 663; U. S. Life Ins. Co. V. Poillon, 7 N. Y. S. 834. In Michigan, lovya and Indiana the same statute rules prevail. Mich. Comp. Laws (1871), 1549; Code of Iowa (1873), sect. 3220; 2 Ind. Rev. Stat. (1876) 259; Shields v. Riopelle, 63 Mich. 458. In Minnesota no suit at law on the debt may be Instituted until the foreclosure suit is ended. Johnson v. Lewis, 13 Miun. 364. See also, to the same effect, Anderson B.Pilgam, 30 S. C. 499. 360 CH. X.J REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 363 foreclosing the mortgagor's equity of redemption. ^ It is a power coupled with an interest, and is, therefore, irrevoca- ble by the mortgagor. It operates as the appointment of a use, which under the Statute of Uses, becomes executed into a legal estate in the purchaser, and has all the charac- teristics that are met with in ordinary powers of appoint- ment under that statute.^ It is not determined by the death of either party, as is the case with common-law powers of attorney;' it descends to the mortgagee's heirs at his death,* and passes to the assignee of the mortgage, except where only a part of thg mortgage-debt is assigned. The power 1 Wilson ». Troup, 7 Johns. Ch. 25; Smith v. Provin, 4 Allen, 518; Kinsley v. Ames, 2 Mete. 29; Calloway v. People's Bli., 54 Ga. 441; Long- worth i;. Butler, 3 Gilm. 32; Bloom v. Van Rensselaer, 15 111. 503; Fan- ning t). Kerr, 7 Iowa, 462; Wing ». Cooper, 37 Vt. 184; Sims v. Hundley, 3 Miss. 896; Mann v. Best, 62 Mo. 491 ; Clark v. Condit, 18 N. J. Eq. 358; Hyman v. Deveraux, 63 N. C.624; Bradley ». Chester Valley R. R., 36 Pa. St. 141; Walthall's Executors v. Rives, 34 Ala. 91; Mitchell v. Bogan, II Rich. L. 686; Crowning v. Cox, 1 Rand. 306; Morrison v. Bean, 15 Texas, 267; Turner v. Johnson, jaUtuo, 204; Plum v. Studebaker, 89 Mo. 162. ' Wilson V. Troup, 2 Cow. 236. The difficulty of the courts at first, in determining the validity of a sale under the power, is, no doubt, trace- able to a failure to apply to that case the doctrine of powers of appoint- ment under the Statute of Uses. The ordinary mortgage is, in form and effect, a deed of bargain and sale, and the grant of a power of sale there- in may be construed as the limitation of a use. See post. Chapter XV., on Powers. But in most of the States, where mortgages with power of sale are in common use, they are expressly authorized by statute, and there is no need of this construction in order to establish their validity. 3 Ohnsburg v. Turner, 87 Mo. 127; Benneson v. Savage, 130 111. 352. " When it is stated in the text that the power of sale passes to the heirs of the mortgagee, reference is only had to those States where the mort- gage itself descends to the heir. But in most of the States the power of sale descends with the mortgage to the personal representatives, and may be exercised by them, although the power is expressly limited to the " heirs and assigns." Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 125 ; Johnson V. Turner, 7 Ohio, 568; Berry v. Skinner, 30 Md. 573; Haruickle v. Wells, 60 Ala. 198 ; Collins v. Hopkins, 7 Iowa, 463. In Missouri and Illinois, and perhaps in other States, upon the death of the mortgagee the sheriff may be directed to execute the power, or a new trustee can be appointed upon the application of any one interested therein. Hickman v. Dill, 32 Mo. App. 509. 361 § 364 EEMEDILS INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. is indivisible, and, therefore, in a partial assignment, re- mains in the mortgagee, who must exercise it for the benefit of both parties.^ If the donee of the power is a corpora- tion, the power may be exercised by its duly authorized a The power of sale would in that case be a naked power.* § 364. Character of the mortgagee in relation to the power. — As donee of the power, the mortgagee assumes the character of trustee for himself and the mortgagor, and all other parties having interests in the mortgaged premises. In this capacity he is under the ordinary obligations of a trustee, and bound in his actions by the same rules of duty.. 1 Doolittle V. Lewis, 7 Johns. Ch. 45; Wilson v. Traup, 2 Cow. 236; Jencks V. Alexander, 11 Paige Ch. 619; Bergcr v. Bennett, 1 Caine's Cas. 1; Slee V. Manliattan Co., 1 Paige Ch. 48; Harnicl^ell v. Orncloff, 35 Md. 341 ; Pease v. Pilot Knob, etc., Co., 49 Mo. 12 1 ; Piclsett v. Jones, 63 Mo. 195; Niles v. Ransdorf, 1 Mich. 338; Strother v. Law, 54 111. 413; Bush v. Sherman, 80 III. 160; Solberg v. Wright, 33 iliuu. 224; Holmes v. Turner's Falls Lumber Co., 150 Mass. 535; Sanford v. Kaue, 24 111. App. 504; reversed 127 111. 591. But see Dameroa i>. Eskridge, 104 N. C. 621. And this is also true where the assignment of the debt works an assign- ment of the mortgage. Such an assignee may exercise the power in those States where such a transaction is looked upon as a legal assign- ment. See cases supra. And the assignee may exercise the power, although the assignment has not been recorded. Montague v. Dawes, 12 Allen, 897; s. c. 14 Allen, 373. But it has been held in Missouri, that the power must be expressly limited to the mortgagee and assigns, in order that the assignee may exercise the power. Dolbear v. Worduft, 84 Mo. 619. 2 Chilton V. Brooks, 71 Md. 445. 3 Sedgwick v. Laflin, lOAllen, 430; Butler v. Ladue, 12 Mich. 173;Tor- rey v. Cook, 116 Mass. 105. * Neidig v. Eiffer, 18 Abb. Pr. 353; Parshall v. Eggavt, 52 Barb. 367; Holmes v. Hall, 8 Mich. 66; Bousey v. Amee, 8 Pick. 236. 362 CH. X.] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 364 In the execution of the power he must exercise the most scrupulous care to render the sale of the premises as bene- ficial as possible to all parties concerned. And he will be liable in damuges for any loss to such parties resulting from his negligence in the conduct of the sale.' In most of the States where mortgages with power of sale are in common use, the execution of the power is regulated by local stat- utes. But in the absence of statutory regulations, sales under the power are governed by the same rules as apply to the sale of other trust property.^ A failure to observe the statutory requirements, or the terms of the power, will invalidate the deed of conveyance made in pursuance of the sale, even in the hands of a purchaser without actual notice. 1 Tomlin v. Luce, 43 Ch. Divj 191. - Howard v. Ames, 3 Mete. 311; Robertson v. Norris, 1 Giff. 424; Jencks v. Alexander, 11 Paige Ch. C24; Ellsworth v. Lockwood, 42 N. Y. 89: Leet ■». McMaster, 61 Barb. 23G; Montague v. Dawes, 14 Allen, 369. Mere inadequacy of price will not vitiate the sale, but if the property has been so grossly sacrificed that the purchaser may be presumed to know of it, the sale will be avoided. Vail v. Jacobs, 62 Mo. 130; Kingu. Bronson, 122 Mass. 122; Horsey v. Hough, 38 Md. 130; Landrum v. Union Bk. of Mo., 63 Mo. 48; Iloodless v. Eeid, 112 111. 105; Maxwell v. Newton, 65 Wis. 261; Gross v. Jauesok, 10 N. Y. S. 541; Chili ou v. Brooks, 71 Md. 445; Condon v. Maynard, 71 Md. 001. And any fraudu- lent mismanagement or deception practiced upon the mortgagor will avoid the sale, if the purchaser participates in it, or is cognizant of it. Banta v. Maxwell, 12 How. Pr. 479; Lee v. McMasters, 51 Barb. 236; Encking v. Simmons, 28 Wis. 272; Bush v. Sherman, 80 111. 160; Hurd v. Case, 32 111. 45; Jackson v. Crafts, 18 Johns. 110; Mapps v. Sharpe, 32 111. 13; Mann u. Best, 62 Mo. 491. Notice of the sale to the parties in- terested in mortgaged premises is not necessary to validity of sale in absence of a statutory requirement. Carver v. Brady, 104 N. C. 219. The action to set aside a sale under a power is an equitable proceeding to redeem the property. A bill to set aside the sale, without offering to redeem, will not be entertained. Candee v. Burke, 1 Hun, 540; Vioom V. Ditmas, 7 Cow. 13; Robinson v. Ryan, 25 N. Y. 320; Schwartz v. Sears, Walk. (Mich.) 170. But the bill must be filed within a reasonable time softer the discovery of the fraud or other equitable claim. Acquiescence is treated as a wavier of all irregularities in the sale. Hamilton v. Lubukee, 51 III. 415; Bush v. Sherman, 80 111, 100; Hoffman v. Harring- ton, 33 Mich. 392; Landrum v. Union Bk. of Mo., 63 Mo. 48; Alexander V. Hill, 88 Ala. 487. 363 § 364 EEMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PAKT I. There must be a substantial compliance with such regula- tions, in order to pass a good title to the purchaser, the burden of proof being cast upon the purchaser unless the recitals show a compliance with the requirements of the law.' The sale will, however, under such circumstances, 1 Smith V. Prodin, i Allen, 518; Eoarty o. Mitchell, 7 Gray, 243; Bradley v. Chester Val. R. R., 36 Pa. St. 141; Longwith c. Butler, 3 Gilm. 32; Cooper v. Crosby, lb. 508; John v. Bumpstead, 17 Barb. 100; Root b. Wheeler, 12 Abb. Pr. 294; Gibson v. Jones, 5 Leigh, 370; Ormsby v. Tarascon, 3 Litt. 404; Dana ». Farrington, 4 Minn. 433. Tyler v. Her- ring (Miss. 1800), 6 So. 740; Pierce v. Grimley (Mich. 1890), 43 N. W. 932. Among others, the following circumstances have been deemed sufficient to set aside the sale : Neglect to give the required notice to the parties interested. Low v. Purdy, 2 Lans. 422; King v. Duntz, 11 Barb. 191; Randall u. Hazleton, 12 Allen, 442; Hull v. Cushman, 14 N. H. 171; Green v. Cross, 45 N. H. 594; Drinan b. -Nichols, 115 Mass. 353; Carpen- ter ». BlacliHawk, etc., Co., 65 N. Y. 43; Lee v. Mason, 10 Mich. 403; Rutherford v. Williams, 42 Mo. 18. Hoodlers v. Reid, 112 111. 105; Clark u. Simmons, 150 Mass. 357. An Insufficient publication of notice. Law- rence V. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 13 N. Y. 642; Elliott v. Wood, 45 N. Y. 71; Gibson v. Jones, 5 Leigh, 370; Hoffman v. Anthony, 6 R. I. 282; Doyle?;. Howard, 16 Mich. 261; Butterfleld v. Farnham, 19 Minn. 85; Bush V. Sherman, 80 111. 160; Hubbell v. Sibley, 50 N. Y. 46S; Calloway v. People's Bank, 54 Ga. 441; Fenner v. Tucker, 6 E. I. 551; Banning t). Armstrong, 7 Minn. 46; Dickersou v. Small, 64 Md. 395; Morse v. Byam, 55 Mich. 594; Bacon v. Kennedy, 50 Mich. 329; Magnasson v. Williams, 111 111. 450; Lester v. Citizens Sav. Bank (R. I. 1890), 20 Atl. 231; Williamson v. Stone, 27 111. App. 214; 128 111. 129. It is not usually necessary to sell the property in parcels, and unless it is essentially ad- vantageous to the mortgagor, a failure to do so will not vitiate the sale. Rowley v. Brown, 4 Binn. 61; Chesley r. Cliesley, 49 Mo. 540; s. c. 54 Mo. 347; Sumrall v. Chaffin, 48 Mo. 402 ; Ellsworth v. Lockwood, 42 N. Y. 89; Shannan v. Hay, 106 Ind. 589; Willard v. Finnegan, 42 Mian. 476; Holmes v. Turner's Falls Lumber Co., 150 Mass. 535; see statutes in New York, and several other States to the s;ime effect. A sale on credit, when that is not expressly authorized, is invalid. Olcut v. Bynum, 17 Wall. 44; Mead v. McLaughlin, 42 Mo. 198; Arnold v. Green, 15 R.I. 348; see 2 Jones on Mort., seels. 18GS, 1869. But he may give credit for what is coming to him, although not authorized. Strother v. Law, 54 111. 413. A sale is absolutely void only where there is a complete failure to comply with an essential requirement (Bigler v. Waller, 14 Wall. 297); and only voidable at the election of the parties, when the exercise of a discretion as to the manner of compliance is irregular or unwise. Ingle v. Culbertson, 43 Iowa, 265. And to avoid the sale in the 364 CH. X.] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 365 operate as an equitable assigimient of the mortgage and pass to the purchaser, whatever title the mortgagee as such has in the land.^ And whether the purchaser claims title as assignee of the mortgage or not, the subsequent exer- cise of the power of sale in foreclosure is in nowise aflPected by the illegal exercise of the power. ^ § 365. Purchase by mortgagee at his own sale. — Since the mortgagee as donee of the power is a trustee for all par- ties concerned, he will not be permitted to purchase at his own sale, directly or indirectly, unless he is authorized to do so by statute or by the terms of the mortgage. And such a purchase may be avoided at the instance of the mort- gagor, even though the consideration be fair and adequate.* The purchase by the mortgagee without express authority hands of a purchaser for value, notice of the irregularity must be brought to him. Beatie v. Butler, 21 Mo. 320; Mann v. Best, 62 Mo.' 461 ; Stern- berg V. Dominick, 14 Johns. 435; Montague v. Dawes, 12 Allen, 397; Hoit V. Eussel, 56 N. H. 559; Hamilton u.LubuIjee, 51 111.415; Jackson ». Henry, 10 Johns. 185. 1 Sawyers v. Baker, 77 Ala. 461. == OhnsburgK. Turner, 87 Mo. 127. ^ DownesH. Grazebrook, 3Meriv. 207; Davone^j. Fanning, 5 Johns. Ch. 257; Jackson v. Walsh, 14 Johns. 415; Elliott v. Wood, 45 N. Y. 71; Patten v. Pearson, 57 Me. 435; Jennison w. Hapgood, 7 Pick. 1; Howard V. Ames, 3 Mete. 308; Dyer v. Shurtlieff, 112 Mass. 165; 17 Am. Rep. 77; Hyndman v. Hyndman, 19 Vt. 9; Montague v. Dawes, 12 Allen, 400; Hall V. Bliss, 118 Mass. 560; 19 Am. Eep. 475; Waters v. Groom, 11 Clark &F. 684; Michaudu. Girod, 4 How. 553; Scott ». Freeland, 7 Smed. & M. 418 ; Hall V. Towne, 45 111. 493 ; Roberts v. Fleming, 53 111. 196 ; Ruth- erford V. Williams, 42 Mo. 18; Parmenter v. Walker, 9 E. I. 225; White- head «. Hellen,76N. C.99; Korns w. Shaffer, 27 Md. 83; Benham «. Eowe, 2 Cal. 387; Chiltoa v. Brooks, 71 Md. 601; Bohn v. Davis, 75 Tex. 24; Nichols V. Otto (111. 1890), 23 N. E. 411. Statutory provisions, author- izing the mortgagee to purchase at his own sale, are to be found in New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland. 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 74; 2 Jones on Mort., sect. 1740. It is not necessary to show fraud or unfair dealing in order to avoid purchase by the mortgagee. Ruther- ford a. Williams, 42 Mo. 18; Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 153; Blockley v. Fowler, 21 Cal. 326. Contra, Richards v. Holmes, 18 How. 143; Howard V. Davis, 6 Texas, 174; Hamilton v. Lubukee, 51 HI. 420. When the sale is made under a judicial decree, or by a public officer, when that is per- 365 § 366 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. is, however, only voidable at the election of the mortgagor and his privies. And they cannot invalidate the sale, if the property in the meantime has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser. ^ § 366. Extinguishment of the power. — The power is extinguished by any acts, which will discharge the mort- gage, such as payment or tender of payment, and the exer- cise of the power afterwards will not vest a good title in any purchaser ,2 unless the mortgagor by his own acts is estopped from denying the validity of the sale. Thus, for example, if the mortgagor is present at the sale and makes no pro- test, and gives no notice of his rights to the bystanders, he will be precluded under the doctrine of estoppel from set- mitted, there is no restriction upon the right of the mortgagee to purchase. Richards v. Holmes, 18 How. 143; Bloom u, Rensselaer, 15 111. 503; Allen v. Chatfleld, 8 Minn. 435; Ramsey v. Merriam, 6 Minn. 168 Maxwell v. Newtoa, 65 Wis. 261. Contra, Saines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 537 1 Dexter v. Shepard, 117 Mass. 480; Burns v. Thayer, 115 Mass. 89 Robinson v. Cullom, 41 Ala. 693; Edmondson u. Welsh, 27 Ala. 578 Rutherford v. Williams, 42 Mo. 18; Thurston v. Prentiss, 1 Mich. 193 Benham v. Row_e, 2 Cal. 387; McCall v. Ma-^h (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 770. And the right to avoid the sale is extinguished by ratification of the mort- gagor, or his acquiescence therein for an unreasonably long time. Dob- son D.Racey, 8 N. Y. 216; Nichols «. Baxter, 5 R. I. 491 ; Patton v. Pearson, 60 Me. 223; Learned v. Foster, 117 Mass. 365; Bergen v. Bennett, 1 Caiue's Ca<. 19; Munn v. Burgess, 70 111. 604; Medsker v. Swaney, 45 Mo. 273; Craddock v. Am. Freehold, etc., Co., 88 Ala. 281. 2 Cameron v. Irwin, 5 Hill, 272; Charter v. Stevens, 3 Denio, 33; Burnet v. Dennister, 5 Johns. Ch. 35 ; Warner v. Blakeman, 36 Barb. 501 ; 2 Jones on Mort., sects. 886-893; Jenkins v. Jones, 2 Giff. 99; Lowe v. Grinnan, 19 Iowa, 192. Tender after condition broken does not at com- mon law extinguish the power. Cranston v. Crane, 97 Mass. 459; Mon- tague V. Dawes, 12 Allen, 397. But in most of the States, payment has the same effect after as well as before condition broken. Jenkins v. Jones, supra; Cameron v. Irwin, supra, Flower v. Elwood, 66 111. 438; Buruetu. Denniston, 5 Johns. Ch. 35; Whelom o Reilly, 01 Mo. 5C5; see 2 Jones on Mort. sect. 893; and ante, sect. 333. But as long as the mortgage remains unsatisfied on the records, a sale after payment would be upheld in favor of a aurchaser for value and without notice; Elliott v. Wood, 53 Barb. 285; Brown v. Cherry, 56 Barb. 635; Warner v. Blakeman, 56 Barb. 501. 366 CH. X.J EKMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 367 ting aside the sale as against an innocent purchaser.^ Ttie pqweu is, liowever, unaffected by the institution of an action for foreclosure, as long as the foreclosure has not been effected.^ § 367. Application of tlie purchase money. — The mort- gagee, on receiving the proceeds of sale, must apply it first to the expenses of the sale, and then to the satisfaction of the mortgage-debt. And if there is a surplus remaining, he holds it in trust for the junior incumbrancers, and lastly, the mortgagor. Such surplus has in equity all the qualities of real estate, and, if the mortgagor has died, will be dis- tributed among the widow and heirs, instead of going to his personal representatives.^ On the other hand, if the piirchiise-money fell short of a settlement of the mortgage debt, the mortgagee may recover the balance of the debt in an action on the personal obligation.* 1 Cromwell v. Bank of Pittsburg, 2 Wall. Jr. 569 ; Smith v. Newton, 38 111. 230. 2 Jenkins v. International Bank, 111 111. 162. 3 Buttrick v. Wentworth, 6 Allen, 79; Andrews v. Fisa, 101 Mass. 422; Dunning v. Bean Nat. Bank, 61 N. Y. 497; 19 Am. Rep. 293; Sweezy v. Thayer, 1 Duer, 286; Hawley v. Bradford, 9 Paige, 200; Pickett u. Buck- ner, 45 Miss. 226; Fox v. Pratt, 27 Ohio St. 512; Hinchman v. Sliles, 9 N. J. Eq. 454 ; Shaw v. Hoodley, 8 Blackf . 165 ; Foster v. Potter, 37 Mo. 534 ; Eeid V. MuUiusi, 43 Mo. 806. In Vermont and Michigan, the surplus is held to be personalty, and vests in the personal representatives instead of the widow and heirs. Varnum v. Meserve, 8 Allen, 158 ; Smith v. Smith, 13 Mich. 258. The surplus is distributed amouf; the claimants according to the priorty of their respective interests, and their rights in case of a di'^pute may be settled by a suit against the mortgagee for the recovery of their alleged share in the surplus. Bevier v. Schoonnw.ker, 29 How. Pr. 411; Cope ^. Wheeler, 41 N. Y. 303; Stoever'u. Stoever, 9 Serg. & R. 434; Matthews v. Duryea, 45 Barb. 69; Reynolds v. Hennessey, 15 R. I. 215. Or the mortgagee may file a bill of interpleader, and compel the adverse claimants to settle their disputes Bledker v. Graham, 2 Edw. Ch. 647; The People 1J. Ulster Com. Pleas, 18 Wend. 628; Bailey ij. Merritt, 7 Minn. 159. But without the consent of the mortgagor the mortgagee has no power to appropriate the money to any debt of the mortgagor which Is not secured by the mortgage. Johnson v. Thomas, 77 Ala. 367. * Shepherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505. 367 § 368 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PAKT I. § 368. Deeds of trust. — Somewhat similar in effect to mortgages with power of sale are deeds of trust, in which the property is conveyed to a trustee in trust to secure the creditor in his claim, and to sell the property for the satis- faction of the debt, if it is not paid at maturity. This conveyance is in the nature of a mortgage, and is very often used to secure an issue of railroad bonds, so as to avoid the necessity of giving a mortgage to each bond. But it is also very generally used in some of the Western States in the place of an ordinary mortgage, in order to obviate the difficulty of securing a valid sale of the prem- ises, which is so often experienced when the mortgagee exercises the power of sale. It is the conveyance of a legal estate in trust to secure the debt and its satisfaction by sale upon the breach of the condition.^ It is to be dis- tinguished from an assignment for the benefit of creditors and does not come within the operation of laws which pro- hibit preferential assignments.^ It has been held that the mere payment of the debt will not revest the title in the grantor.^ But the payment or tender of payment will ren- der tl:e trust inoperative so far as the subsequent exercise of the power is concerned.* The grantor by a such a convey- ance divests himself of his entire legal estate in possession, ^ Devin v. Hendershott, 32 Iowa, 194; Newman v. Samuels, 17 Iowa, 536; Sargent ». Howe, 21 111. 149; Thornton v. Boyd, 31 111. 200; Sher- wood ». Saxton, 63 Mo. 78; Soutter v. Miller, 15 Fla. 625; Eichard v. Holmes, 18 How. 147; Coe v. McBrown, 22 Ind. 257; Webb v. Hoselton, 4 Neb. 308; 19 Am. Rep. 638; Vf oodruff v. Eobb, 19 Ohio, 122; Chappelln. Allen, 38 Mo. 213. See Heard v. Baird, 40 Miss. 799; Lenox v. Keed, 12 Kan. 233; Union Nat. Bankt). Bank of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223; Plum r. Studebaker, 39 Mo. 162. But see 2 Am. Law. Beg. (w. s.) 655. 2 Union Nat. Bank v. Bank of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223. 3 Heard v. Baird, 40 Miss. 796. But the weight of authority is in favor of holding that a reconveyance is not necessary, although a satisfaction on the records may be required. Crosby v. Huston, 1 Texas, 239; Ingle ■u. Culbertson, 43 Iowa, 265; McGregor v. Hall, 3 St. & P. 397; Wood- rufE V. Robb, 19 Ohio, 212; Smith v. Doe, 26 Miss. 291. * Thornton v. Boyden, 31 111. 210; Lowe v. Grinnan, 19 Iowa. 197; Heard v. Baird, 40 Miss. 796. 368 CH. X. ] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 368 a ndhas nothing left, against which execution may issue. But he has a reversionary interest, which in equity may be reached by a creditor's bill, and which is also capable of alienation.^ If the trustee dies or refuses to execute tlie trust, the court will appoint another to take his place ; and in some of the States, by statute, it is provided that, upon the death, inability or refusal of the trustee to serve, the sheriff will be authorized to execute the trust. Or the deed may itself provide for a substitution of trustees.^ But without express authority the trustee can in no case delegate his power to sell.^ But the court may, if they deem it wise, compel the trustee to execute the trust in- stead of appointing another.* If there are two or more trustees named as joint donees of the power, the sale will be valid, in the absence of direct proof of fraud or unfair- ness, although it is conducted in the absence of one of them.^ This class of deeds of trust is governed by the same equitable rules, which are applied to ordinary trusts, unless there are statutory provisions intended to supersede them. ^ Pettlt V. Johnson, 15 Ark. 55; Turner v. Watkins, 31 Ark. 429; Morris v. Way, 16 Ohio, 469; Mclntyre v. Agric. Bank, 1 Freem. Ch. 105; Heard©. Baird, 40 Miss. 796; Tyler v. Herring (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 840; 2 Janes on Mort., sect. 1769. 2 Lake v. Brown, 116 111. 83. ' 3 Holden u. Stickney, 2 McArthur, 141; Parmei's' Loan, etc., Co. ■». Hughes, II Hun, 130; McKnight v. Winner, 38 Mo. 132; Whittlesey ». Hughes, 39 Mo. 13. If there are two or more trustees, upon the death of one, the survivors may execute the power. Peter v. Beverley, 10 Pet. 565; Franklin v. Osgood, 14 Johns. 527; Hannah ■;;. Carrington, 18 Ark. 104. * Lefller v. Armstrong, 4 Iowa, 482 ; Sargent v. Howe, 21 111. 148 ; Drane V. Gnnter, 19 Ala. 731; Bradley ». Chester Val. R. E., 36 Pa. St. 141. Sales under the power are watched and closely scrutinized by the courts, and a court of equity will at any time, at the instance of one Interested in the property, direct, restrain or enforce the exercise of the power. Goode V. Comfort, 39 Mo. 325; Youngman v. Elmira, etc., E. E., 65 Pa, St. 278; Newman v. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 572; Brisbane v. Stoughton, 17 Ohio, 488; Brown v. Bartee, 10 Smed. & M. 275; Kock v. Briggs, 14 Cal. 256; Eeece B. Allen, 5 Gilm. 236. 5 Smith V. Black, 115 U. S. 308. 24 369 § 369 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MOETGAGES. [PAET I. § 369. Contribution to redeem — General statement — When one of two or more persons jointly liable on a debt pays the whole debt, he has the right to call upon the others for contribution towards such payment in proportion to their several interests in the debt. This liability for con- tribution is an incident to all contractual obligations, and the same rules of construction apply, whatever may be the nature or origin of the debt. In the present discussion the liability for contribution arises out of the joint obligation of several persons to answer for the mortgage-debt, either in their person or with their interests in the mortgaged prem- ises. It has been explained that when a person is entitled to redeem, and is interested only in a part of the premises, he must pay the entire debt, and as iigainst the others jointly interested with him, he becomes subrogated to the mortgagee, and is equitable assignee of the mortgage, even though the mortgage has been satisjBed on the records. He can then, in turn, foreclose the mortgage against them if fchey refuse to pay their pro rata share of the debt. This liability constitutes the right to contribution, as applied to mortgages. It is not a personal liiibilitj' resting upon the persons interested in the mortgaged premises; their inter- es'ts are alone liable. Nor can the^^ be compelled to con- tribute ; they have the right to refuse and to surrender their interests to forfeiture under foreclosure.^ This liability of their interests depends upon the equality or inequality of their respective equities in regard to the mortgage and the debt, and must, therefore, vary according to the relation of the parties between whom the question- arises. But what- ever may be the relation of these parties to each other, the mortgagee cannot be compelled to observe the equality or 1 Cheeseborough u. Millard, 1 Johns. Ch. 409; Stevens v. Cooper, lb. 425; Lawrence v. Cornell, 4 Johns. Ch. 542; Salem v. Edgerly, 33 N. H. 46; Siroud V. Casey, 27 Pa. St. 471; Chase v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 143; Gibson w. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Johnson v. Eice, 8 Me. 167: Briscoe r. Power, 47 111. 449. 370 CH. X. ] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 370 inequality of their equities in the enforcement. He can proceed against any one of them, against whom he has a claim for the satisfaction of the mortgage, whether his equity was inferior or superior. ^ § 370. Mortgagor v. his assignees. — Since the mort- gagor is personally liable to pay the debt, as a general rule he would have no right to call upon his assignees to con- tribute, nor could his heirs or devisees claim such a right. ^ But if the purchaser assumed the mortgagor's liability as a part of the consideration of the conveyance, should the mortgagor be afterwards compelled by the mortgagee to pay the debt, the mortgagor would be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee under the mortgage, and could enforce it against such purchaser.^ Where there is do agreement on the part of the purchaser to pay the debt, if the mortgage is foreclosed, the purchaser can claim from the mortgagor exoneration for the full amount lost by fore- closure.* On the other hand, if the purchaser of the mort- gagor's estate has assumed, in whole or in part, the payment of the mortgage-debt, he cannot claim contribu- tion of the mortgagor, as long as he is not forced to pay more than he has agreed to pay.^ 1 Palmer v. Snell, 111 111. 161. - Haibert's Case, 3 Rep. 11 ; Chase v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 143; Allen v. Clark, 17 Pick. 47; Beard v. Fitzgerald, 108 Mass. 134; Clowes d. Dickin- son, 5 Johns. Ch. 235; Lock v. Fulford, 62 111. 166; Johnson v. Williams, 4 Minn. 268; 2 Jones on Mort., sect. 1090. ' Cox V. Wheeler, 7 Paige Ch. 257; Jumel «. Jumel, 16. 591; Halseyp. Eeed, 9 Paige Ch. 446; Morris v. Oakman, 9 Pa. St. 498; Kinnear ». Lowell, 34 Me. 299; Fletcher v. Chase, 16 N. H. 42; Sweet v. Sherman, 109 Mass. 231; Funk v. McReynolds, 33 111. 481; Lily v. Palmer, 51 111. 333; Baker v. Terrell, 8 Minn. 199; Russell v. Pistor, 7 N. Y. 171; Krue- ger V. Ferry, 41 N. J. Eq. 432; Miller v. Fasler, 42 Minn. 366; Miller v. Eisele, 42 Minn. 368; Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 417. * Davis u. Winn, 2 Allen, 111; Downer c. Fox, 20 Vt. 388 ; Young ii. Williams, 17 Conn. 393; Burnett u. Deuniston, 6 Johns. Ch. 35; McLeanw. Towle, 3 Sandf. Ch. 119; Brainard v. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 356; Flachs «. Kelly, 30 111. 462; Gunst v. Pelham, 74 Tex. 586. 5 Moore v. Shurtlefe, 128 111. 370; Gunst v. Pelham, 14 Tex. 586. 371 § 371 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I. § 371. Contribution between the assignees of the mort- gagor — Effect of release of one of tbem. — If the mort- gaged property consists of two or more parcels of land, and they are simulianeousli/ conveyed by the mortgagor to dijffer- ent persons, and one of the parcels is sold under foreclosure of the mortgage, the assignee or grantee of that parcel has the right to recover from the assignees of the other parcels their pro rata share of the debt ; the debt being divided among them in proportion to the value of their respective parcels. 1 But where the assignments have been made suc- cessively, or at dilfereat times the courts have delivered contrary opinions in respect to their liability for contribu- tion. In most of the States the rule prevails that their liability for contribution to each other is in the inverse order of alienation ; in other words, that the equity of the prior purchaser or assignee is superior to that of the sub- sequent purchaser. So, if the prior purchaser is called upon to redeem, or his lot or parcel is foreclosed, he becomes an equitable assignee of the mortgage, and may enforce it against the subsequent purchasers of the other parcels, who, in order to redeem, must contribute to the full value of their estates in the inverse order of their alienation, the last being required to exhaust his entire in- terest in the mortgaged property before there can be any right of contribution against a prior purchaser. If, there- fore, the last parcel conveyed is sufficient to satisfy the debt, the prior purchaser takes his estate free from any lia- bility for contribution. The inequality of their equities rests upon the doctrine that inasmuch as, after the first as- signment, the estate remaining iu the mortgiigor became the primary fund for the satisfaction of the debt, the second and other subsequent purchasers took, in respect to their relative liabilities under the mortgage, only such 1 Chase v. Woodbury, 6 Gush. 143; Bailey c. Myrick, 50 Me. 171; Aiken ». Gale, 37 N. H. 501; Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. 425; Briscoe ». Power, 47 111. 448 ; Bates v. Ruddock, 2 Iowa, 423. 372 CH. X.] REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 371 equities as the mortgagor had at the time of the successive conveyances to them.^ In a few of the States it is held that the equities are equal between assignees of the mortgagor, whether the alienations are simultaneous or successive, and this opinion finds strong support in Judge Story. ^ But it is believed that the preponderance of authority is in favor of the former theory, and it may be accepted as the pre- vailing rule in this country. This question of priority is, however, always subject to the agreement of the parties.' But if the mortgagee should release one of the assigned lots from the lien of the morto'a2:e without the consent of the other assignees and after the assiofoment of the other lots to them, it would discharge the other lots from liability under the mortgage, on the ground that the rights of these other assignees had been injuriously affected by the conse- quent loss of their claim against the assignee who had been released for contribution or exonerationsJ But if the release was made before the assignment of the other lots, the 1 Cushins V. Ayer, 25 Me. 383 ; Shepherd v. Adams, 32 Me. 6i ; Brown V. Simons, 44 N. H. 475; Aiken v. Gale, 37 N. H. 501; Lyman v. Lyman, 32 Vt. 79; Gates v. Adams, 24 Vt. 70; Bradley v. George, 2 Allen, 392; Gill V. Lyon, 1 Johns. Ch. 447; Jumel v. Jumel, 7 Paige Ch. 591 ; Patty v. Pease, 8 Paige Ch. 277; Nailer v. Stanley, 10 Serg. & R. 450; Cowden's Estate, 1 Pa. St. 267; Shannon v. Marselis, 1 N. J. Eq. 413; Galkill v. Sine, 13 lb. 400; Henkle v. Allstadt, 4 Gratt. 284; Jones u. Myrick, 8 Gratt. 179; Stoney v. Shultz, 1 Hill Ch. (S. C.) 600; Norton v. Lewis, 3 S. C. 25; Mobile Dock, etc., Co. o. Kuder, 35 Ala. 717; Aiken v. Brucey; 21 Ind. 139; Johnson v. Williams, 4 Minn. 268; Inglehart v. Crane, 42 111. 261; Niles v. Harmon, 80 111.396; Ritch v. Eichelberger, 13 Fla. 169; Cumming v. Cnmming, 3 Ga. 460; Beard v. Fitzgerald, 105 Mass. 134; Mason u. Payne, Walk. (Mich.) 469; McKinrley v. Miller, 19 Mich. 142; McCullom V. Turpie, 32 Ind. 146; Worth v. Hill, 14 Wis. 559; Spence v. Aldrich, 15 Wis. 316; Mahagan v. Mead, 63 N. H. 570; Moore v. Shurtleff, 128 111. 370; Deavitt v. Judcvine, 60 Vt. 695; Case Threshing Machine Co. V. Mitchell (Mich. 1889), 42 N. W. 151; 74 Mich. 679. 2 Green v. Ramage, 18 Ohio, 428; Stanley v. Stocks, 1 Dev. Eq. 814; Barney v. Myers, 28 Iowa, 1; Bates v. Ruddick, 2 Iowa, 423; Jobe v, O'Brien, 2 Humph. 34; Dickey v. Thompson, 8 B. Mon. 312; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1233 b, and note. Huff v. Earwell, 67 Iowa, 298. 3 Vogel V. Shurtliff, 28 111. App. 516. 373 § 372 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PART I release would have no effect on the lien of the mortgage over the other lots.i So, also, any agreement between the mortgagor and his assignees, in respect to the partition of the mortgage liability between them, will have no effect on the mortgage in the hands of the holder of the mortgage, unless he has assented to such partition.^ § 372. Contribution between the surety and the mort- gagor. — Where the surety, because of his personal liability, pays the mortgage debt, such payment will operate as an assignment of the mortgage to him, and he c:in enforce the mortgage to its full value against the mortgagor, his heirs, and even his assignees for value. He is only secondarily liable, the mortgagor, and with him the mortgaged premises, being treated as the primary fund out of which the debt is to be satisfied, and until they have been exhausted the surety can claim complete exoneration.^ The widow who releases the dower right in the mortgaged lands is so far considered a surety that she can make claim of exoneration against the estate of the deceased husband, and compel the enforcement of a chattel mortgage given for the same debt, in her own behalf.* The same rule applies where the one debt is secured by two mortgages of separate pieces of property one of which only is given by the primary debtor, the other mortgage is in the nature of a collateral security, and the primary debtor's mortgage must exonerate the 1 Libbey v. Tufts (N. Y. 1S90), 24 N. E. 12; Groesback v. Mattison, 43 Minn. 547. 2 DeHaven v. Musselman ([nd. 1890), 24 N. E. 171; Groesbach u. Matiison, 43 Minn. 547. 3 Cheesebrough v. Milliard, 1 Johns. Ch.409; Hayes v. Ward, 4 Johns. Ch. 123; Ottman v. Moak, 3 Sandf. Ch. 431; Root v. Bancroft, 10 Mete. 48; Mathews v. Aiken, 1 Comst. 595; Bk. of Albion v. Bufus, 4-5 N. Y. 170; Dearborn v. Taylor, 18 N. H. 153; Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Winn, 4 Md. Ch. 253; Burton v. Wheeler, 7 Ired. Eq. 217; Bk. of S. C. v. Campbell, 2 Eich. Eq. 179; Billings v. Sprague, 49 111. 611; McHenry v. Cooper, 27 Iowa, 137; Canaday v. Boliver, 25 S. C. 647. Gore V. Townsend, 105 N. D. 228. 374 CH. X.J REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 374 owners of the other mortgaged lands.' But if the surety be also the mortgagor and the other co-debtor the principal, and the latter pays the debt, he will not be subrogated to the rights of the mortgiigee. He is the principal, aud can claim contiibulion or exoneration of no one.^ § 373. Between heirs, widow, and devisees of the mort- gagor. — If the mortgagor dies, and the mortgaged prem- ises desi-end to his widow and heirs, or are devised by will to several parties, their equities being equal, if one of them redeems the mortgage will be assigned to him, and he may foreclose the same against the others unless they contribute their pro rata share towards redemption. They are all vol- unteers, whether they be heirs or devisees, and it is likely — if a part of the mortgaged premises were devised and a part descended to the heirs — there would be a right in favor of the devisee to contribution from the heir, and vies versa. ^ §374. Between the mortgaged property and tlie mort- gagor's personal estate. — Upon the death of the mort- gagor, leaving the mortgage unsatisfied, a claim for contribution or rather exoneration sometimes exists against the mortgagor's personal estate in favor of the real estate covered by the mortgage. The claim is founded upon the doctrine that the burden was imposed upon the real estate for the benefit of the personal estate, and as between the heirs and next of kin the latter should bear the loss.* 1 Canaday v. Boliver, 25 S. C. 507. 2 Crafts V. Crafts, 13 Gray, 362; Killborn «. Kobins, 8 Allen, 471; Cherry u. Monro, 2 Barb.'Ch. 618; Morris Admr. v. Davis, 83 Va. 207. 3 Carll V. Butman, 8 Me. 102; Gibson v. Cretiore, 5 Pick. 146; Hougtituu B. Hapgood, 13 Pick. 158; Swaine u. Ferine, 5 Johns. Ch. 490; 'Po'ster v. Hilliard, 1 Story, 77; Jones o. Steward, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 179; Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray, 296; Bell v. Mayor of N. Y., 10 Paige Ch. 49; Drew u. Rust, 36 N. H. 343; Eaton v. Siraonds, 14 Pick. 98. * Cope V. Cope, 2 Silk. 449; Patton v. Page, 4 Hen. & M. 449; Hena- gan V. Harllee, 10 Eich. Eq. 285; Trustees, etc., v. DicKsou, 1 Freem. Ch. 474. But this is not the case, where the mortgage was executed 375 § 375 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PAET I. Only the widow, heirs and devisees can claim this right of exoneration. Purchasers from the heirs, and voluntary purchasers from the mortgagor, cannot; nor can the heir or devisee exercise the right if they have parted with the equity of redemption, notwithstanding by the terms of their conveyance they are bound to see to the payment of the mortgage. 1 This claim is more clearly conceded, where the same debt was secured also by a mortgage of the per- sonalty.^ It can be enforced only against the personal representatives and residuary legatees. If, therefore, the personal estate has been bequeathed to others in the shape of general or specific legacies, the right to exoneration is lost.^ Nor can the right be exercised if the estate of the mortgagor is insolvent ; and whether the estate is insolvent or not, it cannot be enforced against property which has been levied upon, nor will the right of exoneration in any case take precedence to liens held by creditors upon the personal property.* In New York there will be no such claim for exoneration, unless the mortgagor has by will expressly maAe the payment of the debt a charge upon the personalty.^ § 375. Special agreements affecting the rights of con- tribution and exoneration. — If, in any case where the by a prior owner, and the ancestor purchased the property subject to the mortgage. The heir or devisee must, in suth a case, pay the mort- gage. Tweddle -o. Tweddle, 2 Bro. Ch. 101; Cumberland u. Codington, supra. 1 Goodbura ■«. Stevens, 1 Md. Ch. 42; Lupton v. Lupton, 2 Johns. Ch. 614; Cumberland v. Codington, 3 Johns. Ch. 229; Lockhardt e. Hardy, 9 Beav. 379; Haven v. Foster, 9 Picli. 112. 2 Gore«. Towusend, 105 N. C. 228. 3 Cope V. Cope, 2 Salk. 449; Mansell's Estate, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. 367; Mason's Estate, 4 Pa. St. 497; Gibson u. McCormlck, 10 Gill & J. 65; Terr's Estate, 2 Eawle, 250. * Gibson v. Crehore, 3 Pick. 475; Church ». Savage, 7 Cush. 440. = Moseley u. Marshall, 27 Barb. 42 ; Eapalye v. Rapalye, 76. 610 ; "Wright •B. Holbrook, 32 N. Y. 587. 376 CH. X.J REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. § 376 right of contribution or exoneration exists by law, the par- ties to the mortgat e agree that one or more parcels covered by the mortgage should be released from the incumbrance, such agreement will be enforced between the parties and their subsequent assignees. But in no case will it be per- mitted to affect or alter the equities of parties who had pre- viously become interested in the mortgaged property.^ And if the mortgagee releases one part of the mortgaged prem- ises, after the mortgagor had assigned another part, the mortgagee can only enforce the mortgage against the as- signee to an amount determined by the proportion which the value of the entire mortgaged premises bears to the value of such assigned parcel.^ § 376. Marshalling of assets between successive mort- gagees. — When there are two mortgages upon one parcel of land, and the first mortgage covers another parcel which is not included in the second, if the parcel included in both mortgages is not sufficient to satisfy both debts, equity gives the junior mortgagee the right to call upon the senior mortgagee to exhaust the parcel not covered by both mort- gages, before he forecloses against the other parcel. But equity will not compel the first mortgagee to satisfy him- self in that manner, if it would be detrimental to his inter- ests or inconvenient to him. In such a case, however, the court will direct him to assign his mortgage to the junior mortgagee, who may then foreclose against the parcel not covered by his own mortgage.^ An exception to this rule 1 Welsh V. Beers, 8 Allen, 151; Bryant v. Damon, 6 Gray, 564; John- son V. Eice, 8 Me. 157; The State v. Throup, 15 Wis. 314; Cheesebrough -B. Milliard, 1 Johns. Ch. 425. " Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. 425; Stuyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb. Ch. 161; Johnson v. Rice, 8 Me. 157; Parkman v. Welsh, 19 Pick. 231; Paxton v. Harrier, 11 Pa. St. 312; Inglehart v. Crane, 42 111. 261; Taylor v. Short, 27 Iowa, 361 ; 1 Am. Rep. 280. 3 Lanoy^. Athol, 2 Atk. 446; Evertson v. Booth, 19 Johns. Ch. 486; Cheesebrough v. Milliard, 1 Johns. Ch. 412; Warren i;. Warren, 30 Vt. 377 § 376 REMEDIES INCIDENT TO MORTGAGES. [PAET I. of marshalling of assets between two mortgnges is however recognized in favor of a wife who joins in the execution of one mortgage for the purpose and with the intention of re- linquishing her homestead, and reserves her homestead in the execution of the second mortgage. The second mort- gagee cannot, on the principle set forth above, claim the right of satisfying his claim against the homestead.^ Not only is this the case, but the first mortgagee. can be required to exhaust his lieu on the mortgaged property, which is not covered by the homestead claim, before he is permitted to enforce such lien against the homestead estate.^ 530; Ayres v. Husted, 15 Conn. 516; Reilly v. Mayor, 12 N. J. Eq. 55; Blair v. Ward, 10 N. J. Eq. 120; Baine v. Williams, 10 Smed. & M. 118; Ingelharts. Crane, 42 111. 261; White v. PoUeys, 20 Wis. 505; Clarke. Bancroft, l.S Iowa, 327; Cowden's Esiate, 1 Pa. St. 274; Swigert u. Bk. of Ky., 17 B. Mon. 285; Miami Ex. v. U. S. Bank, Wright (Ohio), 249; Con- rad i>. Harrison, 3 Leigh, 532; Bk. of S. C. v. Mitchell, Rice Eq. 389; Marr v. Lewis, 31 Ark. 203; 25 Am. Bep. 553. 1 Mitchleson v. Smith (Neb. 1890), 44 N. W. 871; Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193; MtCreery v. Schaffer, 26 Neb. 173. ' Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193; McCreery v. Schaffer, 26 Neb. 173. 378 PART II. EXPECTANT, EXECUTORY, AND EQUITABLE INTERESTS. Chapter XI. Eeveesions. XII. Kemaindees. XIII. Uses and Trusts. XIV. Executory Devises. XV. Powers. XVI. Incorporeal Hereditaments. X^rCI. Licenses. 379 CHAPTEE XL " REVERSION." Section 385. Definition. 386. Reversion — Assignable and devisable. 387. Eeversion — Descendible to whom. 388. Dovrer and curtesy in reversions. 389. Bights and povyers of the reversion-. § 385. Definition. — A reversion is that estate which I'e- mains to an owner of land after he has conveyed away a particular estate. It is a vested estate of future enjoyment, the possession of which is postponed until the determination of the estate granted. There is always a reversion as long as the entire iee has not been exhausted. Thus, after any number of successive estates for life or for years, there is still a reversion left in the grantor. So also is there a re- version after an estate-tail, although there was none after the fee conditional at common law, which the statute " de donis " converted into an estate-tail.^ But where one grants a base or determinable fee, since what is left in him is only a right to defeat the estate so granted upon the hap- pening of a contingency, there is no reversion in him.. That is, he has no future vested estate in fee, but only what is called a naked possibility of reverter, which is incapable of alienation or devise, although it descends to his heirs.^ But where the particular estate is an estate upon limitation and more particularly where it is limited by the life of a person, or by a contingent event, which may cause it to 1 2 Washb. on Real. Prop. 737, 738 ; 2 Cruise Dig. 335. 2 2 Crnise Dig. 335; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 739; Ayres v. Falkland, 1 Ld. Raym. 326; Nicoll v. N. Y. & Erie R, R., 12 N. Y. 134; Cook v. Bisbee, 18 Pick. 529; The State v. Brown, 27 N. J. L. 20. 381 § 385 "REVERSION." [part II. last duriDg some life, the estate will not be such a deter-' minable or qualified fee as does not admit of a reversion, although the estate be granted to A. and his heirs. Thus, a limitation to A. and his heirs during the widowhood of B. or the residence of C. in Rome, would be a life-estate, and there would be a reversion left in the grantor instead of a possibility of reverter. ^ A grant to A. and his heirs, as long as a tree stands, would likewise leave a reversion in the grantor.^ But a grant to A. and his heirs until B. re- turns from Rome would be a fee upon limitation, and since it is doubtful if the contingeney will happen, and if it does not, the estate becomes an absolute fee in the grantee, the grantor has only a possibility of reverter, and not a rever- sion.^ And a reversion arises where there is a particular estate created by operation of law, as in the case of dower or curtesy.* Not only is there a reversion in the case of an owner of the fee parting with a portion of it, but it exists, whatever may be the estate, whether in tail, for life, or for years, out of which a less estate has been carved.^ 1 1 Prest. Est. 442; The State v. Brown, 27 N. J. L. 20; McKelway ». Seymour, 29 N. J. L. 329. 2 1 Prest. Est. 440; 1 Washb, on Real Prop. 90; Com. v. Hackett, 102 Pa. St. 505. « 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 90; 1 Prest. Est. 441. ' It is so far a reversion that it the reversioner should die during the life-time of the tenant in dower or curtesy, the wife or husband, respect- ively, of the reversioner would have no dower or curtesy in sucli lands. Dos de dote peti non debet. Coolt: v. Hammond, 4 Mason, 485; Geer s. Hamblln, 1 Me. 54; Dunham v. Osborn, 1 Paige Ch. 634; Reynolds ». Reynolds, 5 Paige Ch. 161; Safford v. SafEord, 7 Paige Ch. 259; Co. Lit. 31 a; 4 Kent's Com. 65; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 740. But It the widow of the ancestor has not had her dower set out, when the widow of an heir demands an assignment, the latter vpidow may have her dower set out in all the property, subject, however, to be subsequently defeated pj-o tanlo by the assignment of dower to the senior widow. 1 Cruise Dig. 164; Kitchens ». Kitchens, 2 Vern. 405; Geer v. Kamblin, supra; Elwood V. Klocl?, 13 Barb. 50; Robinson v. Miller, 2 B. Mon. 288. '■ 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 739; 2 Cruise Dig. 335, 336. 382 CH. XI.] " REVERSION. " §387 § 386. Reversion assignable and devisable. — There- version may be assigned or devised as freely as an estate in possession — subject, of course, to the prior particular es- tate. It cannot be conveyed by the common law convey- ance of feoffment, since the reversioner could not deliver actual seisin. But it may be transferred by grant in the nature of a release, or by any of the deeds operating under the Statute of Uses.^ But the statement that a reversion connot be conveyed by feoffment, is correct only when the particular estate already granted is a freehold. If the particular estate is less than a freehold, an estate for years, the actual seisin is in the reversioner, and he may make a conveyance of his estate by feoffment.^ At com- mon law it was necessary to obtain the consent of the tenant of the particular estate for the effective transfer of the re- version. This was called the attornment, a mutual obliga- tion upon tenants and reversioner which prevailed under the feudal system. But it was abolished by statute in the reign of Queen Anne.' But a reversion cannot be granted to com- mence in the future, any more than an estate in possession, except by way of a future use.* The reversion might be carved up into two or more estates, but each estate must be so assigned that it shall take effect in possession immedi- ately after the determination of the preceding estate. § 387. Reversion descendible to whom. — Under the common-law maxim of descent, seisina facit stipiiem noii jus, the reversion can only descend to the heirs of the person who was last seised in fact. If a person grants a life estate ' 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 738. 2 Co. Lit. 48 b; Williams on Real Prop. 242. i 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 738; Williams on Real Prop. 247. This statute is generally recognized as in force in the United States. See Farley v. Thompson, 15 Mass. 26; Burden v. Thayer, 13 Mete. 78; Bald- win V. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Coker v. Pearsall, 6 Ala. 542. 4 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 738; 1 Prest. Est. 89; 2 Cruise Dig. 336; Jones V. Roe, 3 T. R. 93. 383 §388 "EEVERSION." [part II. or other freehold estate less than a fee, his heirs could inherit the reversion, but if they should in turn die before the determination of the particular estate of free- hold, only those who can trace their descent as heir from the grantor could inherit from such heirs. ^ If, however, the reversion is assigned or devised, or is sold under levy of execution, such purchaser or devisee would con- stitute a new stock of descent, and his heirs would take the reversion as if it had been an estate in possession.^ The above rule only applies where the particular estate is a freehold. If it be a term of years — as will be more fully explained in ti'eating of remainders — the tenant holds the possession as a quasi-bailee of the rever- sioner, the latter is deemed to be actually seised; and so also would be his heirs before the expiration of the estate for years. ^ But this common-law doctrine has been abrogated in most, if not all, the States of this country, so that it possesses at present but little practical importance.* § 388. Dower and curtesy in reversions and remain- ders.-^ The wife or husband of the reversioner will not have, respectively, dower or curtesy in the reversion unless the particular estate is less than a freehold, or unless it determines during the life-time of the reversioner. The vesting of these estates requires actual seisin in the husband or wife, and, as has been shown in the previous paragraph, the reversioner is not actually seised when the particular estate is a freehold.' 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 740, 741; 4 Kent's Com. 385; Williams on Real Prop. 100, 101 ; 3 Cruise Dig. 142 ; Cook v. Hammond, 4 Mason, 467; Miller v. Miller, 10 Mete. 393. 2 1 Washb . on Real Prop. 741 ; Williamson Real Prop. 100, 101 ; 4 Kent's Com. 386. 3 Co. Lit. 15 a; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 741. * 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 741. See post. Chapter on Descent. 5 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 741; 2 Cruise Dig. 338; 4 Kent's Com. 39; Brooks V. Everett, 13 Allen, 458; Eldredge i. ForrestaU, 7 Mass. 253; Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumu. 130; Fisk ». Eastman, 5 N. H. 240; Otisu. 384 OH. XI.] "REVERSION." §389 § 389. Rights and powers of the reversioner. — It may be generally stated, that the reversioner has all the powers and rights which the tenant of an estate in renaainder would have. He can maintain his action for waste against stran- gers as well as against the tenant of the particular estate, and has a right to receive rents accruing from such tenant ; and so will his assignee, if the rent is not reserved or granted away to another. ^ The same doctrine of merger applies if the particular estate and the reversion become united in the same person. And if the tenant of the par- ticular estate is disseised, it will have no more effect upon the reversion than it would have upon a remainder. For any further explanation of the rights and powers of rever- sioners, reference may be had to the chapter on Re- mainders. The subject is there presented in detail as to remainder-men, and as the rights and powers of remainder- men and reversioners are identical, it requires but one statement of them.^ ParsWey, 10 N. H. 403; Dunham v. Osborn, 1 Paige Ch. 634; Dnrando v. Durando, 23 N. Y. 331 ; Shoemaker b. Walker, 2 Serg. & E. 556 ; Arnold V. Arnold, 8 B. Mon. 202. And if the husband sells his reversion during the continuance of the prior freehold estate, the wife loses all possi- bility of acquiring the dower right by the determination of the partic- ular estate . Gardner v. Greene, 5 E. 1. 104 ; Apple v. Apple, 1 Head, 348. As to remainders. Watson v. Watson, 150 Mass. 84. 1 Co. Lit. 143 a; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 742-744; Jesser v. Gifford, 4 Burr. 2141; Bartlett v. Perkins, 13 Me. 87; Simpson v. Bowden, 33 Me. 649; Livingston v. Haywood, 11 Johns. 429; Burden v. Thayer, 3 Mete. 76; Wood V. Griffin, 46 N. H. 239; Eipka v. Sergeant, 7 Watts & S. 9. See ante, sects. 180, 191, 192. 2 See post, chap. xii. Apart from the difference in the manner. In which the remainder and the reversion are created, Mr. Williams says : " A remainder chiefly differs from a reversion in this, — that between the owner of the particular estate and the owner of the remainder (called the remainder-man) no tenure exists. They both derive their estates from the same source, the grant of the owner in fee simple ; and one of them has no more right to be lord than the other." Williams on Real Prop. 250. 25 385 CHAPTEE XII. REMAINDERS. Section I. Of remainders in general and herein of vested re- mainders. II. Contiyigent remainders. III. Estates within the rule in Shelley's Case. SECTION I. OF REMAINDERS IN GENERAX AND HEREIN OF VESTED REMAINDEES. SHCTloif 396. Nature and definition of remainders. 397. Kinds of remainders. 898. Successive remainders. 399. Disposition of a vested remainder. 400. Relation of tenant and remainder-man. 401. Vested and contingent remainders further distinguished — Un- certainty of enjoyment. 402. Same — Eemainder to a class. 403. Same — After the happening of the contingency. 404. Cross remainders. § 396. Nature and deflnition of remainders. — It will have been already observed from the preceding pages, that at common law the only mode of transferring freehold es- tates in possession was by a certain ceremony known as livery of seisin, and that there could be but one actual seisin, which always accompanied the freehold estate in possession.^ The livery of seisin being a manual delivery of possession, and the title passing in prcesenti by virtue of such delivery, it is but a natural consequence that, according to the com- mon law, no freehold estate can be created to commence in futuro, conveying a present title to the same. We have seen, though, in the preceding chapter on Reversions, that an es- 1 See ante, sect. 24. 386 CH. XII. J EEMAINDEKS. § 396 tate in possession less than a fee may be granted, leaving a reversion in the grantor, which he could subsequently assign by deed of grant. ^ The difficulty experienced at common law in creating future estates lay in the fact, that they had no mode of conveyance which did not operate by transmu- tation of possession. It was necessary that immediate pos- session should accompany the creation or transfer of the title. ^ In fact, livery of seisin was nothing more than the delivery of the possession of a freehold. If, therefore, a particular estate in possession had already been granted, or was conveyed at the same time with the future estate, the obstacle in the way of creating the latter was removed. If the particular estate was granted by a prior deed, the future estate was a reversion in the grantor which could afterward be conveyed by grant. But if it was granted at the same time as the future estate, and by the same deed, the future estate was called a remainder. A remainder is, therefore, a future estate in lands, which is preceded and supported by a particular estate in possession, which takes effect in pos- session immediately upon the determination of the prior es- tate, and which is created at the same time and by the same conveyance.^ It follows, therefore, from this definition, that a remainder can only be acquired bv purchase; it never vests by descent.* Nor can a remainder be supported by an estate which is created by operation of law. The future 1 See ante, sect. 386. 2 See post, sects. 769, 770, 771 ; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 536, 538, 539 ; Co. Lit, 217 a. ' 2 Washb. on Keal Prop. 539 ; 2 Bla. Com. 163 ; Co. Lit. 143. See also Doe V. Considine, 6 Wall. 474; Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. 390; Phelps ». Phelps, 17 Md. 134; Booth v. Terrell, 16 Ga. 20. * Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 504 ; see Langdon v. Strong, 2 Vt. 254. In the same manner, there must be a. conveyance of the prior particular estate. A man cannot grant a remainder, reserving to himself a prior estate for life. The grant, if it took effect at all, would create in the grantee a springing use and not a remainder. Bissell v. Grant, 35 Conn. 297. See also post, sect, on Springing Uses, Chapter XIIL S87 § 396 REMAINDEKS. [PART II, estate, which vests in the heirs upon the determination of the widow's dower, or the husband's curtesy, is not a tech- nical remainder, but a reversion.^ If the future estate does not take effect in possession immediately upon the expira- tion of the prior or particular estate ( the prior estate is called particular, derived from the latin partiuula, part or parcel), it is not a remainder, and if it cannot take effect as an assio^ned reversion, a future use or an executory de- vise — which will be explained hereafter ^ — it will be void, and the conveyance will fail.^ But the refusal of a devisee to accept a particular estate will not defeat the devise of the remainder-man. The remainder-man would in such a case take from the death of the testator, the devise of the par- ticular estate being treated as having lapsed. Nor will the disafBrmance by an infant tenant for life have any effect upon the validity of the remainder. But if the particular estate is void, through some quality annexed to the estate in its inception as, by entry of the grantor for condition broken, the remainder will also fail, if it cannot then take effect in possession.* 1 Geer v. Hamblin, 1 Me. 54; Cook v. Hammond, i Mason, 485; Rey- nolds u. Reynolds, 5 Paige, 167; SaSord v. Safford, 7 Paige Ch. 259: Robinson b. Millei-, 2 B. Mon. 288; Elwood v. Klock, 13 Barb. 50; Hitch- ens V. Kitchens, 2 Vern. 405; 1 Cruise Dig. 164; 4 Kent's Com. 65; Co. Lit. 31 a. See ante, sect. 385. 2 SeeposJ, sects, on Contingent, Springing and Shifting Uses in Chap- ter XIII. 3 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 540; 1 Prest. Est. 217; Williams on Real Prop. 240-251 ; Wilkes v. Lion, 2 Covt. 333. < 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 555; Co. Lit. 298 a; Thompson v. Leach, 2 Salk. 576 ; Prescott o. Prescott, 7 Mete. 141 ; Macknet v. Macknet, 24 N. J. Eq. 277; Lawrence u. Hebbard, 2 Bradf. 250; Goodall ». McLean, 2 Bradf . 306 ; Yeaton t). Roberts, 28 N. H. 459; Augustus u. Seabolt, 3Metc. 161. But the statement in the text, that the entry of the grantor, for the breach of a condition annexed to the particular estate, would defeat the remainder, applies only to common-law remainders. A limitatiou to take effect upon the breach of a condition may be valid as an executory devise or as a shifting use. See ante, sect. 281, and post, sects. 418, 536, 537. 388 CH. XII. J EEMAINDEES. § 397 § 397. Kinds of remainders. — Remainders are divided into two classes, vested and contingent. A vested remainder is a present vested right to the future enjoyment of the land. In a vested remainder only the possession is post- poned. It is, therefore, a !;es. Scott, 62 111. 86; Brislain v. Wilson, 63 111. 175; Butler «. Heustis, 68 111. 594; 18 A. M. Rep. 589; Taney v. Fabnley, 126 Ind. 88; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. ». Skinner, 4 Ohio C. C. 526; Carson v. Fuhs, 131 Pa. St. 256; Petition of Browning (111.), 16 Atl. 717; Van Olinda v. Carpenter (111), 19 N. E. Rep. 868; Hageman v. Hagemann, 129 111.164. See Boykin v. Ancrum, 26 S. C. 486; Leathers v. Gray, 101 N. C. 162; Andrews v. Lothrop, (R. L 1890), 20 Atl. Rep. 97; Spader c. Powers, 56 Hun, 153; Wilkerson v. Clark (Ga. 1888), 7 S. E. Rep. 319; Leathers v. Gray (N. C.) 7 S. E. Rep. 657; Ryan v. Allen, 120 111. 643; Allen V. Crafts, 109 Ind. 476; Cookin's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 26. In Hill- man V. Bouslagh, 13 Pa. St. 344, Chief Justice Gibson, in an able opinion, gives the rule a most earnest support, and defends the policy of ~ retaining it as a part of the American law of real property. "The rule in Shelley's Case," says he, " ill deserves the epithets bestowed on it in the argument. Though of feudal origin, it is not a relic of barbar- 426 CH. XII. j RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. § 433 statute, and the limitation to the heirs would be construed to be a contingent remainder, the heirs taking by purchase.^ ism, or a part of the rubbish of the dark ages. It is part of a system; an artificial one, it is true, but still a, system, and a complete one. * * * It happily falls in with the current of our policy. By turning a limitation for life, with remainders to the heirs of the body, into an estate tail, it is the handmaid not only of Taltarum's Case (in this case estates tail were held for the first time to be barred by a common revovery. See ante, sect. 49), but of our statute for barring entails by a deed aclvnowledged in court, and where the limitation is to heirs general it cuts off what would otherwise be a contingent remamder, destructible only by a common recovery. * * * It is admitted that the rule subverts a particular intention in perhaps every instance; for, as was said in Roe v. Bedford, 4 Maul & Sel. 363, it is proof against even an express declaration, that the heirs shall take as purchasers. But it is an intention which the law cannot indulge, con- sistently with the testator's general plan, and which is necessarily sub- ordinate to it. It is an intention to create an inalienable estate tail in the first donee, and to invert the rule of interpretation, by making the general intention subservient to the particular one. The donor is no more competent to make a tenancy for life a source of inheritable suc- cession than he is competent to create a perpetuity, ok a new canon of descent. The rule is too intimately connected with the doctrine of estates to be separated from it without breaking the ligaments of prop- erty." The learned judge is wrong, when he says that the general rule of the law of interpretation and construction does not require the general intention to be subservient to the particular one. In the construction otwills, in which this conflict between a general and a particular intent usually arises, the general intention only controls the particular when the latter is inoperative on account of its illegality or impossibility of performance and the general intent is carried out under the cypres doc- trine to prevent a complete failure of the gift. If it be true that the rule in Shelley's Case arose from an inability, according to the early law, to create a contingent remainder, and this is certainly more plausible than to suppose that the courts would aitbitrarily nullify the expressed inten- tion of the donor, for that would be an assumption by the courts of legislative powers, then since contingent remainders are now valid limit- ations, the particular intent of the donor should be allowed to take effect. If it is against the policy of the law to permit the creation of contingent remainders, then they should be abolished by statute. The courts have no legitimate power to effect the change by any such arbi- trary and absurd rule of construction, as the rule in Shelley's Case. 1 The rule has been abolished by statute in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Missouri, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, Ken- tucky, Alabama, and "Wisconsin. 2 "Washb. on Real Prop. 607, note 2; 427 § 434 EULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. [PART II. § 434. Requisites of the rule. — In order that the rule in Shelley's case may apply, there must be a freehold in the first taker, limited expres'sly~or by implication. An estate less than a freehold would not be sufficient, because a seisin in the first taker is necessary to draw the remainder Williams on Real Prop. 260, Eawle's note. In these States the rule has been abolished altogether, both as to grants and to wills. Richardson V. Wheatland, 7 Mete. 172; Bowers v. Porter, i Pick. 205; Goodrich ». Lambert, 10 Conn. 448; Moore v. Littell, 40 Barb. 488; Williamson v. Williamson, 18 B. Mon. 329 ; Montgomery v. Montgomery (Ky.), 11 S. W. Kep. 596; Gaukler v. Moran, 66 Mich. 353, McCauley v. Backner, 87 Ky. 191 ; Wedekind v. Hallerberg (Ky.), 10 S. W. Rep. 368 ; Leake v. Watson ("Conn. 1891); 21 Atl. 1075. But in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Ohio, the rule is only abolished as to wills. 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 607, note 2; Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 500; Den v. Demarest, 1 N. J. 525 ; Chontman v. Bailey, 62 N. H. 44. In Mississippi it is abolished as to real estate. Powell v. Brandon, 24 Miss. 343. And in Rhode Island it is declared by statute not to apply to devises, in which the property is limited to one for life and remainder to the children or issue of the devisee for life. Williams v. Angell, 7 R. I. 145. But the rule still holds good in all grants and devises in which the limitation in remainder is to the heirs generally, or to the heirs of the body of the first taker. BuUock v. Waterman St. Soc, 5 R. I. 273; Moore v. Dimond, lb. 127; Manchester v. Dnrfee, lb. 549; Cooper v. Cooper, 6 R. I. 264; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 333; Jilson v. Wilcox, lb. 518. In Moore v. LitteU, 41 N. Y. 66, which was affirmed in House v. Jackson, 50 N. Y. 165, it was declared by the New York Court of ^ippeals, that after the abolition by statute of the rule in Shelley's Case, the limitation to the heirs of the donee for life is a vested remainder. This remarkable decision is altogether inconsistent with the rules of law of remainders, and even with the New York statutory definition of a contingent remainder, viz.: that they are contingent "whilst the person to whom, or the event upon which they are limited to take effect remains uncertain." 1 Rev. Stat., p. 723, sect. 13; McCall on Real Prop. 113. Prof. McCall, in refer- ring to the case of Moore v. Littell, says : " Thus a grant to A. for life, and after his death to his heirs and assigns forever, gives the children of A. a vested interest in the land; although liable to open and let in after born children of A., and also liable, in respect of the interest of any child, to be wholly defeated by his death before his father." Quei-y, If there are no born children, in whom is the remainder vested? the col- lateral heirs? The true doctrine is that such a remainder is contingent, 7iemo est hceres viventis, and this is the rule of the other courts. Rich- ardson V. Wheatland, 7 Mete. 169; Moore b. Weaver, 16 Gray, 307; Will- iams V. Angell, 8 R. I. 145; Hillman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St. 344. 428 CH. XII. J RULE IN SHELLKY'S CASE. § 434 to the particular estate. ^ But if the limitations appear in a will, while a remainder can be limited in chattel in-, terests,- the rule in Shelley's case has been held^ never- theless, to apply, so as to give th^ absolute estate to the- first taker. ^ It must, in the second place, be created by the same instrument as/is the remainder to the heirs. If given by different instruments the rule will not apply ..^ But a will and an annexed codicil are in this con- ,;, nection considered as constituting one instrument, and thes/' rule would apply if the life estate was given in the will proper, and the reversion in the codicil. So also would the rule apply if, instead of a grant of a remainder, there appeared in the same instrument a power of appointment to the heirs.* In the next place, the subsequent limitation 1 Pibus V. Mitford, 1 Ventr. 372; Webster v. Cooper, li How. SCO; Ogden's App., 70 Pa. St. 509; ■Williams on Eeal Prop. 256; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 598, 601. The rule in Shelley's Case applies to equitable estates as well as to legal estates, where the trusts are executed. Crox- all V. Shererd, 5 Wall. 281; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 Ei I. 383. If they are executory, as they usually are in marriage setfflements, or if it is the clear intention of the donor that the tenant for life shall not have the power to cut off the estate in remainder, the rule will not apply. 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 495; Sand. Uses, 311; Jones V. Laughton, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 392j Gill v. Logan, M, B. Mon. 231; Berry v. Williamson, 11 B. Mon. 246. The rule isMpplied to executed trusts with this qua]iflcation,/that the two ^States, the freehold in possession and the remainder, must both ,;!be legal or both equitable. The rule will not apply where one isj^egal and the other is equitable. Sylvester v. Wilson, 2 T. E. jfll; Adams v. Adams, 6 Q. B. 860; Doe v. Ironmonger, 3 Bast, 63|lf 'Curtis v. Eice, 12 Ves. 89 ; Croxall v. Shererd, 6 Wall. 281 ; Ward, *. Armory, 1 Curt. 419; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 E. I. 383; Tallman v. Wood, 26 Wend. 9. But if both are legal it will not prevent th#rule fi;om applying if one of them is charged with a trust and the other is ag^aosolute estate. Tud. Ld. Cas. 484; Douglass v. Congreve, 1 Beav, 69; s. c. 4 Bing. N. C. 1. 2 Hughes V. Nicholas, 70 Md. 484. / ' 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 598 ; Co. Lit. 299 b, Butler's note, 261 ; Doe V. Fonnerneau, 1 Dougl. 508 ; Moore v. Parker, 1 Ld. Raym. 37 ; Webster - V. Cooper, 14 Hoyy. 500; Adams v. Guerard, 29 t.G75. * Williams on Real Prop. 256 ; 2 Washb. o^ Eeal Prop. 598 ; Hayes v. Forde, 2 W. Bl. 698; Tud. Ld. Cas. 483, 484yCo. Lit. 299 b, Butler's note, 261; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 E. 1.383. But where a power of 429 § 434 RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. [PART II. must be made to the heirs of the first taker. If the remainder is limited to the heirs of a stranger, or if it is limited to the joint heirs of two persons, one of whom alone takes the estate in possession, the rule does not apply, and the subsequent limitation remains a contingent remainder in the heirs as purchasers. ^ If the limitation be to the heirs of his body, the first taker would have an estate tail instead of a fee.^ But if the limitation be to one's heir and the heirs male of the heir, the rule is not applicable, the express limitation in tail preventing an amalgamation of the two estates.* The rule cannot apply where the life estate is an equitable estate, and the remainder is a legal estate.* But, with these exceptions, nothing that the grantor can do will prevent the application of the rule if the remainder in fee or in tail is given to the heirs of the first taker — not even an express direction that the rule should not apply. ^ But limitation to the sous, children, or issue of him who appointment is interposed between an estate for life and a contingent remainder to one's cliildren or to special heirs, the rule does not apply, and the children or special heirs take as purchasers, although the inter- position of the power would not prevent the application of the rule, where the remainder was limited to the heirs generally. Dodson v. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 497; Yarnall's App., 70 Pa. St. 3i2. 1 Archer's Case, 1 Co. 66 b; Fuller v. Chamier, L. R. 2 Eq. 682; Web- ster o. Cooper, 14 How. 500 ; 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 599 ; Williams on Eeal Prop. 261. 2 Pibus V. Mitford, 1 Ventr. 372; Hillman v. Bouslagh, 13 Pa. St. 351; Toller V. Atwood, 15 Q. B. 929; Doe v. Harvey, 4 B. & C. 610. 3 Tud. Ld. Cas.i493; McCulIough v. Gliddon, 38 Ala. 208. * mtev. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393; Mayer's Appeal, 49 Pa. St. Ill; Bead- ing Trust Co.'s Appeal, 26 W. N. C. 9; Handy v. McKim, 64 Md. 560. 5 Perrin v. Blake, 1 W. Bl. 672; s. c, 4 Burr. 2579; Roe v. Bedford, 4 Maule & Sel. 363;' Toller v. Atwood, 15 Q. B. 929; Doe v. Harvey, 4 B. & C. 610; Jessonv. Doe, 2 Bligh, 1 ; Doebler's App., 64 Pa. St. 15;Klappner 0. Laverty, 70 Pa. St. 73; Tud. Ld. Cas. 488, 489; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 602; Stone v. McEqkrou, 57 Conn. 194; Appeal of Keim, 125 Pa. St. 480; Reading Trust Co.'s Appeal, 26 W. N. C. 9; Little's Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 14; Bassett v. Hawk, 118 Pa. St. 94; Henderson v. Walthour (Pa. 1888), 15 Atl. Rep. 893; Huntzlemau's Appeal, 136 Pa. St. 142; Earnhart v. Earn- hart, 127>Ind. 396; GiHia's Estate, 138 Pa. St. 327. But see contra, BecJ ford V. Jenkins, 96 N. C. 254; Fields v. Watson, 23 S. C. 42. 430 CH. XII.] RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. § 434 takes the life estate, will not be converted by the rule into a fee in the first taker, unless they are created by will, and from a consideration of the whole will, it appears that these words were used in the sense of heirs. And the strongest and clearest evidence is necessary to give this construction to the words sons or children.^ It is easier to apply this construction to the word issue. The general rule is that persons thus described take as purchasers and not by descent, and that the remainders are vested as soon as persons corresponding to the description come into being. ^ It has been held also that where the limitation in remainder is to the " bodily heirs " of the first taker, the rule will not apply if the contest of the will shows that those were used in the sense of children.^ The rule will also apply, even though there are intervening limitations to strangers. But the fee in remainder would vest in the first taker expectant upon the termination of the intermediate limitation. The intermediate limitation is not destroyed by merger of the estate in possession and the remainder under the operation of the rule in Shelley's case.* 1 See Greer v. Pate, 85 Ga. 552; Jackson v. Jackson find. 1891), 26 N. E. 897. 2 Poole V. Poole, 3 Bos. & P. 620 ; Slater v. Dangerfield, 15 M. & W. 263: Doe v. Daviess, 4 B. & Ad. 43; Shaw ». Weigh, Strange, 798; Robin- son V. Robinson, 1 Burr. 38; Lees v. Mosley, 1 Younge & C. 589; Doe v. Charlton, 1 M. & G. 429; Doe v. Collis, 4 T. R. 299; Flint v. Steadman, .% Vt. 210; Macumber v. Bradley, 28 Conn. 445; Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. 512, overruling Ross ». Adams, 28 N. J. L. 172; Price v. Sisson, 13 N. J. 177; Price v. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 102; Tyler v. Moore, 42 Pa. St. 389; Taylor ». Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 483; 3 Am. Rep. 565; Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 500; Ford u. Flint, 40 Vt. 394; Sioton v. Boyd, 19 Ohio St. 30; 2 Am. Eep. 369; People's Sav. Bank v. Denig, 131 Pa. St. 241; Fosters. McKenna (Pa. 1888), 11 Atl. Rep. 674; McDonald v. Dunbar CPa. 1888), 12 Atl. Eep. 553; McCanley v. Buckner (Ky. 1888), 8 S. W. Eep. 196, Boykin V. Ancrum (S. C. 1888), 6 S. B. Rep. 305; Handy ». McKim, 64 Md. 566; Carroll o. Burns, 108 Pa. St. 386; Henderson v. Henderson, 64 Md. 186. 3 Mitchell V. Simpson (Ky.), 10 S. W. Rep. 372. * 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 601; Williams on Real Prop. 266-260; Frank V. Frank (Pa.), 17 Atl. Rep. 11. But see apparently contra, Hadlock v. Gray, 104 Ind. 596. 431 CHAPTEK Xin. USES AND TRUSTS. Section I. Uses before the Statute of Uses. II. Uses under the Statute of Uses. III. Shifting, Springing and Contingent Uses. IV. Trusts. SECTION I. trSES BEFOEE THE STATUTE OP USES. Section 437. Pre-statement. 438. Origin and history. 439. "What is a use. 440. Enforcement of the use. 441. Distinction between Uses and Trusts. 442. How uses may be created. 443. Same — Kesulting use. 444. Same — By simple declarations. 445. Who might he feoffees to use and cesiuis que use. 446. "What might be conveyed to uses. 447. Incidents of uses. 448. Alienation of uses. 449. Estates capable of being created in uses. 450. Disposition of uses by will. 451. How lost or defeated. § 437. Pre-statement. — The reader has been prepared, by the classification of estates presented in a previous chap- ter/ for the discussion of interests and estates in lands, ■which are purely equitable; that is, cogni2;able solely in a court of equity, and separate and distinct from the legal estate, -which is alone recognized in a court of la"w. Equit- able mortgages and liens constitute one class of such inter- ' See ante, sect. 26. 432 CH. XIII. J USES AND TRUSTS. § 438 ests, which have been already considered.^ The class of equitable interests, which are more properly comprehended under the term estate, is what is known as Uses and Trusts. § 438. Origin and Mstory. — It is not .proposed to give in detail the history of the origin and introduction into the English jurisprudence of Uses and Trusts, but a few words are necessary as explanatory of their character. At com- mon law the only mode of conveying lands was by trans- mutation of possession. This element was a necessary in- gredient of every conveyance, for a common-law title was inseparable from the right of possession. The power of alienation was also very much restricted. It could only be done with the consent of the lord, and even after these re- strictions up6n conveyancing were removed, the inability to dispose of lands by will, the cumbersome character of the common-law conveyances, and the burdens attached as inci- dents to a legal estate, such as. the rights of dower and curtesy, the possibility of escheat and forfeiture for at- tainder of treason or corruption of blood, and the innumer- able fines and reliefs required by the feudal law of tenure to be paid to the lord, led to the introduction of Uses and Trusts, which relieved the beneficial owner of all these bur- dens, and gave him an almost absolute property in the lands. A further impetus was given to their general adoption by the prohibitions imposed by the magna charta and the stat-. ute of mortmain upon the ecclesiastical corporations to hold and acquire lands. These statutes, recognizing and relating solely to legal estates, only prevented such corporations- from holding legal estates. The ecclesiastics, with their customary astuteness, had the lands conveyed to persons who could take and hold them in trust, to permit the cor- porations to enjoy the benefit thereof. It may be doubtful whether the ecclesiastics were the first to adopt this mode ' See ante, sects. 288-295. 28 43a § 439 USES AND TRUSTS. [pART II. of holding lands, but to them certainly may be ascribed the honor of devising the means for the enforcement of the confidence I'eposed in the person, to whom the land was conveyed. Finally the civil wars between the houses of Lancaster and Yoi'k, and the increased danger of attainder and confiscation of esta^tes, resulting fi'om participation in these wars upon one side or the other, caused a large por- tion of the lands of England to be settled in this manner.^ It is supposed, with good reason therefor, that the doc- trine of uses and trusts was derived from the civil or Eoman law, and corresponds, in some respects, to what is known in that system of jurisprudence as the fidei commissum.'^ § 439. What is a use ? — A use or trust is a confidence, which acquired under the operation of the rules of equity the character of an estate, reposed in the person holding the legal estate, who is known as the feoffee to use or trustee, that he shall permit the person designated in the conveyance to the feoffee to use or by the legal owner, and who is called the cestui que use or trust, to enjoy the rents and profits of the land. The use or trust is the beneficial interest in and issuing out of the land, while the legal title remained in the person who was seised to the use.' In a 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 384-386 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur., 439-442 ; Chud- leigh's Case, 3 Eep. 123 ; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., sect. 978. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 386; Bao. Law Tracts, 315; Cornish, Uses, 10. The fidei commissum of the Roman law, however, could only be created by will, and was designed to give the beneficial interest in property to those who were otherwise prohibited from taking as devisee. The testator would direct the heir to transfer the estate to the person designated. This trust was then enforced by the courts. It is, therefore, more proper to say that the fidd commissum suggested the use, and the mode of enforcing it, than that the use is derived from the Roman law. Saunder's Justinian, 337, 338; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., sects. 976, 977. » 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 388 ; 2 Bla. Com. 330 ; Bac. Law Tracts, 307 ; Co. Lit. 271 b, Butler's note, 231, sect. 2; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., sects. 978, 979; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 489-444 ; Burgess v. Wheate, 1 W. Bl. 158 ; Tud. Ld. Gas. 252, 253. 434 CII XIII.] USES AND TRUSTS. § 440 court of law he was deemed the owner, brought all the ac- tions for the protection of the property against trespass, waste and disseisin, and exercised generally the legal rights of an owner .^ He could even maintain an action of eject- ment against the cestui que use.^ The rights of the cestui que use were not recognized in a court of law. He had no standing in that court, and only obtained an ample remedy for the protection of his estate when the court of chancery assumed jurisdiction.' § 440. Enforcement of the use. — Before the English court of chancery acquired jurisdiction, the cestui que use was compelled to rely upon the good faith of the feoffee to use, although there is supposed to have been an inefficient remedy in the spiritual or ecclesiastical courts. But since these courts had no means of enforcing their decrees, and exerted only a spiritual influence over the conscience, the cestui que use was practically dependent upon the honesty of his feoffee to use.* The ecclesiastics were, of course, greatly concerned in providing a sufficient remedy for their protection and the enforcement of their uses. The court of chancery was at that time entirely under their control, for the chancellor and other judges of the court were almost always appointed from the clergy. And being learned in the civil law, they readily found a precedent in the enforce- ment of the Jidei commissa^ of that system of jurisprudence. With this precedent befoi-e him, John De Waltham, Bishop 1 Tud. Ld. Cas. 252 ; 2 Bla. Com. 330 ; 1 Spenoe Eq. Jur. 442 ; Ohnd- leigh's Case, 1 Eep. 121 ; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur. sect. 979 ; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 388. •^ 2 1 Spenee Eq. Jur. 442 ; Tud. Ld. Cas. 253 ; Chudleigh's Case, 1 Eep. 121. ' 1 Spenco Eq. Jur., 456; Co. Lit. 271 b, Butler's note, 231, sect. 2; Pom. Eq. Jur., sects. 979, 980 ; Tud. Ld. Cas. 252 ; Lewin on Tr. 3, 4. * 1 Spenee Bq. Jur. 444 ; Tud. Ld. Cas. 252 ; Bac. Law Tracts, 307 ' 1 Spenee Eq. Jur. 436 ; Bac. Law Tracts, 316. 435 § 441 USES AND TRUSTS. [PAKT 11, of Salisbury, Master of the Eolls, devised the "writ of subpoena," returnable in chancery, and directed against the feoffee to use, by ■which he was made to account under oath to the cestui que use for the rents and profits he had received from the land.i This writ could at first be issued against the feoffee to use, but not against his heirs and as- signs. Subsequently it was made issuable against the heirs and all alienees of the feoffee, who took with notice of the use.^ The coiirt of chancery then for the first time acquired complete jurisdiction over uses and trusts. Iromthat time forward, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, a set of rules has been established for their interpretation and construc- tion, which gave to them, as nearly as it was possible or advisable, the character and incidents of legal estates.^ § 441. Distinction between uses and trusts. — Although the words uses and trusts were employed before the passage of the Statute of Uses, as if they were synonymous ; and although they may be used interchangeably when speaking generally of these equitable estates, as they then prevailed, yet a distinction was made between them according to the permanent or temporary character of the estate. If the right to the rents and profits was permanent — that is, of a long duration — it was called a use. If the right was only of a temporary character, or given only for special pur- poses, it was designated a trusts A more radical difference now exists in the present use of these terms, arising out of 1 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 438 ; 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 389 ; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur.^ sects. 428-431. 2 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 445; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 880; 2 Bla. Com. 829; Burgess v, Wheate, 1 W. Bl. 156 ; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. sect. 980. = 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 392 ; 1 Cruise Dig. 341 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 435 ; 2 Bla. Com. 331. ■ * 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 398; 1 Cruise Dig. 246; Tud. Ld. Cas. 255; Saud. Uses, 3, 7; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 448. 436 CH. XIII. J USES AND TRUSTS. § 443 the change made in equitable estates by the Statute of Uses. § 442. How uses may be created — By feoffment. — -Since at common law the ordinary conveyance was feoff- ment with livery of seisin, operating by transmutation of possession and requiring no evidence in writing of such conveyance, a use might have been created before the Stat- ute of Frauds, when employing this mode of conveyance, by a simple declaration of the feoffor at the time that the feoffee was to hold to the use of some other person.^ The Statute of Frauds, however, requires uses and trusts as well as legal estates to be evidenced by soaie writing signed by the party to be charged. At the present day, therefore, an oral declaration will not be sufficient to raise a use.^ § 443. Same — Resulting use. — As a consequence of the introduction of uses, if one makes a conveyance in fee without receiving any good or valuable considera- tion, equity, presuming- that one will not part with a valuable estate without receiving in return a considera- tion, held that the beneficial or equitable interest re- mained in or resulted to the grantor. He was supposed to have intended that the use should be reserved to him- self. This was called a resulting use. It became, there- fore, a general rule that a conveyance of the legal estate in fee without a consideration will not carry with it the beneficial interest unless the facts of the case were such as to rebut the presumption that the feoffor did not intend to part with the beneficial interest.' But where the estate 1 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 449; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 392; 2 Bla. Com. 331. 2 Stat. 29 Car. ii, o. 3, sects. 7, 8; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 500, 501; Sauncl. Uses, 229; Tud. Ld. Cas. 266. 3 5 Waslib. on Real Prop. 393; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 451 ; 2 Bla. Com. 331 ; Lloyd w. Spillett, 2 Atk. 150; 2Pom.Eq. Jur., sect. 981; Osbornu. Osborn, -26 N. J. Eq. 385. . 437 § 443 USES AND TRUSTS. [PAKT II. conveyed was less than a fee, there was no resulting use, as the duties and liabilities attached to an estate for life, for years and in tail, were considered a sufficient consider- ation to prevent the use resulting to the grantor and, also, because the retention of a part of the estate negatives the presumption that he did not intend to part with the bene- ficial interest in the part which he did convey. ^ The use can result only to the grantor and his heirs.^ And for the purpose of carrying the use to the feoffee, the smallest nominal consideration was sufficient. It need not be stated in the deed if an actual consideration had passed between the parties ; on the other hand, if there is an acknowledg- ment of the receipt of the consideration in the deed of conveyance, there need be no actual consideration, since the parties to the deed will be estopped from denying it.^ Nor is a consideration necessary where the deed expressly declares to whose use the land shall be held. But if only a part of the use is declared by the deed, the remainder would result to the grantor, in the same manner as if no use had been limited, unless the use declared is limited to the grantor, when the remainder will be in the feoffee.* 1 1 Prest. Est. 192 ; 1 Cruise Dig. 376 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 452 ; 2 Washb. Real Prop. 396; Tud. Ld. Cas. 258. 2 2 Washb. OQ Eeal Prop. 393, 394; I Prest Est. 195; 1 Cruise Dig. 373. 3 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 450, 451; 2 Bla. Com. 329;' Tud. Ld. Cas. 255; Lewin on Tr. 27; Squire v. Harder, 1 Paige, 494; Bk. of U. S. v. House- man, 6 Paige, 526; Titcomb d., Morrill, 10 Allen, 15; 1 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 26; Wilkinson v. Scott, 17 Mass. 257; Griswold v. Messenger, 6 Pick. 517; Bragg v. Geddes, 93 111. 39; Bartlett v. Bartlett, 14 Gray, 277*; Gerry u. Stimpson, 60 Me. 186; Wilt v. Franklin, 1 Binn. 518; Boyd u. McLean, 1 Jotins. Ch. 582; Farrington v. Barr, 36 N. H. 86; Miller ?;. Wil- son, 15 Ohio, 108; Philbrook v. Delano, 29 Me. 410; Maigly ». Hauer, 7 Johns. 341; Shepherd ». Little, 14 Johns. 210; Morse u. Shattuck, 4 N. H. 229; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 394; Gould v. Linde, 114 Mass. 366; Graves v. Graves, 29 N. ^. 129; Cairns v. Colburn, 104 Mass. 274. * 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 449, 511; 2 Bla. Com. 329; Lloyd u. Spillett, 2 Atk. 150; Bac. Law Tracts, 317; Saund. Uses, 103, 104, 142; Co. Lit. 23 a; Tud. Ld. Cas. 258; 1 Prest. Est. 191, 195; Pibus v. Mitford, 1 Ventr. 372; Tip- 438 CH. XITI.] USES AND TRUSTS. § 444 Where, however, the use in remainder is limited by will, and theie is no dispo'sition of the use during the life of the trustee, particularly where the trustee is the wife or other near relative of the testator, a use is held to be limited by implication in the trustee for his or her life.^ The doctrine of resulting uses has been abolished by statute in soma of the States. § 444. Same — By simple declarations. — Not only could uses be raised by a declaration to that effect, made in connection with a feoffment or other common-law con- veyance, as above explained, but also by a simple declara- tion made by the legal owner that he held the land to the use of another.^ But since a court of equity lends its aid only to the prevention of an injury or wrong (injuria), and will not enforce mere voluntary obligations, these dec- larations, when made independently of a common-law conveyance, had to rest upon a consideration, in order that they might be enforced. If the declaration was made to a stranger a valuable consideration was required, but it need not be a substantial one; while in the case of a declaration to a near blood-relation, a good consideration, natural love and affection, would answer.* And under this rule equity always construed a contract of sale or agreement to convey ping V. Cozzens, 1 Ld. Kaym. 33; Volgen v. Yates, 5 Seld. 223; Farring- ton V. Barr, 36 N. H. 88; Sir Edw. Clerc's Case, 6 Kep. 17; Kenniston v. Leighton, 53 N. H. 311; Graves v. Graves, 9 Post. 129; Sprague v. Woods, i Watts & S. 192; Walker v. Walker, 2 Atk. 68; Lampleigh v. Lampleigh, 1 P. Wms. 112; St. John V.Benedict, 6 Johns. Ch. 116; Capen e. Richardson, 7 Gray, 370; Altliam v. Anglesea, 11 Mod. 210; Boyd v. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 582; Peabody v. Tarbell, 2 Cush. 232; Adams v. Savage, 2 Salk. 679; Rawley v. Holland, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 753; 1 Cruise Dig. 376; Roe v. Popham, Dougl. (Mich.) 25; McCown v. King, 23 S. C. 232, Gove v. Learoyd, 140 Mass. 524. 1 Fisher v. Fisher, 41 N. J. Eq. 16. 2 See post, sect. 506. s 2 Bla. Com. 329; Co. Lit. 271 b, Butler's note, 231; Tud. Ld.Cas. 268; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 450; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 394, 395. 439 § 445 USES AND TEUSTS. [PAKT II, as a declaration to uses, and would enforce it if the req- uisite consideration was present. ^ The Statute of Frauds now requires all such declarations to be proved on some instrument in writing.^ 445. Who might be feoffees to use and cestnls que use. — As a general proposition, all persons wh^ could be grantees'in a common-law conveyance can be either feo'fees to use or cestuis que use, infants and married women not excepted. The married woman, as feoffee to use. would hold the legal estate free from any attaching rights of her husband, and, as cestuis que use, enjoy the beneficial interest as freely as if she were single. Her husband acquires no rights in the equitable estate, since they attach and relate to only legal estates.^ Corporations can be cestuis que. useA It was formerly held that corporations could not be feoffees to use, it being supposed impossible to enforce the performance of the use on account of the intangible, soul- less character of the corporation. That doctrine has now been exploded, and courts of equity can enforce their decrees just as effectively against corporations as against natural persons. It is, therefore, the prevailing rule in this country that corporations may hold lands as feoffees to use, provided the limitations of their charters do not make such a conveyance foreign to the purposes of their creation.* 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 397; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 452, 453. 2 See post, sect. 507. 3 Tud. Ld. Cas. 254; 4 Kent's Com. 293; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. X. Cas. 206; Saund. Uses, 349; Hill, Trust. 52; Pinson v. Ivey, 1 Yerg. 325; Springer v. Berry, 48 Me. 338; Clanssen v. La Franz, 1 Iowa, 237; 2 Washb. on Real Pro p. 391, 392; 1 Cruise Dig. 340. It is here meant that the husband's rights during coverture do not attach to the wife's equitable estate. But he has curtesy in such estates, unless expressly excluded. See ante, sect. 105. 4 Cruise Dig. 354; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 391; Tud. Ld. Cas. 254. 5 Ang. & Ames on Corp., ch. II., sects. 6-8; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 391; Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 127; Sutton «. Cole, 3 Pick. 232; Phillip's Academy «. King, 12 Mass. 546. 440 CH. XIII. J USES AND TRUSTS. § 447 §446. What migbt be conveyed to uses. — Every species of real property, which is comprehended under the terms lands, tenements and hereditaments, both corporeal and incorporeal, may be the subject of conveyance to uses.^ At an early period it was held necessary for the grantor to be possessed of an estate of which seisin could be predicted, in order that a use might be created out of it.^ But this doctrine has long since been abandoned, and chattels, both real and personal, can now be settled to uses. But since a mortgage is treated in equity as a lien instead of an estate in lands, there can be no conveyance of it to uses, i. e., in- dependently of the debt. The debt may be conveyed to uses, and the mortgage would follow as an incident of the debt.3 §447. Incidents of uses. — A-S uses, considered as estates in lands, were the mere creatures of equity, and acquired in the early days of their existence no actual rec- ognition in a court of law, the court of chancery, in estab- lishing rules for the government and construction of them, while following to some extent the analogies of the law in relation to legal estates, adopted only such rules of the common law as were consistent with the intended character of this equitable estate. It, therefore, discarded the doc- trines of feudal tenure and seisin altogether. Nor did the court at first recognize in uses the rights of dower and cur- tesy. Uses were also held to be not liable to levy and sale under execution; nor were they forfeited to the crown upon attainder until the statute of 33 Hen. VIII., ch. 20, sect. 2.* 1 2 Washb. V. Real Prop. 391; 2 Bla. Com. 331. 2 2 Bla. Com. 331; 1 Cruise Dig. 340; Tud. Ld. Cas. 259. 3 2 Waslib. on Real Prop. 408; Merrill v. Brown, 12 Pick. 220. 4 2 Waslib. on Real Prop. 395, 399; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 455, 466, 460; 1 Wasiib. on Real Prop. 297; 2 Bla. Com. 331; Jackson v. Catlln, 2 Johns. 261. Uses are now very generally held to be subject to the husband's right of curtesy. See ante, sect. 105. 441 § 449 USES AND TRUSTS. [PAET II. But they were descendible to the heirs, in conformity with the common law of descents. ^ § 448. Alienation of uses. — For the same reasons, the restrictions imposed upon the common-law power of aliena- tion were not applied to uses. There is no limitation upon the alienation of uses, except that imposed by the Statute of Frauds. Before the passage of that statute no formal assignment in writing was required; a simple direction to the trustee to pay over the rents and profits to the assignee was sufficient. These directions the trustee was bound to follow, and obedience could be enforcefl in like manner as in the case of the original cestui que use."^ But the assign- ment of the use neccessarily had no effect upon the legal estate in the trustee, unless he joined in the conveyance.' And then the formalities required in all common-law con- veyances must have been complied with in order to pass the legal estate. § 449. Estates capable of being created in uses When one has an unlimited use, i. e., a use in fee, whether alone or merged in the legal estate, there is no limitation upon the number and kinds of estates which might be carved out of it. Not only may all the estates known to the common law be created, such as in tail, for years, for life, in re- mainder vested or contingent, upon condition and upon limitation,^ but other estates and interests may be limited which are unknown to the common law, and violate its most inflexible rules. Thus, an estate in freehold in the use may be created to commence in the future without a particular • 2 Bla. Com. 329; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 454. » 2 Cruise Dig. 342; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 454. The Statute of Frauds required all trusts and confidences to be proved by some writing. 29 Car. II., ch. 3. 3 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 396; 2 Bla Com. 331. * I Spence Eq. Jur. 455; 1 Cruise Dig. 343; 2 Washb on Real Prop. 397. 442 CH. XIII.] USES AND TRUSTS. § 450 estate to support it, whether it be vested or contingent. Or the grantor may limit the use in such a manner as to pass from one to another upon the happening of a contin- gency ; or he may reserve to himself or grant to another the power to divest the present cestui que use and vest the use in another to be appointed, or simply by such destruc- tion of the prior use to cause the use to revert to the grantor. These limitations were impossible at common lavv.^ And in construing the limitations of uses, the strict technical rules are not observed, the intention governing in each case. A fee might, therefore, be created in the use without an ex- press limitation to heirs, if the intention to create such an estate is manifested in any other way.^ § 450. Disposition of uses by will Under the feudal system, lands could not be disposed of by will. But uses were held to be capable of devise without limitation ; and until the passage of the Statute of Wilis, 32 Hen. VIII., which made lands divisable by law, as they were under the Saxon law before the Norman conquest, it was a common custom to convey lands to the use of the grantor, which he could then dispose of by will as well as by deed. The Stat- ute of Wills obviated the necessity of such a conveyance in respect to all persons who were empowered by that statute to devi-e lands. As married women were expressly excluded from the benefit of the statute, this practice of conveying to uses to enable a disposition by will still obtained as to them. The will in such cases only operates as an assign- ment or devise of the use, or, if it be executed under a power of appointment, as a declaration or appointment of a use, and the legal estate remains unaffected in the hands 1 2 Washb. on Keal Prop. 397, 398; 1 Cruise Dig. 343; 1 Spfince Eq. Jijr. 455 ; Ctiudleigh's Case, 1 Eep. 135 ; Shelley's Case, 1 Eep. 101 ; Fearne Cont. Rem. 284. 2 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 452; Tud. Ld. Cas. 253; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 395. 443 § 451 USES AND TRUSTS. [PAKT II. of the trustee. But in chancery the equitable interests thus acquired by the devisee would receive as complete a protec- tion as those of an assignee or grantee inter vivos.^ § 451. How lost or defeated. — The enforcement, and hence the validity of a use, depends upon a privity of estate and person, existing between the feoffee and cestui que use in relation to the land. Before the Statute of Uses, any act of the feoffee by which this privity was destroyed, would defeat the use also. If the feoffee lost his seisin by being disseised, or he disposed of the land by deed to a purchaser for consideration and without notice of the use, the use would be defeated, whether it was vested or contingent, in possession or in remainder. But a conveyance to one with notice, or without consideration, or a descent of the lands to the heirs of the feoffee would not affect the use. The use could still be enforced against the assignee or heir.^ Where the feoffee was disseised, he alone could recover the seisin according to the common law, and the cestui que use could not enforce the use against the disseissor. And, although even now the disseisin of the trustee is likewise a disseisin of the cestui que use, and, if continued for a suffi- cient length of time, would bar both the equitable and legal estates, yet at present, the cestui que use may, upon his own motion, and without the co-operation of his trustee, have the disseisor declared a trustee, holding the legal estate subject to the use.^ 1 Co. Lit. 271 b, Butler's note, 231; Tad. Ld. Cas. 268; 2 Bla. Com. 329; 2 Wash)}, on Real Prop. 395, 396; 6 Cruise Dig. 3, i. 2 Co. Lit. 371 b, Butler's note, 231, sect. 2; Tud. Ld. Cas. 254; Lewin on Tr. 2; 2 "Washb. on Eeal Prop. 389, 400; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 456- Chud- leigh's Case, 1 Rep. 120; Bennis v. McCagg, 32 111. 445; Hallett v. Col- lins, 10 How. 174; Benv. Troutman, 7 Ired. 155; Burgess v. Wheate, 1 W. Bl. 156; Cholmondely v. Clinton, 2 Meriv. 358. ^ See preceding note; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 601; 1 Cruise Dig. 403. 444 SECTION n. USES TOTDEK THE STATUTE OF USES. Sbctiok 459. History of the Statute of Uses. 460. When statute will operate. 461. A person seised to a use and in esse. 462. Freehold necessary. 463. Use upon a use. 464. Peofiee and cestui que use — Same person. 465. A use in esse. 466. Cestui que use in esse. 467. Words of creation and limitation. 468. Acti-|e and passive uses and trusts. 469. Uses'to married women. 470. Cases in which the statute will not operate. § 459. History of the Statute of Uses. — As has been stated in the preceding section, uses became a very common mode of limiting estates. In consequence of the equitable and uncertain character of the use, and its freedom from the burdens of common-law estates, its popularity gave rise to the constant perpetration of frauds upon the legal rights of others. " Heirs were unjustly inherited ; the king lost his profits of attainted persons, aliens born, and felons ; lords lost their wards, marriages, reliefs, heriots, escheats, aids J married men lost their tenancies by the curtesy, and women their dower ; purchasers were defrauded ; no one knew against whom to bring his action, and manifest per- juries were committed."^ Several attempts were made by the enactment of statutes to check these abuses, notably a statute in the reign of Eichard III. (1 E. m., ch. 1), but to no avail. Means of avoiding the operation of these statutes were BOrjn discovered, and the abuses were as I 1 Sugd. Pow., (ed. 1856), 78. 445 § 459 USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. [PAET II. grievous after as they were before their enactment. Fi- nally the statute of 27 Hen. VIII., ch. 10, the celebrated Statute of Uses, was passed by parliament.^ The evident intention of the legislator was to abolish the doctrine of uses altogether by the statutory transfer of the legal estate from the feoffee to use to the cestui que use in every case, whatever may be the limitations upon the use. But the statute met with the most determined opposition from the bench and bar. Notwithstanding the many alleged frauds which could be committed by an abuse of the doctrine, public sentiment was opposed to its absolute destruction, and was in favor of preserving the power of creating an equitable estate in the nature of a use. And notwithstand- 1 The statute enacted that " where any person or persons stood or were seized, or at any time thereafter should happen to be seized, of and in any honours, castles, manors, lands, tenements, rents, services, reversions, re- mainders, or other hereditaments, to the use, confidence or trust of any other person or persons, or of any body politic, by reason of any bargain, sale, feoffment, fine, recovery, covenant, contract, agreement, will or otherwise, by any manner of means whatsoever it be ; tnat in every such case all and every such person and persons and bodies politic, that have or hereafter shall have, any such use, confidence or trust, in fee simple, fee tail, for term of life, or for years or otherwise, or any use, confidence or trust in remainder or reverter, shall from henceforth stand and be seized, deemed and adjudged in lawful seisin, estate and possession, of and in the same honours, castles, manors, lands, tenements, rents, services, reversions, remainders, or other heredita- ments, with their appurtenances, to all intents, constructions and purposes in the law, of and in such like estates as they had or shall have in the use, confi- dence or trust of or in the same ; and that the estate, title, right and posses- sion, that was in such person or persons, that were or hereafter shall be seized of any lands, tenements or hereditaments to the use, confidence or trust of any such person or persons, or of any body politic, be from henceforth clearly deemed and adjudged to be in him or them that have or hereafter shall have such use, confidence or trust, after such quality, manner,' form and condition as they had before, in or to the use, confidence or trust that was in them." This statute has either been adopted in the different States of this country as part of t^e common law, or substantially re-enacted, so that it prevails generally throughout the United States. 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sect. 530, note 1 ; Perry on Tr. 299 ; Guest «. Farley, 19 Mo. 147 ; Booker ti. Carlisle, 14 Bush, 154 ; Sherman v. Dodge, 28 Vt. 26, 31 ; Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474 ; Bowman v. Long, 26 Ga. 142; McNab v. Young, 81 111. 11 ; Gorbam v. Daniels, 23 Vt. 600. 446 CH. XIIT.] USES TJNDKR THE STATUTE OF USES. § 461 ing the remedial character of the statute, it received at the hands of the profession a strict and technical construction, and was permitted to operate only so far as it was impossi- ble to render nugatory its express provisions. Instead of destroying uses, the statute only established them upon a firmer basis. By a remarkable course of judicial construc- tion — it was practically legislation — the modern doctrine of trusts arose, which obtains to this day, and which includes every species of equitable estate which, under the statute, is capable of creation without being merged into the legal estate. § 460. When statute will operate. — The Statute of Uses will only operate upon a conveyance to uses, and transfer the legal to the holder of the equitable title, when the fol- lowing three elements are present : First, a person seised to a use, and in esse ; second, a cestui que use in esse ; and third, a use in esse} § 461. A person seised to a use and in esse. — Any per- son who was capable of being seised before t^e statute would satisfy the requirements. And although at first it was supposed and held, that aliens and corporations could not be seised to uses, at the present day there is no such restriction. In regard to alien feoffees to use, the general rules of equity relating to trusts will apply, and prevent the failure of the use because of their incapacity to hold the seisin.^ And in this country corporations are included under the term " persons," and may be seised to uses if the limitations of their charters permit of such holding.* 1 1 Cruise Dig. 349 ; 2 Washb. on Keal Prop. 407. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 408 ; 1 Cruise Dig. 349 ; Bac. Law Tracts, 347, 348. 3 Sutton V. Cole, 8 Pick. 240; TJ. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392; Vidal ». Girard, 2 How. 127; Phillip's Academy u. King, 12 Mass. 546; Ang. & Ames on Corp., ch. V"., sects. 6-8; Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 293; First Cong. 447 § 462 USES UKDEE THE STATUTE OP USES. [PAET 11. But the person seised must be in esse. If by reason of the limitations of the conveyance the feoffee to use is uncertain as he would be if the legal estate upon which the use de- pends is a contingent remainder, the statute cannot operate until the contingency happens, upon which the remainder becomes vested.^ § 462. Freehold necessary. — Seisin cannot be predicated of leasehold estates. In order, therefore, that the statute may take effect, the estate in theyeo^ee to use must be a freehold for the reason that the statute only provides for the transfer of the legal estate where one is seised to the use of another. All leaseholds held to uses remain unexe- cuted as before the statute, and the uses are enforceable only in a court of equity. It was once supposed that the freehold must be greater than a life estate ; but it is now held that any freehold estate is sufficient, including life estates and all estates of inheritance.^ If the freehold, upon which the use depends, is not commensurate with the use, the use will be valid, and will be executed, only as far Soc. V. Atwater, 23 Id. 34 ; Mayor, etc. , v. Elliott, 3 Rawle, 170 ; Bethlehem Borough V. Perseverence Fire Co., 81 Pa. St. 445; Trustees, etc., v. King, 12 Mass. 546-553; First Parish, etc., v. Cole, 3 Pick. 232-237; Wade v. Am. Col. Soc, 7 Smed. & M. 697; Ayers v. M. E. Church, 3 Sandf. 351; Matter of Howe, 1 Paige, 214. But it the use or trust is foreign to the purposes of its institution, the corporation cannot hold the seisin or legal estate. A new trustee must be appointed to take its place. Matter of Howe, 1 Paige, 214; Sloan v. McConahy, 4 Ohio, 157; Jackson ». Hartwell, 8 Johns. 422; Trustees, etc. v. Peaslee, 15 N. H. 317; Chapin V. School Dist. 36 N. H. 445; Parmer's Loan, etc., Co. o. Carroll, 5 Barb. 613; Bliss V. Am. Bible Soc, 2 Allen, 334; Montpelier v. East Mont- pelier, 29 Vt. 12; Mason v. M. E. Church, 27 N. J. Eq. 47. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 408; Bac. Law. Tracts, 349. 2 1 Cruise Dig. 350, 351, 353; Tud. Ld. Cas. 257-259; Galliers v. Moss, 9 B. & C. 267; 1 Prest. Est. 190; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 466-490; Ashhurst v. Givens, 5 Watts & S. 327; Merrill v. Brown, 12 Pick. 220; Gilbertson v. Richards, 5 H. & N. 454; Franciscus o. Reigart, 4 Watts, 118; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 984; Hopkins t). Hopkins, 1 Atk. 591; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 408, 409. 448 CH. XIII. J USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. § 463 as the leo;al estate extends. If the legiil estate in the feoffee is only a life estate, the use is good only for that time, even though the limitatioa of the use be in terms a fee simple.^ But it is probable at the present day that the rule would be so far relaxed as to make the legal estate by construction co-extensive with the use, unless a smaller estate is expressly limited, in conformity with the rule governing the same question in its connection with the doc- trine of trusts.^ And an estate tail has been held sufficient to support a use in fee simple.^ § 463. Use upon a use. — Since seisin requires a legal estate, and the person, out of whom the leg.il estate is to be drawn by the statute, and transferred to the cestui que use, was required to be seised, the courts have held that the statute can only execute the first use, and can have no effect upon the second or other use depending upon the first. For example, an estate is limited to the use of A. to the use of B. The statute can execute the use in A., but cannot go further and transfer the legal estate to B., the final and actual cestui que use, because by the strict construction of the statute the legal estate can only pass from persons who were seised of the legal estate under the deed, A. had only a use, and therefore was not seised. But inasmuch as after the execution of the use the cestui que use was to hold the legal estate in " such quality, manner, form and condition " as he had in the use, A. in the case supposed would hold 1 Tud. Ld. Cas. 269 ; Sandf. on Uses, 109 ; Jenkins v. Young, Cro. Car. 230; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 409. 2 Doe V. Nichols, 1 B. & C. 336; Doe v. Ewart, 7 A. & E. 636; Norton V. Norton, 2 Sandf. 296; Barker u. Greenwood, 4 M. & W. 421; Adams v. Adams, 6 Q. B. 360; Att'y-Gen. v. Props., etc., 3 Gray, 48; Cleveland u. Hallett, 6 Cush. 407; Farquharson v. Eichelberger, 15 Md. 73; Coulter v. Robertson, 278 ; Ward v. Armory, 1 Curt. C. Ct. 419 ; Morton v. Barrett, 22 Me. 257; Smith u. Metcalf, 1 Head, 64; Renzichausen v. Keyser, 48 Pa. St. 351. See post, sect. 604. ' 1 Cruise Dig. 352 ; 2 Washb. on Real. Prop. 409. 29 449 § 464 U.SES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. [PART H. the legal estate to the use of B., and accountable to B. in equity for the rents and profits.^ § 464. Feoffee and cestui que use — Same person. — Where Vae feofee to use and the cestui que use are the same person, there is a merger of the equitable in the legal estate without the aid of the Statute of Uses. He takes an abso- lute estate at common law, unless such a merger would de- feat the purposes of the conveyance.^ Nor would there be a merger, if the use to the feoffee was not as extensive as the legal estate which is conveyed to him, as where the es- tate is a fee, and his use is a life interest, or he takes the use jointly with another. In such cases the use could only 1 2 Washb. on Keal Prop. 406, 409, 457, 460,461; Tyrrell's Case, Dyer, 155, 1 Co. Rep. 136 b, 187; Croxall v. Shererd, 5 Wall. 282; Wyman ». Brown, 50 Me. 157; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Atk. 591; Willettt). Sanford, 1 Ves. Sr. 186; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sect. 985. The rule above enunciated, that a use cannot be limited upon a use, has been abolished by statute in New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. See post, sect. 470, note. And it has also been disapproved and adversely com- mented on by the Massachusetts court. Thatcher v. Omans, 3 Pick. 521, 528. But It is, perhaps, generally recognized in this country wherever it has not been changed by statute. And, basing their conclusions upon this doctrine, the courts have held that where in a deed of bargain and sale the estate is limited to the bargainee to the use of another, it is such a use upon a use as will not be executed by the statute. See Guest v. Farley, 19 Mo. 147; Jackson v. Myers, 3 Johns. 388, 396; Jackson v. Gary, 16 Johns. 302; Croxall v. Shererd, supra; Price v. Sisson, 2 Beas. 168. This is, however, only the case with a pure bargain and sale deed. When such a limitation occurs in a modern deed of conveyance, which might be treated as a common-law conveyance, as well as a bargain and sale, and such Is supposed to be the case where the operative words are "grant, bargain and sell," or " give, grant, bargain and sell," the use would presumably be executed by the statute, the bargainee or grantee having acquired the seisin and the legal estate by force'of the deed as a common -law conveyance. See posJ, sect. 782. 2 2 Prest. Conv. 481; Co. Lit. 271 b, Butler's note, 231; 1 Cruise Dig. 354; Tud. Ld. Cas. 257; Jackson o. Gary, 16 Johns. 302; Jenkins ». Young, Cro. Car. 231; simmes' Case, 13 Rep. 56; Doe v. Passingham, 6 B. & C. 305, 317; Orne's Case, L. E. 8 C. P. 281. 450 CH. XIII. J USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. § 465 be executed by the statute.^ But, nevertheless, if a use is limited upon the use of the feoffee, it will be construed such a limitation of a use upon the use as to preclude the execu- tion of the second use. Thus, in a conveyance to A. to the use of A. to the use of B., although, in the absence of the use to B. , A. would have been held to be in possession of the legal estate at common law by the merger of the equitable in the legal estate, yet this express limitation to his use will prevent the operation of the statute upon the use in B. A. would hold the legal estate, and the use in B. would remain unexecuted.^ In some of the States this doctrine concern- ing the effect of a use upon a use has been abolished by statute, and the legal title is made to pass through all the intermediate cestuis que use until the final and actual bene- ficiary is reached, when it becomes vested in him.^ § 465. A use in esse. — It matters not whether the use is one in possession, reversion, or remainder, if the vesting of the title thereto is not contingent, it is a use in esse, and will be executed at once by the statute. If the use is one in possession it will be executed immediately, both in title and in possession. If it is to commence in the future it is called, according to the terms of the limitation, a contin- gent, springing, or shifting use, and will be considered in a subsequent section.^ Nor is it important in what manner the use is created, — whether by express limitation or bylaw, as in the case of a resulting use, however the use arises, — if 1 1 Cruise Dig. 357; Tud. Ld. Gas. 258; Sammes' Case, 13 Eep. 56; Sand'on Uses, 94, 96. 2 Doe V. Passingham, 6 B. & C. 305, 317; Williams on Real Prop. 161; Tud. Ld. Cas. 268; Doe v. Martin, 4 T. E. 89; 2 Smith Ld. Cas. 464; Wlietstone v. Bury, 2 P. Wms. 146; 1 Sugden on Pow. 168, 169; Moore ■0. Shultz, 13 Pa. St. 98; Hayes v. Tabor, 41 N. H. 521, 526; Atty.-Gen. v. Scott, Cas. temp. Talb. 138; Price v. Sisson, 2 Beas. 168, 173, 174; 2 Bla. Com. 336 ; Franciscus v. Kelgart, 4 Watts, 118. Contra, Hurst ». McNiel, 1 Wash. C. Ct. 70. 3 See ante, sect. 463, note; and post, sect. 470, note. * See post, sects. 478, 485. 451 § 466 USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. [PART 11. it is in esse, i. e., vested, the statute will execute it.^ If the use is contingent, the use is not in esse until the hap- pening of the contingency upon which its vesting depends, when it will be executed in the same manner as if it had been vested from the time of its creation.^ A contingent use cannot be executed by the statute of uses into a legal estate, because the transfer of the seisin would give the cestui que use a vested estate while he had in the use only a contingent estate. And the statute required that the cestui que use should take the seisin or legal estate " in such quality, manner, form and condition," as he had the use. , § 466. Cestui que use in esse. — There must, further- more, be some ascertained person in esse who is to take and who can take the use under the conveyance. As a general proposition, subject to an exception to be mentioned else- where,^ the character of the cestui que use will not affect the execution of the use. Any person in esse will fullfil the requirements of the statute.* But if the cestui que use is not in esse, or not ascertained, the use is future and contin- gent, and the operation of the statute is suspended until the cestui que use is known.^ If a future use is to vest upon the happening of some contingency independent of human action, it is called a contingent, springing, or shifting use. 1 1 Cruise Dig. 358; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Atk. 591; Chudleigh's Case, 1 Rep. 126; Osman v. Slieafe, 3 Lev. 370; Doe v. Salkeld, Willes, 67i; 2 Smith's Ld. Cas. 288, 297; Hays v. Kershaw, 1 Sandf. Ch. 258; Tud. Ld. Cas. 262. 2 Chudleigh's Case, 1 Eep. 126; Tud. Ld. Cas. 262; Shep. Touch. Prest. ed. 529 n; Sand, on Uses, 110; 1 Sugden Pow. 41. See post, sects. 479, 481. 3 See post, sect. 469. * 1 Cruise Dig. 354; 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 410. 5 1 Cruise Dig. 354; 2 Bla. Com. 336; Chudleigh's Case, 1 Eep. 126; Jackson v. Myers, 3 Johns. 388; Beformed Dutch Church v. Veeder, 4 Wend. 494; Aslihurst v. Given, 5 Watts & L. 323; Miller v. Chittenden, 2 Iowa, 371 ; Shapleigh v. Pilsbury, 1 Me. 271 ;. Sewall v. CargiU, 16 Mfe 414. See pos{, sect. 479. 452 CH. XIII.J USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. § 467 But if the uncertainty or contingent cliaractei is to be settled by the act of some person or persons designated by the grantor or testator, then the limitation, although in fact nothing more than a contingent future use, receives the name of a power. ^ § 467. Words of creation and limitation. — No special form of expression or set of words is necessary in the crea- tion of uses, provided such words are used, as clearly show the intention of the grantor that a use was to be declared in favor of another. The Statute of Uses employs the words " use, confidence, or trust," and it would accordingly be safer to adopt one of these words, although it is not necessary.^ Although the employment of technical words of limitation was not necessary in the creation of a use before the statute,^ and since the statute they are not always necessary in the limitation of equitable estates which are not executed by the statute, and which properly fall under the head of trusts,* yet if the statute does operate the use will be valid for the purpose of execution, only so far as the words of limitation are capable of limiting similar estates at common law. The word " heirs " is therefore necessary to a use in fee, where the common law in respect to words of limitation has not been changed by statute, and its absence cannot be supplied by words of similar import. A conveyance, therefore, to the use of A. and the issue of his body would be neither an estate tail nor a fee simple, and A. would take only a life estate.^ 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 420; Shep. Touch. Prest. ed. 629 n. s 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 411; Tud. Ld. Cas. 258. ' 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 452; 1 Cruise Dig. 343; Tud. Ld. Cas. 253; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 395. * Vllliers v. Vllliers, 2 Atk. 71; Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns. 505; New- hall V. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189; Cleveland v. Hallett, 6 Gush. 406; Shaw v. Weigh, 2 Stra. 803; Gibson v. Montfo'rd, 1 Ves. Sr. 485; Gates v. Cooke, 3 Burr. 1684; Atty.-Gen. v. Props., 3 Gray, 48. See post, sect. 504. * Tud. Ld. Cas. 261; 1 Cruise Dig. 354; Sand, on Uses, 122; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 380. In most of the States the common law in respect to 453 § 468 USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. [PART II. § 468. Active and passive uses and trusts. — Both be- fore and after the passage of the statute, uses and trusts have been divided into active and passive. Where the feoffee to use was required to perform some duty in respect to the estate, the use was an active one. Where the feoffee had nothing to do but to hold the legal title and seisin for the support of the use, it was called passive. Now, since the feoffee can perform these duties only as long as he retains the legal estate, the statute could not execute an active use or trust without defeating the express purpose and intention of the grantor. Furthermore, his estate in the use was subject to the performance of this duty by the legal owner, and an execution of the use would not vest the seisin and estate after " such quality, manner, form and condition " as he had in the use. The courts, therefore, held that it was not the will of the Legislature to execute active uses.^ And under the strict construction of the statute the slight- est, most unimportant duty in the trustee would prevent the operation of the statute.^ the employment of technical words of limitation has been abolished by statute. The above rule, therefore, possesses very little practical Im- portance. See ante, sect. 37. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 467. See note under sect. 470. 2 Thus, the statute was held not to execute the use, where the trustee was directed to sell or dispose of the property — to collect and pay over the rents and profits — to have the active management of the estate — to permit the cestui que use to receive the net profits — to apply the profits to the maintenance of the cestui que use — to pay annuities out of the rents, or to receive the rents and allow them to accumulate. In any such case, the legal' estate being held necessary to the performance of the trustee's duty, the statute could not operate, and the use remained an equitable estate, to be enforced by the courts of equity. 1 Prtst Est. 185; Co. Lit. 290 b, note 249, sect. 6; 1 Cruise Dig. 385; Doe v. Briggs, 2 Taunt. 109; Nevil v. Saunders, 1 Vern. 415; Bass v. Scott, 2 Leigh, 356; Exeter v. Odiorne, 1 N. H. 232; Posey v. Cook, 1 Hill (S. C), 413; Nor- ton V. Leonard, 12 Pick. 152-158; Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189; Mor- ton V. Barrett, 22 Me. 257; Schley v. Lyon, 6 Ga. 530; Plenty y. West, 6 C. B. 201; Doe v. Homfray, 6 A. & E. 206; PuUen v. Hianhard, 1 Whart. 514, 520; Barnett's App., 46 Pa. St. 398; Fay «. Taft, 12Cush. 448; Smith- wick V. Jordan, 15 Mass. 113; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231; Jones v. 454 CH. XIII. J USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. § 469 §469. Uses to married women. — So also where the purpose of the trust is that the cestui que use, a married woman, should hold and enjoy the estate for her own sepa- rate use, the statute will not execute the use. For the ex- ecution of the use would give to the husband control over the property and its rents and profits during coverture, and the common-law right of curtesy would attach because of her disability to hold the legal estate free from his control.^ In making a conveyance to the separate use of a married woman, her power of alienation may, by a special clause, be entirely taken away during the continuance of the mar- riage, and this restriction will revive upon any subsequent marriage, if the trust is itself revived by such second mar- riage.^ In the absence of such a restraining clause, in England and some of the States, a married woman is to be treated, in respect to her separate property, as a, feme sole, and she may dispose of the equitable estate as she pleases.* Say and Seal, 1 Eq. Gas. Abr. 383; Peter c.» Beverley, 10 Pet. 532; Elliott o. Fisher, 12 Sim. 505; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563; Gott v. Cooke, 7 Paige, 621; Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95. 1 1 Cruise Dig. 385; Hartoa v. Harton, 7 T. R. 653; Stearcy v. Rice, 27 Pa. St. 75; Bush's App., 33 Pa. St. 85; Nenll v. Saunders, 1 Vern. 415; Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 504; Williams v. Holmes, 4 Rich. Eq. 495; Lines v. Darden, 5 Fla. 78; Magniac v. Thompson, 1 Baldw. 63. 2 Hawkes v. Hubback, L. R. 11 Eq. 5; In re Gaffee's Trusts, 1 Macn. & G. 541; TuUett v. Armstrong, 4 My. & Cr. 377; Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291; Fellows u. Tann, 9 Ala. 999; Shirley v. Shirley, 9 Paige, 363; Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195; Baggett v. Meux, 1 Phil. 627. But see Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149; Miller v. Bingham, 1 Ired. 423. 3 Fettiplaceu. Gorges,! Ves.46; Rich b. Cockrell, 9 Ves. 69; Wagstaff V. Smith, 9 Ves. 520; Sturgis v. Corp., 13 Ves. 190; Major v. Lusley, 2 Russ. & My. 357; Essex v. Atkins, 14 Ves. 542 ; Stead v. Nelson, 2 Beav. 245; Dyett v. North American Coal Co., 20 Wgnd^570; 7 Paige Ch. 1; Powell V. Murray, 2 Bdw. Ch. 636; Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526; Yale V. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 269 ; Imlay ». Huntington, 20 Conn. 175; Frary V. Booth, 4 Am. Law Reg. (n. s.) 441, and note; Leaycraft v. Redden, 3 Green Ch. 551; Wyly v. Collins, 9 Ga. 223; Cooke v. Husbands, 11 Md. 492; Chew's Adm. c^. Beall, 13 Md. 348; McCroan v. Pope, 17 Ala. 612; Collins V. Larenburg, 19 Ala. 685; Coleman v. WooUey, 10 B. Mon. 320j 455 § 469 "USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. [PART H. In a number of the States, however, the English rule has been discarded, and the contrary doctrine maintained that the married woman has no power over her separate estate, except what is expressly granted or reserved to her in the deed or settlement.^ The reason why the statute of uses could not execute the separate use of a married woman, was that she could not according to the common-law take and hold the seisin and estate in " such quality, manner, form and condition," as she had in the use. For this reason it is to be presumed that in those States where the disability of married women is removed, and they are per- mitted to hold and dispose of property as i^ they were single, the reason failing, the rule would also fail, and the statute would execute the iise.^ So, likewise, since the passive use in the married woman is not executed, only be- cause her disability at common-law prevents her taking and holding the same rights and privileges in the legal estate as she had in the use, if she assigns the use to one, who is not under a similar disability, the statute will at once execute the use, and her grantee would get the absolute legal estate, without the joining of the trustees in the convey- ance.* And the husband would only have to join in the conveyance in order to bar his curtesy, if he had any in the equitable estate. Hardy i;. Van Harllngen, 7 Ohio (n. s.), 208; VSniitesides ». Cannon, 26 Mo. 457; Segoud v. Gerland, 23 Mo. 547; Frazierc. Brownlow, 3 Ired. Eq. 237; Newlin v. Freeman, 4 Id. 312. 1 Ewing ■». Smith, 3 Desau, 417; Reed v. Lamar, 1 Strobh. Eq. 27; Cal- houn o. Calhoun, 2 Strobh. 231; Magwood v. Johnson, 1 Hill Ch. 228; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231; Wallace v. Coston, 9 Watts, 137; Thomas v. Folwell, 2 Whart. 11; Patterson v. Robinson, 1 Casey, 81; Metcalf ». Cook, 2 R. I. 355; Williamson v. Beekman, 8 Leigh, 20; Mor- gan e. Elam, 9 Yerg. 375; Marshall v. Stephens, 8 Humph. 159; Doty ». Mitchell, 9 Smed. & M. 447; Montgomery v. Agricultural Bk., 10 Smed. &M. 567. » So it was held in Sutton v. Aiken, 62 Ga. 753; Bratton v. Massey, 15 S. C. 277; Bayer D.Cockerill, 3 Kan. 292. • See ante, sect. 93. 456 nr. XIII.] USES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. § 470 § 470. Cases in which the statute will not operate. — To recapitulate, the following are the principal cases in which the statute will not execute the use : 1. Uses in chattel interests. 2. A use upon a use. 3. Contingent uses, whether the contingency depends upon the uncertainty of the cesiwig-we Mse, or the use itself. 4. Active uses or trusts. 5. Uses to married women. Every other use will be exe- cuted immediately upon their creation, the feoffee to use acting merely as a conduit for the transfer of the seisin to the cestui que use. Contingent uses are executed when they become vested, while the other classes of uses above enu- merated remain throughout their entire duration unexe- cuted, and enforced as trusts by chancery.* 1 As has been remarked In a preceding note, the English Statute of Uses has been superseded in some of the States by modern statutes, materially different in their operation from the old statute. New York first set the example, in 1848. The statute of New York abolishes all express trusts heretofore known, and enumerates the classes of active trusts which can be created. All other trusts, and particularly passive trusts, are declared to be legal estates, and the seisin vests in the cestui que use or trust by force of the statute. 1 Rev. Stat. N. Y., p. 727, sects. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50. In New York, therefore, all uses are converted- into legal estates, except the express trusts enumerated In the statute, and trusts arising by implication of law. 1 K. S. N. Y. 728, sects. 51, 52, 53, 55; Leggett v. Perkins, 2 N. Y. 297; Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 377; King V. McCown, 10 N. Y. 268; Garfield v. Hatmaker, 15 N. Y. 475; Lounsbury v. Pardy, 18 N. Y. 515; Levy ■«. Brush, 45 N. Y. 595; Marvin ■». Smith, 46 N. Y. 571; Rose v. Hatch, 125 N. Y. 427; Greene v. Greene, 125 N. Y. 506. The future contingent uses become, by operation of the statute, future contingent estates of a legal character, and the common law was so changed as to admit of the limitation of legal estates, which were before only possible as the limitation of a use. 1 R. S. N. Y. 724, sects. 16, 17, 18, 19. This legislation has, in substance, been followed in CaMfornia, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Cal. Civ. Code, sects. 847, 857, 863, 867, 869, 879; 2 Comp. Laws, Mich. (1871) 1331; Gen. Stat. Minn. (1878), p. 553, sect. 11; 2 Rev. Stat. Wis., p. 1129, sect. 11. In these States, therefore, the foregoing presentation of uses under the Statute of Uses, as well as the subsequent section on future or contingent nises, must be taken with the qualifications arising under the local stat- utes prevailing there. 457 SECTION in. CONTINGENT, SPRINGING, AND SHIFTING USES Sbction 478. Future uses. 479. Contingent future uses — How supported. 480. Importance of the question. 481. The solution of the question _ 482. Contingent uses. 483. Springing uses. 484. Shifting use?. 485. Future uses in chattel interests. 486. Shifting and springing uses — How defeated. 487. Incidents of springing and shifting uses. § 478. Future uses. — It has been explained that a use could be limited to commence infuturo with or without a preceding estate in the use to support it, and even in dero- gation of the preceding estate, and that it may be either vested or contingent.^ If it is a vested use the statute will operate immediately and convert it irfto a legal estate, having the characteristics of a vested estate in reversion. But if the use is contingent the operation of the statute is sus- pended until the use vests or comes in esse. These future uses are divided into contingent, springing, and shifting uses, and will here be explained in the order named. § 479. Contingent future uses — How supported. — In a conveyance, where there is a contingent use of limited duration, and consequently there are other vested uses, the latter, are executed eo ^)ls^an. Collier, 11 East, 377; Price V. Sisson, 13 N. J. 173; Hayes u. Tabor, 41 N. H. 521; Kuhn ». Newman, 26 Pa. St. 227; Steacy v. Rice, 27 Pa. St. 75; Lines v. Darden, 6 Fla. 78; Horton t7. Horton, 7 T. K. 653; Williams v. Holmes, 4 Rich. Eq. 495; Ware v. Ricnardson, 3 Md. 605; Moore u. Sliultz, 13 Pa. St. 98; Welch v. Allen, 21 Wend. 147; Eamsay v. Marsh, 2 McCord, 252; Webster v. ■Cooper, 14 How. 488; 1 Prest. Abst. 140; Wagstafi v. Smith, 9 Ves*. 520; Boyd». England, 56 Ga. 598; Satton». Aiken, 62 Ga. 733; Bolles v. State Trust Co., 27 N. J. 308 ; Rogers Loc. WorliS v. Kelly, 19 Hun, 399; Weber V. Weber, 58 How. Pr. 255; Martin v. Funic, 75 N. Y. 134; Boone «. Banis, 84 N. Y. 83; Badgett v. Keating, 31 Ark. 400. '^ It will be observed that the terms executed and executory, when ap- plied to modern trusts, have a different significance from that which is given to them, in referring to the operation of the Statute of Uses upon uses. Fearne Cont. Rem. 55, 113, 139; 4 Kent's Com. 304, 306. Mr. Lewin defines these classes of trusts thus : " Trusts executed are where .the limitations of the equitable interest are complete and final; in the 469 § 497 TKUSTS. [part II, § 496. Express trusts. — All the trusts, which have been heretofore discussed, receive the further appellation of ex- press trusts, because they are expressly created by some deed or other instrument of conveyance, and are to be dis- tinguished from those trusts, which are explained in the succeeding paragraphs, and which arise by operation of law for the prevention of injury and the fuftherance of justice. Express trusts are created by the express act of the party owning the property. And it may be stated here that the law will never imply a trust where one has been created ex- pressly, even though the express trust is void for the want of some essential formality, unless the consideration is paid by the cestui que trust under such circumstances as to give rise to a resulting trust. ^ § 497. Implied, resulting, and constructive trusts. — Trusts which arise by implication of law are subdivined by trust executory, the limitations of the equitable interest are not intended to be complete or final, but merely to serve as minutes and instructions for perfecting the settlement at some future period. Lewin on Tr. 45; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sects. 1000, 1001; Saunders ». Edwards, 2 Jones Eq. 134; Evans v. King, 3 Id. 387; Porter v. Doby, 2 Rich. Eq. 49; Gushing ». Blake, 30 N. J. 689; 1 Eq. Ld. Gas. 1-36; Neves «. Scott, 9 How. 211; Tilllnshast v. Goggeshall, 7 E. I. 393; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. Gas. 210; Leonard v. Gountess of Sussex, 2 Vern. 526: Wright v. Pearson, 1 Eden, 119; Austin u. Taylor, 1 Eden, 361; Boswell v. Dillon, Drury, 291; Mullany v. Mullany, 3 Green Gh. 16; Sackville-West v. Holmesdale, L. E. 4 H. L. Gas. 543;Garroll w. Kenick, 7 Smed. & M. 798; Bowen c. Chase, 94 U. S. 812; Imlayc. Huntington, 20 Conn. 146; Eiddle «. Gutter, 49 Iowa, 647; Tallman v. Wood, 26 Wend. 9; Berry r. Williamson, 11 B. Mon. 245; Home v. Lyeth, 4 Har. & J. 431; Dennison v. Goehring, 7 Pa. St. 175; Wood V. Burnhara, 6 Paige, 513; Shelley v. Shelley, L. E. 6 Eq. 540; Gai-nsey ». Mundy, 24 N. J. 243; Garner v. Garner, 1 Deems, 437; Parr v. Gilreath, 23 S. G. 502. 1 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 496; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 436, 437; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sects. 987, 1030; Dennison v. Goehring, 7 Pa. St. 175; Farringtou V. Barr, 36 N. H. 86; Gibson v. Eoote, 40 Miss. 782; Van der Volgerii. Yates, 9 N. Y. 219; Graves v. Graves, 29 N. H. 129; Thompson v. Peake, 7 Rich. 333; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 121; Haggard v. Benson, 3 Tenn. Gh. 268; Ward v. Armstrong, 84 111. 161. 470 CH. XIII. J TRUSTS. § 498 the hooks into implied, resulting, and constructive trusts. These names are purely arbitrary, and do not convey to the mind any idea of the distinguishing feature of the trusts which they respectively represent. All trusts created by operation of law may be said to be implied or constructive, while the use of the word resulting serves, perhaps, to confound these trusts with resulting uses. But it is con- venient to make use of this subdivision, and for the want of better terms, these are employed to denote the three clas-ics. Trusts created by operation of hiw cannot be executed by the Statute of Uses. They are not recognized by courts of law. They are the creations of equity, and are applied by the court of equity to all inequitable trans- actions where the ends of justice cannot be otherwise attained.! But such trusts cannot be enforced against the property, after it has passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value. ^ § 498. Implied trusts. — Whenever the owner of land directs a certain disposition of it, which is to inure to the benefit of a third person without expressly creating a trust in his behalf, under the maxim that equity treats that as done which ought to be done, a trust will be implied in be- half of such beneficiary. Thus, if the testator directs his lands to be sold for the satisfaction of his debts, an implied trust is raised in favor of the creditors which will enable them to compel a performance of the trust by the executor. This implied trust was specially valuable in the days when real property was not liable for the debts of the owner. ^ 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 437; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sect. 1030; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 496; 1 Prest. Est. 191; Nightingale ». Hidden, 7 R. I. 121; Thompson v. Peake, 7 Rich. 353, and cases cited In subsequent notes. 2 Kearney v. Fleming, 10 N. Y. S. 169. 3 I Spence Eq. Jur. 509; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 438. This species of trust is, however, really an express trust, although it arises by con- struction , and is not strictly created by express limitation. 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sect. 1010. See Walker v. Whiting, 23 Pick. 313; Fay v. Taft, 12 Cush. 448; Baker v. Red, 4 Dana, 158; Lane v. Lane, 8 Allen, 350; Hoxie 471 § 498 TRUSTS. [part II. Another well-known application of the doctrine is the case of equitable conversion, so-called. When a contract for the sale of real property is made for a valuable considera- tion, and it is evidenced by an instrument in writing, equity will, by raising an implied trust in favor of the vendee, treat the vendor as his trustee in respect to the land to be conveyed, and the trust will be enforced by a decree .for specific performance.^ And so settled is the fiduciary character of the relation of vendor and vendee under an executory contract of sale, that the vendee may enjoin the vendor from the commission of waste.^ This trust may as well be enforced against the subsequent purchaser from the vendee with notice of the prior contract of sale.* At this point attention should be given to an apparent contradiction. The implied trust, just explained, which arises from an executory contract for the sale of land, is held to be beyond the operation of the Statute of Uses,* so that the V. Hoxie, 7 Paige, 187; Blatch v. Wilder, 1 Atk. 420; Withers v. Teadon, 1 Eich. Eq. 324 ; Watson v. Mayrant, 1 Rich. Eq. 449 ; Kandolph v. Ban- dolph, 40 N. J. Eq. 73. ^ 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 509; Jacksoji v. Morse, 16 Johns. 197; Connor v. Lewis, 16 Me. 268; Coman v. Lakey, 80 N. Y. 345; Pelton v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 605; Musham ». Musham, 87 III. 80; Felch v. Hooper, 119 Mass. 52; Bowie u. Berry, 3M.D. Ch. 359; Kooxb. Gye, L. K. 5 H. L. Cas. 656 ; Coffer v. A.rgo (111. 1 860) , 24 N. E. 1068 ; Greene v. Brooks, 81 Cal. 328. But there must, of course, be a written agreement of sale to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, or such a part performance as will take the case out of the statute. Harris v. Barnett, 3 Gratt. 339; Hill v. Meyers, 43 Pa. St. 170: Phillips v. Thompson, 1 Johns. Ch. 131; Eyan v. Dox, 34 N. Y. 312; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 215. An implied trust will also arise in favor of partnership-creditors in respect to the partnership property, when the insolvency of a firm or of its members creates a con- tention of Interests between the partnership creditors and the creditors of the individual partners. Hastings u. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9; Bartlett p. Drew, 57 Id. 587; Murray v. Murray, 5 Johns. Ch. 60; West v. Skip, 1 Ves. Sr. 239; Campbell v. Mullet, 2 Sw. 551; Knox v. Gye, L. R. 6 H. L. Cas. 656. 2 Moses V. Johnson, 88 Ala. 517. " McWhinn v. Martin (Wis. 1890), 46 N. W. 118. * See ante, sect. 497. 472 OH. XIII.J TEUST8. § 498 ceshii que trust, or executory yendee, would never acquire the legal title to the land, unless the trust is enforced by a decree for specific performance of the executory contract of sale.^ In a previous paragraph,^ where the creation of uses by simple declarations is explained, it is stated that " Equity always construed a contract of sale or agreement to con- vey as a declaration to uses, and would enforce it if the requisite consideration was present." That is, equity would treat a bargain and sale of lands as the express crea- tion of a use, which could be executed into a legal estate by the Statute of Uses, if the use so created did not come within one of the five classes of cases, in which the stat- ute did not operate.' Wherever the English statute of enrollment is in force, no use created by bargain and sale can be executed by the Statute of Uses, unless it be created by deed sealed and recorded. In England, therefore, a use created by a bargain and sale, which did not conform to the requirements of the Statute of Enrollment, would be denominated an implied trust, which could be enforced only by a decree for specific performance. But this dis- tinction between these two classes of equitable estates only obtains where the mode of creating uses by simple declar- ations is regulated by statute, beyond the requirement of the Statute of Frauds, that it should be manifested in writing. Where there is no such regulation of the creation of uses, the executory bargain and sale would be expected, and according to one set of authorities it is held to create a use which could be executed into a legal estate ; but accordina; to the second and more numerous as well as more modern set of cases, it would be an implied trust, which would remain an equitable estate until the trust is enforced by a decree for specific performance. There is but one way to reconcile these otherwise conflicting decis- 1 See supra. 2 See ante, sect. 444. ' See sects. 467, 776. 473 § 499 TRUSTS. [part II. ions apart from the historical explanation, that it is a mean- ingless survival or adoption of a distinction which was caused by the provisions of the statute of enrolment, but which now in the absence of such statutory regulations, serves only to create confusion, viz.: that the character of the equitable estate created by a bai-gain and sale would depend upon the intention of the parties in making the bargain and sale. It", in executing the written contract of sale, the intention was to pass an absolute title, the equitable estate of the vendee would be a use and not an implied trust ; and if the intention of the parties was to make the bargain and sale only preliminary to a specific and more formal performance, then the bargain and sale creates an implied trust and not a use.^ §499. Resulting trusts. — These trusts arise in two principal cases: First, where only a part of the trust is declared, and the result remains undisposed of. In such a case there is a resulting trust in favor of the grantor. Re- sulting trusts of this class are such as result to the jrrantor, but which, on account of the terms of the conveyance, can- not be executed as uses. Where the statute can operate, the equitable interest is a resulting use, and becomes a legal estate under the statute. Resulting interests in chattels, held in trust, are resulting trusts, and not resulting uses.^ Thus in the devise of an income to one, when he becomes of age, there is a resulting trust in the immediate inC|0me ^ See Hanks v. Folsom, 11 Lea, 555, opinion by Ciiancellor Cooper; citing Beeclier u. Hicks, 7 Lea, 2U; Games v. Apperson, 2 Sneed. 562; Topp 1). White, 12 Heisk. 165, 173; Anderson ». Clears, 7 Heisk. 667; Lafterty v. Wliitesides, 1 Swan. 123. 2 Tliey are called resultiug trusts, because they cannot be executed by the statute. In every other respect they are like resulting uses, and will arise only under such circumstances as would cause a resulting use in the freehold estate. A resultiug trust in a chattel otfly arises when there Is no consideration to the grantor and no consideration expressed in the grant. For the particular cases in which there will be a resultiug use and, if it be a chattel interest, a resulting trust, see ante, sect. 443. ' 474 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 499 to the devisor's heirs ; or where property is directed to be sold for certain purposes, and the proceeds are more than sufficient for the purposes of the trust, there lb a resulting trust in the surplus to the heirs of the devisor.^ There is also a resultins; trust in favor of the grantor and his heirs where the purposes of the express trust have failed, from whatever cause the failure may arise. Thus, if the trust be to appoint the estate in favor of a certain person, and the trustee fails to appoint, or the person dies before appoint- ment, the trust will result to the grantor.^ The trustee will in none of these cases enjoy the trust, even though a nomi- nal consideration be mentioned in the deed. Nothing will prevent the resulting of the trust to the grantor but the ^ Lloyd B. Lloyd, L. B. 7 Eq. 458; Longley v. Longley, L. R. 13 Eq. 133; Cottinger v. Fletcher, 2 Atk. 155; Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 J(?. 149; Ellcock V. Mapp, 3 H. L. Cas. 492; Davidson v. Foley, 2 Bro. Ch. 203; Hallordc. Stains, 16 Sim. 488; Watson v. Hayes, 5 My. & Cr. 125; Sewell v. Denny, lOBeav. 315; Read v. Stedman, 26 Id. 495; Esterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 6 Gray, 17; Hogan v. Jaques, 19 N. J. Eq. 123; Loring v. Elliot, 16 Gray, 568; Hogan v. Stayhorn, 65 N. C. 279; McCaWister v. Willey, 52 Ind. 382; Trapnall v. Brown, 19 Ark. 39; Pouce v. McElroy, 47 Cal. 154; Kennedy V. Munan, 52 Cal. 326; Edinger v. Heiser, 62 Mich. 598; Schlessinger v- Mallard, 70 Cal. 326; Ball v. Gafe (Ky. 1890), 1 S. W. 724; Buffington v. Maxam, 152 Mass. 477. 3 1 Cruise Dig. 375, 394; Ashhurst v. Givens, 5 Watts & S. 327; Sturte- vant V. Jaques, 14 Allen, 623; Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; Nichols o. Allen, 130 Mass. 211; Oliffe i;. Wells, 130 Mass. 221; Dashi^.l v. Atty.- Gen., 6 Har. & J. 1; Power v. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602; Lemmond?;. Peoples, 6 Ired. Eq. 137; Hawley v. James, 5 Paige, 318; Straat v. Uhrig,, 56 Mo. 482; Bennett u. Hudson, 33 Ark. 762; Ru^s v. Mebius, 16 Cal. 350; Ack- royd V. Smithson, 1 Bro. Ch. 503; Goodere u. Lloyd, 3 Sim. 638; Taylor V. Haygarth, 14 Sim. 8; Williams v. Coade, 10 Ves. 500; Davenport v. Coltman, 12 Sim. 588; James v. Allen, 3 Meriv. 17; Stubbs v. Saigon, 3 My. & Cr. 507; Kendall v. Granger, 5 Beav. 300; Williams v. Ker~haw, 5 CI. & Fin. Ill; Richards v. Delbridge, L. R. 18 Eq. 11; Carrick u. Erring- ton, 2 P. Wms. 361; Coard v. Holderness, 20 Beav. 147; Pawsoo v. Brown, L. R. 13 Ch. 202; Pilkington v. Boughey, 12 Sim. 114; Dawson v. Clark, 18 Ves. 247; Atty.-Gen. v. Windsor, 8 H. L. Cas. 369; Ashtoti v. Wood, L. K. 6 Eq. 419; Stansfleld v. Habergham, 10 Ves. 273; Wood v. Cox, 2 My. & Cr. 507; Pratt v, Miller, 23 Neb. 496; Parker v. McMillan, 65 Mich. 265. 475 § 500 TRUSTS. [part II. payment of an adequate, or at ]east substantial, considera- tion.^ The nominal consideration will prevent the resulting of such a use as will be executed by the statute, but will have no effect upon the resulting trust. § 500. Same — Payment of consideration. — The sec- ond class of resulting trusts includes those cases in which the estate is purchased in the name of one person and the consideration is paid by another. But two circumstances must concur in order that a trust may result to the one pay- ing the consideration : First, the execution of the deed in the name of the one person must be the result of some fraud, accident, or mistake. Or, if it is done with the knowledge and consent of the person paying the considera- tion, his intention that he should have the beneficial interest in the estate must be clearly established.^ The payment of the consideration and the intention of the parties in respect to the beneficial interest may be established by parol evi- 1 i Spence Eq. Jnr. 467 ; Orton v. Knab, 3 "Wis. 576 ; 2 "Washb. on Real Prop. 438; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sect. 1033. See Clark «. Hershey, 52 Ark. 473. 2 Dyeru. Dyer, 2 Cox, 92; 1 Eq. Ld. Cas. 814; Lloyd v. Read, 1 P. Wms. 607; Withers v. Withers, Ambl. 151; Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. 360; Medmer ?). Medmer, 26 N. J. Eq. 269; Smith v. Patton, 12 W. Va. 541; Billings V. Clinton, 6 S. C. 90; Lee u. Browder, 61 Ala. 288; Thomas e. Standiford, 49 Md. 181; Tiltord ». Torrey, 58 Ala. 120; Cunningham v. Bell, 83 N. C. 328; Kelley v. Jenness, 50 Me. 455; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 806; Kendall v. Mann, 11 Allen, 15; Nixon's App., 68 Pa. St. 279; Clark v. Clark, 43 Vt. 685; Boyd ». McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 582; Brooks V. Shelton, 54 Miss. 353; Hampson v. Fall, 64 Ind. 382; Duval v. Marshall, 30 Ark. 230; Dean v. Dean, 6 Conn. 285; McGovern v. Knox, 21 Ohio St. 547; Latham v. Henderson, 47 111. 185; Mathls v. Stufflebeam, 94 111. 481; Moss v. Moss, 95 111. 449; Johnson v. Quarles, 47 Mo. 423; Mc- Lenan v. Sullivan, 18 Iowa, 521; Boskowitz v. Davis, 12 Nev. 446; Logan V. Walker, 1 Wis. 627; Case v. Codding, 38 Cal. 191; Roberts o. Ware, 40 Cal. 684; Baumgartner w. Guessfeld, 38 Mo. 36; Jackson v. Cleveland, 15 Mich. 102; Smith v. Strahan, 16 Texas, 314; Sayre v. Townsend, 15 Wend. 647; Mershon v. Duer, 40 N. J. Eq. 338; Osgood v. Eaton, 82 N. H. 512; Parker V. Logan, 82 Va. 376; Farrington v. DuvaJ (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 944; Nance v. Nance, 28 111. App. 587. 476 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 500 dence, even against the express recitals of the deed. But the evidence must be clear. It would seem that this would be a clear violation of the Statute of Frauds, where the deed was taken in the name of another with the understand- ing that the one paying the consideration shall be the ben- eficial or equitable owner. For it is difficult to see in what way such a trust differs from an express trust, which is required to be manifested by some writing. But the decisions have held that it was not necessary for it to be in writing, and such must be taken to be the law.^ In like manner the presumption of a trust arising from the payment of the consideration may be rebutted by parol evidence, showing that the one paying the consideration intended that the grantee in the deed should have the benefit of the purchase as a gift, provided such parol evidence does not contradict the terms of the deed.^ The second circumstance is the consideration must be paid by the person claiming the re- sulting trust at the time of the transaction of sale or con- veyance. , Any subsequent payment of the consideration by 1 See Willis v. Willis, 2 Atk. 71 ; Gascoigne v. Thwing, 1 Vern. 366 ; Heard v. Pilley, L. B. i Ch. 548; Baker v. Vining, 30 Me. 121; Boyd V. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 582; Hennesy v. Walsh, 55 N. H. 515; Parker V. Snyder, 31 N. J. Eq. 164; lavermore ■;;. Aldrich, 6 Cush. 431; Jack- son V. Feller, 2 Wend. 465; Stumpier v. Eoberts, 18 Pa. St. 283 Whitmore v. Learned, 70 Me. 276; Thomas v. Standiford, 49 Md. 181 Miller v. Blose's Exr., 30 Gratt. 744; Hyden v. Hyden, 6 Baxt. 406 Coates V. Woodworth, 13 111. 654 ; Lee v. Browder, 51 Ala. 288 : Agricult- ural Assn. V. Brewster, 61 Texas, 257; Byers v. Wackman, 16 Ohio St. 440; Bryant v. Hendricks, 6 Iowa, 256; Murphy v. Peabody, 63 Ga. 522; Billings V. Clinton, 6 S. C. 90; Drum v. Simpson, 6 Binn. 478; Smith v. Patton, 12 W. Va. 541; McCreary v. Casey, 50 Cal. 349; Ward o. Arm- strong, 84 111. 151. 2 Lane v. Dighton, Amhl. 409; Benbow v. Townsend, 1 My. & K. 506 Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 303 ; Edwards v. Edwards, 39 Pa. St. 378 Carters. Montgomery, 2 Tenn. Ch. 216; Whiten. Carpenter, 2 Paige, 238 Perkins v. Nichols, 11 Allen, 545; Adams v. Greerard, 26 Ga. 651; Shep- herd u. White, 11 Texas, 346; Warner v. Steer, 112 Pa. St. 634; Tryor V. Huntoon, 67 Cal. 325. 477 § 500 TRUSTS. [part II. such person, even though he has been compelled to do so as surety of the grantee, will not raise a trust. ^ The absence of either of these circumstances will prevent the trust resulting from the payment of the consideration.^ And 1 Howell V. Howell, 15 N. J. Eq. 78; Brooks v. Fowler, 14 N. H. 248; Buck V. Swazey, 35 Me. 41; Kelly v. Johnson, 28 Mo. 249: Olivers. Dougherty, 3 Iowa, 371; Sullivan v. McLenans, 2 Iowa, 442; Baumgart- ner v. Guessfeld, 38 Mo. 86; Brawner v. Stanp, 21 Md. 337; Francestown V. Deerins;, 41 N. H. 443; Bainett v. Dougherty, 32 Pa. St. 371; Gee v. Gee, 32 Miss. 190; Kendall v. Mann, 11 Allen, 17; Perkins v. Nichols, 11 Allen, 646; Kellurau. Smith, 33 Id. 161; Alexander ». Tarns, 13 111.221; Perry v. McHenry, 33 Id. 227; Davis v. Wetherell, 11 Allen, 20; Whiting u. Gould, 2 Wis. 552; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 301; Pegnes r. Pegnes, 5 Ired. Eq. 418; Mershon k. Duer, 40 N. J. Eq. 333; Brown ». Cave, 23 S. C. 251; Shawu. Shaw, 86 Mo. 694; Walsh v. McBride (Md. 1890), 19 Atl. 4; Pulford v. Morton, 62 Mich. 25; Eice v. Pennypacker, 5 Del. Ch. 33. So also will a trust result to one who pays a part of the purchase-money with the intention that he shall have an interest in the land. But in order that there may be a resulting trust In his favor, the exact amount which he advances must be clearly established. Any doubt or uncertainty in that respect will prevent the trust from resulting. Purdy V. Purdy, 3 Md. Ch. 547; Shoemaker v. Smith, 11 Humph. 81; Miller v. Birdsong, 7 Baxt. 531; Smith v. Patton, 12 W. Va. 541; Pierce V. Pierce, 7 B. Mon. 438; Franklin ». McEntire, 23 111.91, Smith u. Smith, 85 111. 189; Cramer v. Hoose, 93 111. 503; Shea i;. Tucker, 56 Ala. 450; Hidden 17. Jordan, 21 Cal. 92; Bayles v. Baxter, 22 Cal. 578; Case v. Cod- ding, 38 Cal. 191; McCreary v. Casey, 50 Cal. 349; Wray v. Steele, 2 V. & B. 388; Barren v. Barron, 24 Vt. 375; McGowan v. McGowan, 14 Gray, 119; Harpers. Phelps, 21 Com. 257; Williams ». HoUingsworth, 1 Strobh. Eq. 103; Botsford v. Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 405; Smith v. Straham, 16Texas 314; Sayre v. Townsend, 15 Wend. 647; Wallace v. Duffield, 2 Serg. &r! 521; Springer v. Springer, 114 111. 558; Somers v. Overhulser, 67 Cal. 237. 2 McCueij. Gallagher, 23 Cal. 53; Gee v. Gee, 32 Miss. 190; Dow e. Jewell, 21 N. H. 470; Gibsons. Foote, 40 Miss. 792; Hunt v. Moore, 6 Cush. 1; Rumsdell v. Emory, 46 Me. 311; Jackraan v. Eiugland, 4 W. & S. 149; Botsford v. Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 405; Stephenson v. Thompson, 13 111. 186; McCuUough!). Ford, 96111.439; House v. House, 57 Ala. 262; Kennedy v. Price, 57 Miss. 771 ; Heunesy v. Walsh, 55 N. H. 515, and cases cited in the preceding notes. Heneke v. Floring, 114 111. 554; Greens. Dietrich, 114 111. 636; Burdette v. May, 100 Mo. 13; Nances. Nance, 28 111. App. 587 ; Rice v. Pennypacker, 5 Del. Ch. 33. There Is no resulting trust in favor of one whose money is- expended in improve- ments on the land. Bodwell v. Nutter, 63 N. H. 446. 478 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 500 the evidence iu support of both propositions must be clear and free from reasonable doubt. ^ Resulting trusts are now regulated by statute in New York, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Kansas. They all substantially abolish such resulting trusts as arise in a conveyance to one person in favor of another who has paid the consideration, except in favor of the judgment-creditors of the latter. They may enforce the trust in their behalf if they were creditors at the time of the conveyance.^ But the statutes expressly except those cases where the deed has been taken in the name of another, through some accident, fraud or mistake.^ These resulting trusts rest upon the presumption that the person beneficially entitled has been deprived of his interest against his will. But where the relation between the parties is so close as to permit of the counter-presumption that the one paying the consideration intended it as a gift to the one in whose name the deed is taken, as where the parties are hus- band and wife, parent and child, and the like, there will be no resulting trust.* But this is only a presumption of law 1 Heneke v. Ploring, 114 IU. 55t; Green v. Dietrich, 114 111. 636; St. Patrick's Catholic Church v. Daly, 116 111. 76; Woodward v. Sibert, 82 Va. 441; Catoe v. Catoe (S. C. 1890), 10 S. B. 1078; Hoover v. Hoover, 29 Pa. St. 201; Behm «. Molly (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 562; Guest o. Guest, 74 Tex. 664. 2 2 R. S. N. Y. (1875) 1105, sects 51, 52, 53; 2 Comp. Laws Mich. (1871) 1331, sects. 7, 8, 9; 1 R. S. Wis. 1129, sects. 7, 8, 9; Comp. Laws Kan., p. 989, sects. 6, 7, 8; Moore v. Williams, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 116; Weers u. Rademacher, 120 N. Y. 62; Senning v. Kane, 7 N. Y. 704. 3 For cases in which these statutes have been under consideration see Reitz V. Reitz, 80 N. Y. 538; Slemon v. Schurck, 29 N. Y. 598; Weare v. Linnell, 29 Mich. 224; Munch v. Shabel, 87 Mich. 166; Derry «. Derry, 74 Ind. 560; Hon v. Hon, 70 Ind. 135; Catherwood, 65 Ind. 676; Baker o. Baker, 22 Minn. 262; Rogers «. McCauley, Id. 384; Durfee v. Pavitt, 14 Mian. 422; Graves 1). Graves, 3 Mete. 167; Kennedy b. Taylor, 20 Kan. 558; Mitchell V. Skinner, 17 Kan. 563; Underwood v. Sutliffe, 77 N. Y. 51 ; Trap- hagen v. Burt, 67 N. Y. 30; Bedford v. Graves (Ky. 1890), 1 S. W. 534. * It is presumed to be a gift, because the purchasers in the cases supposed, husband and father, are under a moral or quasi legal obliga- 479 § 500 TRUSTS. [part II. ia rebuttal to the presumption of a trust raised by the pay- ment of the consideration. If it is shown that the deed was taken in the name of the wife or child through a mis- take of the scrivener, or the fraud of some one, or with the intention that the husband or father should have the equita- ble interest, the trust will result as in any other case.^ tion to maintain the persons in wtiose names the deeds are taken, viz., wife and child. 1 Cruise Dig. 394; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 511; Kingdom v. Bridges, 2 Vern. 67: Dyer ». Dyer, 2 Cox, 92; Eider V. Kidder, 10 Ves. 360; Finch v. Finch, 15 Ves. 43; Williams ». Williams, 32 Beav. 370; Sayre v. Hughes, L. E. 5 Eq. 376; Marshall V. Crutwell, L. R. 20 Eq. 328 ; Livingston v. Livingston, 2 Johns. Ch. 637; Farnell v. Lloyd, 69 Pa. St. 239; Lorentz v. Lorentz, 14 W. Va. 809; Douglass V. Brice, 4 Eich. Eq. 322; Stevens v. Stevens, 70 Me. 92; Wei- ton V. Divine, 20 Barb. 9; Lochenour v. Lochenour, 61 Ind. 595; Smith ». StraUan, 16 Texas, 314; Sunderland u. Sunderland, 19 Iowa, 338; Baker V. Baker, 22 Minn. 262; Eead v. Huff, 40 N. J. Eq. 229; Robinson v. Rob- inson, 45 Ark. 481; Spalding v. Claghorn, 8 N. Y. S. 269 ; In re Camp, 19 N. T. S. 141. And the same presumption prevails wherever one purchases property in the name of another, while the former stands in loco parentis (between mother and child). In re De Visme, 2 De G., J. & S. 17; Bat- stone V. Salter, L. E. 19 Eq. 250. But see Murphy v. Nathans, 46 Pa. St. 508; Shawr. Eead, 47 Pa. St. 103; Flynt v. Hubbard, 57 Miss. 471; (be- tween grandfather and grandchild) ; Co. Lit. 290 b, note 249, sect. 8 ; Ebrand v. Dancer, 2 Chan. Cas. 26. See generally Beckford v. Be'ckford, LofEt. 490; Lloyd v. Read, 1 P. Wms. 607; Tucker v. Burrow, 2 Hem. & M. 515; Sayre v. Hughes, L. R. 5 Eq. 376; Currant v. Jags, 1 GoU. 261; Smith V. Patton, 12 W. Va. 641; Higdon v. Higdon, 67 Miss. 264. On the other hand there is no presumption ot a gift where the deed is taken in the name of the husband or father, and the purchase-money is paid by wife or child. Howell v. Howell, 15 N. J. Eq. 77; Beck's Exrs. v. Graybill, 28 Pa. St. 66; Thomas v. Standiford, 49 Md. 181; Lofton V. Witboard, 92 111. 461 ; Moss v. Moss, 95 111. 449; Catherwood V. Watson, 65 Ind. 675 ; Squire v. Harder, 1 Paige, 494 ; Rnss v. Mebins, 16 Cal. 350; Cunningham v. Bell, 83 N. C. 328; Tilford v. Torrey, 53 Ala. 120; Leman v. Whitley, 4 Euss. 423; Sasser v. Sasser, 73 Ga. 275 j Chile* V. Gallacher (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 208. 1 Wallace v. Bowens, 28 Vt. 638; Sawyer's Appeal, 16 N. H. 414; Dickinson v. Davis, 43 N. H. 647; .Tackson v. Matdurf, 11 Johns. 91 ; Liv- ingston t). Livingston, 2 Johns. Ch. 639 ; Stevenson t>. Stevenson, 70 Me. ' 92; Baker v. Vlning, 30 Me. 121; Eankln v. Harper, 23 Mo. 579; Eddy v. Baldwin, 23 Mo. 588; Springer v. Berry, 47 Me. 338; Skepherd v. White, 10 Texas, 72; Guthrie v. Gardner, 19 Wend. 414; Smith o. Strahan, 1& 480 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 501 §501. Constructive trusts. — Constructive trusts arise where the trustee or anj other persou holding a fiduciary position, by fraud, actual or constructive, makes an illegal disposition of trust property to the injury of the cestui que trust or beneficiary. The latter cau, at his election, follow such trust property into whosesoever hands it may come with notice of the trust. ^ And it matters not whether the original holding of such property was legal or illegal ; if, afterwards, it becomes illegal, the same rule will apply .^ The most common instances of constructive trusts are pur- chases by the trustee of trust property at his own sale, or an illegal conveyance by him to one having notice of the trust, or paying no valuable consideration. It is a general rule of law that a trustee cannot purchase at his own sale, and if he does he cannot acquire an absolute title. It is voidable at the election of the cestui que trust. Until an avoidance or ratification by him there is a constructive trust raised in his favor. ^ But this rule does not prevent him Texas, 314; Lampleigh t;. Lampleigh, 1 P. Wms. Ill; Sidmouth u. Sid- mouth, 2 Beav. 447; Williams v. Williams, 32 Beav. 370; Kilpin v. Kilpin, 1 My. & R. 520; Devoy b. Devoy, 3 Sm. & GifE. 403; Read v. Huff, 40 N. J. Eq. 229; Russell ». Russell (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. Rep. 709. It has been held that there can be no resulting trust in favor of a husband in property in the name of the wife, because the wife cannot be trustee for the husband. 1 Cruise Dig. 402; Kingdon u. Bridges, 2 Vern. 67; Alexanders. War- rance, 17 Mo. 228; Jencks v. Alexander, 11 Paige Ch. 619. This techni- cal rule is not presumed to prevail in this country as an obstacle in the way of raising a resulting trust, and certainly not in those States where the wife is treated, in respect to her property, as a /erne sole. See cases cited, supra. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 447; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 511 ; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 1044; Perry on Tr., sect. 166; Bailey v. Winn (Mo. 1890J, 12 S. W. 1045; Murphy ». Murphy (Iowa, 1890), 45 N. W. 914; Lehmann «. Rothbarth, 111 111. 185; Morgan v. Fisher's Admr,, 82 Va. 417. 2 Thus if a mortgage is given jointly to two, and one dies, the survivor would hold the mortgage as trustee for himself and the heirs and per- sonal representatives of the deceased. Bucl£ !7. Swazey, 35 Me. 41; Ran- dall V. Phillips, 3 Mason, 378; Caines v. Grant, 5 Binn. 119. s Jennison v. Hapgood, 7 Picli.8; Gardners. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 327; Col- lins V. Smith, 1 Head, 251 ; Swinburne v. Swinburne, 28 N. Y. 568 ; Bellamy 31 481 § 501 TRUSTS. [part II. from purchasing the trust property with the consent of the cestui que trust, provided the latter is of age. But such traDsactioiis are closely watched, and if th") consideration paid therefor be not adequate, the courts are greatly dis- posed to set aside the sale.^ The court of equity may also authorize the trustee to buy the property in, and in that case the title of the trustee will be good against all parties.^ V. Bellamy, 6 Fla. 62; McNish v. Pope, 8 Elch. Eq. 112; Brown v. Lynch, 1 Paige, 167; Hubbell v. Medbury, 53 N. Y. 98; Hoffman, etc., Co. v. Cum- berland, etc., Co., 16 Md. 507; Jamison v. Glasscock, 29 Mo. 191; Fair- man u. Bavin, 29 III. 76; Charles v. Dubose, 29 Ala. 367; Huff v. Earl, 3 Ind. 306; Herr's Estate, 1 Grant Cas. 272; Baldwin i). Allison, i Minn. 25; Gaerrers v. Bailleno, 48 Cal. 118; Scott v. Umbarger, 41 Cal. 410; Boyd^.Blanlcman, 29 Cal. 20; Mitchell u. Berry, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 602; McCrary ■o. Foster, 1 Iowa, 276; Grumley v. Crumley, 44 Mo. 444; Cookson v. Rich- ardson, 69 111. 137; Newton u. Taylor, 39 Ohio St. 399; Rea u. Copelin, 47 Mo. 76; Broyles o. Nowlin, 59 Tenn. 191; ReickhofE v. Brecht, 51 Iowa, 633; Pindall v. Trevor, 30 Ark. 249; Blauvelt v. Akerman, 20 N. J. Eq. 141; Barnett v. Bamber, 81 Pa. St. 247; Webster v. King, 33 Cal. 348; Tracy v' Colby, 55 Cal. 67; Tracy v. Craig, 55 Cal. 359; Davis a Eock Creek, 55 Cal. 359; Giddings v. EastiSan, 5 Paige, 561; Reitz v. Eeitz, 80 N. Y. 538; Smith v. Stephenson, 45 Iowa, 645; Mathews v. Light, 32 Me. 305; Manning v. Hayden, 5 Sawyer, 360; Jones v. Dexter, 130 Mass. 380; Whltwell v. Warner, 26 Vt. 425; Blount v. Robeson, 3 Jones' Eq. 73; Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9; Bennett v. Austin, 81 N. Y. 308; Smith v. Frost, 70 N. Y. 605; Tread well v. McKeon, 7 Baxt. 201; Fox V. Mackreth, 2 Bro. Ch. 400; Church v. Sterling, 16 Conn. 388; 1 Eq. Ld. Cas. 188, et seq.; Powell v. Glover, 3 P. Wms. 252; Kimber v. Barber, L. R. 8 Ch. 56; Heath v. Crealock, L. R. 18 Eq. 215; In re Hal- lett's Estate, L. R. 13 Ch. 696; Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, 4 My. & Cr. 41; Willett v. Blanford, 1 Harr. 253; Fawcett v. Whitehouse, 1 Russ. & M. 132; Great Luxembourg Ry. Co. o. Magnay, 25 Beav. 586; Barnes v. Addy, L. R. 9 Ch, 244; Bassett v. Shoemaker (N. Y. 1890), 20 Atl. 52. ^ Downes «. Grazebrook, 3 Meriv. 208; Ex parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 625; Morse v. Royal, 12 Ves. 355; Denton v. Donuer, 23 Beav. 285; Coles v. Trecsthlck, 9 Ves. 234; Spencer v. Newbold's, Appeal 80 Pa. St. 317; Bayan v. Duncan, 11 Geo. 67; Sallee v. Chandler, 26 Mo. 124; Richardson V. Spencer, 18 B. Mon. 450; Kennedy u. Kennedy, 2 Ala. 571; Villines V. Norfleet, 2 Dev. Eq. 167; Mitchell v. Berry, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 602; Mar- shall V. Stephens, 8 Humph. 159. = SchoUe V. Scholle, 101 N. Y. 167; Fisher's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 29; Marshall «. Joy, 17 Vt. 546; Moore i;. Mandlebaum, 3 Mich. 433; Bur- rell V. Bull, 3 Sandt. Ch. 15; Young v. Hughes, 32 N. ,L Eq. 372; Farnam 482 GH. XIII. J TRUSTS. § 501 In the same manner if the trustee attempts to make an illegal disposition of the land, his grantee will take it bound with a constructive trust in favor of the cestui que trust, unless he has had no actual or constructive notice of the trust, and has paid a valuable consideration. ^ And where such grantee is a bona fide purchaser for value, the proceeds of sale will be subject to the constructive trust in favor of the cestui que trust, into whatever kind of property such proceeds may be invested, as long as the possibility of identifying them remains.^ V. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212; Walker u. Carrington, 74 111. 4i6; Kuntz v. Fisher, 8 Kan. 90; Mahon v. McGraw, 26 Wis. 614. 1 Tiiorapson v. Wlieatley, 5 Smed. & M. 49 9; Fillman v. Divers, 31 Pa. St. 42; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 304; Siiryock v. Waggoner, 28 Pa. St. 430; Cliurch v. Church, 25 Pa. St. 278; Boone o. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177; Lyford u. Thurston, 16 N. H. 408; Stewart v. Chadwick, 8 Iowa, 463 ; Paul v. Fulton, 25 Mo. 156 ; McVey v. Quality, 97 111. 93 ; Dey v. Dey, 26 N. J. Eq. 182; Palmer v. Oakley, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 433; Veils v. Blodgett, 49 Vt. 270; Murray u. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch. 566; Phelps v. Jack- son, 31 Ark. 272; Planter's Bk. v. Prater, 64 Ga. 609; Dotterer v. Pike, 60 Ga. 29; Musham v. Musham, 87 111. 80; Swinburne v. Swinburne, 28 N. Y. 568; Newton v. Porter, 69 N. Y. 133; Siemon v. Schurck, 29 N. Y. 598; Russell v. Clark's Exrs., 7 Cranch, 69; Mercier v. Hemme, 50 Cal. 427; Sharps v. Goodwin, 61 Cal. 219; Boyd v. Brincken, 55 Cal. 427; Griffin v. Blanchar, 17 Cal. 70; Winona, etc., E. K. v. St. Paul, etc., K. R. 26 Minn. 179; Blanden v. Silsby (Vt. 1890), Atl. 639; McEachin o. Stewart, 106 N. C. 336. 2 Burks V. Burks, 7 Baxt. 353; Broyles o. Nowlin, 59 Tenn. 191; Til- ford V. Torrey, 53 Ala. 120; Pindall v. Trevor, 30 Ark. 249; Friedlandsr V. Johnson, 2 Woods C. C. 675; McDonough v. O'Neil, 113 Mass. 92; Tracy v. Kelley, 52 Ind. 535; Cookson v. Richardson, 69 111. 137; Coles ». Allen, 64 Ala. (when no trust arises); Dodge ». Cole, 97 111. 338; Derry v. Derry, 7 Ind. 560; Wells v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 133, 140, 141; Lathrop v. Bampton, 31 Id. 17; Schlaefer v. Corson, 52 Barb. 510; Swinburne v. Swinburne, 28 N. Y. 568; Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9, 16; Bartlett v. Drew, 57 Id. 587; Holden v. N. Y. & Erie Bk., 72 Id. 286; Newton v. Porter, 69 Id. 133, 136-140; Taylor v. Mosely, 57 Miss. 544; Mich., etc., R. R. v. Mellsu, 44 Mich. 321; Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441,443; Boyd v. McLsan, 1 Id. 582; Shaw w. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; Shelton v. Lewis, 27 Ark. 190; Mathews v. Hayward, 2 S. C. 239; Thompson v. Perkins, 3 Mason, 232; Duncan ». Jaudon, 15 Wall. 165; Newton .v. Taylor, 32 Ohio St. 399; Barrett v. Bamber, 81 Pa. St. 247; 483 § 501 TRUSTS. [part II, These are only the more common instances of construct- ive trusts. But there are many others, and it may be stated as the invariable rule that where there has been a fraud committed in the disposition or acquisition of the property, equity will raise a constructive trust in favor of the person so defrauded, unless it will interfere with and affect the interest of innocent third persons. ^ Thus, if one embezzles money intrusted to his care and invests it in real estate, the persou to whom the money belongs will have a constructive trust in such land as against every one except an innocent subsequent purchaser.^ But there will Veile V. Blodgett, 49 Vt. 270; Hubbard v. Burrell, 41 Wis. 365; pro- ceeds charged with a trust oit sale to a bona fide purchaser. 1 Lalsin v. Sierra Buttes Gold Mining Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 337; Boyce v. Stanton, 15 Lea, 346; Palmetto Lumber Co. v. Eisley, 25 S. C. 309; Wingerter v. Wingerter, 71 Cal. 105; Denning v. Kane, 7 N. Y. S. 704; McElroy v. Hiner (III. 1890), 24 N. B. 435; Huxley v. Rice, 40 Mich. 73; Troll V. Carter, 15 W. Va. 567; Phelps v. Jackson, 31 Ark. 272; Hen- drix V. Nunn, 46 Texas, 141; Veile v. Blorigett, 49 Vt. 270; Newell v, Newell, 14 Kan. 202; Jenkins v. Doolittle, 69 111. 415; Greenwood's Ap- peal, 92 Pa. St. 181; Barnes v. Taylor, 30 N.J. Eq. 7; HoUinshead v. Slmms. 51 Cal. 168; Mercier v. Hemme, 5S Id. 606; Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70, 76; Hammond v. Pennock, 61 Id. 145; Fulton v. Whitney, 5 Hun, 16; Baierc. Berberich, 6 Mo. App. 537; Beach v. Dyer, 93 111. 295; Naylor v. Winch, IS. & S. 655, 564; Bingham v. Bingham, 1 Ves. Sen. 126; Tucker u. Phipps, 3 Atk. 359, 360; Downes v. Jennings, 32 Beav. 290; Bailey v. Stiles, 1 Green. Ch. 220; see ante, sect. 919; Addison ». Dawson, 2 Vern. 678; Ex parte Roberts, 3 Atk. 308, 310; Atty.-Gen. ». Sothon, 2 Vern. 497; Gould v. Okeden, 4 Bro. P. C. 198; Price v. Ber- rington, 7 Hare, 394; 3 Macn. & G. 486; Harvey v. Mount, 8 Beav. 439; see ante, cases cited under sects. 946-951 ; Dyer v. Dyer, 1 Eq. Lead. Cas. 314, 350-364 (4th Am. ed.). ^ Foote ». Colvin, 3 Johns. 216; Murdock v. Hughes, 7 Smed. & M. 219; Prevost v. Gratz, 1 Pet. C. Ct. 364; Phillips v. Crammond, 2 Wash. C. Ct. 441; Johnson v. Dougherty, 18 N. J. Eq. 406; Robb's Appeal, 41 Pa. 45; Smith ». Burnham, 3 Sumn. 435; Thomas v. Walker, 6 Humph. 92; Turner v. Petigrew, 6 Humph. 438; Wallace v. Duffield, 2 Serg, & R. 521; Williams v. Turner, 7 Ga. 348; Pratt v. Oliver, 2 McLean, 313; 3 How. (U. S.) 333; Duncan v. Jandon, 15 Wall. 165; Hubbard v. Burrell, 41 Wis. 365; Pugh o. Pugh, 9 Ind. 132; Barker v. Barber, 14 Wis. 146; Barrett v. Bamber, 81 Pa. St. 247; McLarren v. Brewer, 51 Me. 402; Church V. Sterling, 16 Conn. 888; Homer c. Homer, 107 Mass. §2; Jones 484 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 501 not be any constructive trust unless it can be shown that specific pieces of property had been purchased with trust funds.^ A constructive trust also arises where one pro- cures a devise or bequest upon the fraudulent misrepre- sentation that he will apply such testamentary provisions to the use and benefit of another,^ or succeeds in effecting a purchase of property without the competition of one who desired to make the same purchase by fraudulently prom- ising the latter the benefit of such purchase, if he refrains from competition.^ But in all such cases the elements of V. Dexter, 130 Mass. 380; Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; Mathews v. Heyward, 2 S. C. 289; Watson v. Thampson, 12 E. I. 466; Schlaefer v. Carson, 52 Barb. 510; Ferris v. Van Vechten, 73 N. Y. 113; Bancroft v. Consen, 18 Allen, 50; Shelton Vj Lewis, 27 Ark. 190; Mich., etc., R. R. v. Mellen, 44 Mich. 821; Derry v. Derry, 74 Ind. 660; Reiclihoff v. Brecht, 51 Iowa, 633; White v. Drew, 42 Mo. 561 ; Tilford v. Torrey, 53 Ala. 120; Coles V. Allen, 64 Ala. 98; Moss v. Moss, 95 111. 449; Winkfleld v. Brink- man, 21 Kan. 689; Roy o. McPherson, 11 Neb. 197; Thomas o. Standi- ford, 49 Md. 181; Tracy v. Kelley, 52 Ind. 535; Dodge v. Cole, 97 111. 388; Settembre v. Putnam, 30 Cal. 490; Jenkins j). rrlnk, 80 Cal. 586; Flanders v. Thompson, 3 Woods C. Ct. 9; Keech v. Sandford, Sel. Cas. Ch. 61 ; 1 Eq. Ld. Cas. 48 ; Deg v. Deg, 2 P. Wms. 412 ; Lench v. Lench, 10 Ves. 511; Lane v. Dlghton, Ambl. 413; Ousley v. Anstruther, 10 Beav. 458; Trench v. Harrison, 17 Sim. Ill; Riehl v. Evansville Founding Assn. 104 Ind. 70; Paxton v. Stuart, 80 Va. 873; Phillips ». Overfleld, 100 Mo. 467; McEachin v. Stewart, 106 N. C. 836. 1 Phillips V. Overfleld, 100 Mo. 406. 2 Bulkley v. Wilford, 8 Bligh. (n. s.) Ill ; Chester v. Urwick, 23 Beav. 407; Middleton v. Middleton, IJ. & W. 94, 96; Church v. Ruland, 64 Pa. St. 432; McCormick v. Grogan, L. R. 4 H. L. 82, 97, per Lord West- bury (see ante, vol. 1, sect. 431) ; Podmore v. Gunning, 7 Sim. 644; 5 Id. 485; Hogeu. Hoge, 1 Watts, 163, 213; Dowd v. Tucker, 41 Conn. 197; Williams v. Vreeland, 29 N. J. Eq.. 417. 8 Combs V. Little, 3 Green Ch. 410; Marlatt v. Warwick, 18 N. J. Eq. 108; 19 Id. 439; Merritt ». Brown, 21 Id. 401, 404; Martin v. Martin, 16 B. Mon. 8; Arnold v. Cord, 16 Ind. 177; Laing v. McKee, 13 Mich. 124; Nelson v. Worrall, 20 Iowa, 469; Coyle v. Davis, 20 Wis. 564; Hidden ». Jordan, 21 Cal. 92, 99-102; Sandtoss v. Jones, 35 Id. 481, 489; Coyote, etc., Co. V. Ruble, 8 Oreg. 284; Troll v. Carter, 15 W. Va. 667; Schmidt V. Gate wood, 2 Rich. Eq. 162; Green v. Ball, 4 Bush, 586; Moore ». Tis- dale, 5 B. Mon. 352; Rose o. Bates, 12 Mo. 30; Wolford v. Herrington, S6 Pa. St. 39; 1 Eq. Ld. Cas. 350-364 (4th Am. ed.) ; Hunt v. Roberts, 485 § 501 TRUSTS. [part II fraud, and not the bare verbal promise, gives rise to the constructive trust, and if there be no fraud, there will be no constructive trust .^ The invalidity of the voluntary conveyance against the creditors of the grantor may be ascribed to the application of the same principle. The creditors have a constructive trust in the property of the debtor which follows the laud into the hands of the volun- tary grantees.^ A constructive trust will also arise in favor of a principal, where the agent buys property and takes a deed in his own name, when he has been instructed to buy the property for his principal.^ So also is there a 40 Me. 187; Hodges v. Howard, 5 R. I. 149; Praser o. Child, 5 E. D. Smith, 153; Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Watts, 163, 214; Cousins v. Wall, 3 Jones' Eq. 43; Cameron v. Ward, 8 Ga. 245; Jones v. McDougal, 32 Mass. 179; Ryan u. Dox, 34 N. Y. 307; and Wheeler v. Reynolds, 66 7. Clark, 5 Allen, 66; King v. Donnelly, 5 Paige, 46 ; Shepherd v. McEvara, 4 Johns. Ch. 136 ; Stone v. Griffin, 3 Vt. 4)00 ; McGirr v. Aaron, 1 Penn. 49 ; Gibbs v. Marsh, 2 Mete. 243 ; Adams v, Adams, 21 Wall. 185; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 532; Burrill v. Shield, 2 Barb. 457; Crocheron v. Jaques, 3 Bdw. Ch. 207; Druid Park, etc., Co. v. Dettlnger, 53Md. 46; Cloud i!. Calhoun, 10 Eich.Bq. 358; Mills ». Haines, 3 Head, 335; Furman v. Fisher, 4 Caldw. 626; Miller v. Chittenden, 2 Iowa, 315 ; White ». Hampton, 10 Iowa, 244 ; s. c. 13 Iowa, 261 ; Griffith's Admr. v. Griffith, 5 B. Mon. 113; Harris i;. Eucker, 13 B. Mou. 564; Schlessenger v. Mallard, 70 Cal. 326; Kenaday v. Edwards, 134 U. S. 117; Chesnutt v. Gann, 76 Tex. 150. 8 2 Washt). on Eeal Prop. 475; Suarez v. Pumpelly, 2 Sandf. Ch. 337; People V. Norton, 9 N. Y. 176 ; Bowditch a. Banuelos, 1 Gray, 220 ; Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Hughes, 18 N. Y. 130; Sparhawk v. Sparhawk,114 Mass. 356; Scott V. Band, 118 Mass. 215; Shepherd v. McEvers, 4 Johns. Ch. 136; Bloomer'sAppeal, 83Pa. St. 45; McPherson». Cox, 96 U. S.404; Ketchum V. MobUe, etc., E. E., 2 Woods, 532; Bailey v. Bailey, 2 Del. Ch. 95; Sat- 32 497 § 509 TRUSTS. [part II. trust, upon the death of the trustee, descended to his heirs to be administered by them, and this is still the general rule, yet if ,it would be beneficial to the estate that a new trustee be appointed, the court may do so.^ By recent statutes in England, and in some States, the appointment of a new trustee is made to operate upon the legal title, and pass it to him from the former trustee.^ But where there is no statute of that kind the appointment does not effect a transfer of the legal estate. A court of equity, in making the appointment, at the same time decrees a con- veyance to the new trustee, and will punish for coutempt of court if the holder of the legal title refuses.^ terfleld v. John, 53 Ala. 121; No. Ca. R. R. u. Wilson, 81 N. C. 223; Preston v. Wilcox, 38 Mich. 578; Green u. Blackwell, 31 N. J. Eq. 37; Collier v. Blake, 14 Kin. 250; Lane v. Lewis, 4 Dem. 468; Ra Mayfleld, 17 Mo. App. 684; City Council v. Walton, 77 Ga. 517; Loveman b. Taylor, 85 Tenn. 1 ; Morgan's Estate, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 260. Insolvency does not however, incapacitate the trustee to act as long as the court does not remove him. Raukin «. Barcroft, 114 111. 441. 1 2 Washb. on Rdal Prop. 476, 477; 5 Kent's Com. 311; Lewin on Tr. 303; Boone v. Childe, 10 Pet. 213; Berrien v. McLane, Hoftm. Ch. 420; Clark V. Taintor, 7 Cush. 567; Warden v. Richards, 11 Gray, 277; Evans V. Chew, 71 Pa. St. 47; Gray v. Henderson, 71 Pa. St. 368; Dunning ». Ocean Wat. Bk., 6 Lans. 396; Russell v. Peyton, 4 111. App. 473. In New York, by statute the trust is made to vest in the Supreme Court, instead of descending to the heirs of the deceased trustees. 1 R. S. N. Y. 730, sect. 68. See Ross v. Roberts, 2 Hun, 90; Clark v. Crego, 51 N. Y. 64J. Such seems also to be the statutory rule in Michigan and Wisconsin; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 476. If the trustee devises his trust-estate, as he may do, If not prohibited by statute, his devisee takes the place of his heir, and may perform the trust. MarlowD. Smith, 2 P. Wms. 198; Titley V. Wolstenholme, 7 Beav. 425. 2 Stat. 15, 16, Vict, ch. 55, sect. 1; Mass. Gen. Stat. ch. 100, sect. 9; Parker v. Converse, 5 Gray, 336; McNish u. Guerard, 4 Strobh. Eq. 66; 1 Rev. Stat. Mo. (1879), p. 672, sect. 3930; Rev. Stat. Couu. Tit. 12, sect. 22; Taylor v. Boyd, 3 Ohio, 337; Bennett u. Williams, 5 Ohio, 461; King «. Bell, 28 Conn. 598. " O'Keefe v. Calthorpe, 1 Atk. 17; Ex parte Greenhouse, 1 Madd. 109 Berrier v. McLane, Hoffm. Ch. 420; Webster u. Vandeventer, 6 Gray, 428 Wallace u. Wilson, 34 Miss. 357; Shepherd v. Ross Co., 7 Ohio, 271 Young V. Young, 4 Cranch, 499. 498 CH. XIII.j TRUSTS. § 510 § 510. Refusal of trustee to serve. — No one, by the unauthorized appointment of another, can be com- pelled to act as trustee. To make the perfbrmanco of the trust obligatory, he must accept the trust expressly, or so interfere with the trust property as to raise the presumption that he has accepted. ^ But when he has accepted it expressly or impliedly, he cannot of his own motion abandon it, or refuse to perform the duties. The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, relieve him from his obligation or compel him to serve, whichever course best subserves the interests of the cestui que trust."^ If the trustee named refuses to act it would have no greater effect upon the validity of the trust than would his death, or a failure to name a trustee in the deed creat- ing the trust. Another trustee would be appointed to take his place. But the refusal must be a positive disclaimer of the trust ; for otherwise the law will presume that the trust is beneficial to the trustee as well as the cestui que trust, and that they both have accepted it. A mere oral declination will not prevent the declining trustee from sub- sequently entering upon the performance of the trust, if his place has not actually been filled by the appointment of another; and, as a general rule, the court will not make 1 Baldwin v. Porter, 12 Conn. 473; Scull v. Reeves, 2 Green Ch. i; Shepherd v. McEvers, i Johns. Ch. 136; Lewis v. Balrd, 3 McLean, 58; Eyrlck v. Hetrick, 13 Pa. St. 488; Cloud v. Calhoun, 10 Rich. Eq. 358; Flint V. Clinton Co., 82 N. H. 430; Goss v. Singleton, 2 Head, 67; Lyle V. Burke, 40 Mich. 499 ; White v. Hampton, 18 Iowa, 259 ; Hearst v. Pojol, 44 Cal.230; Adams i». Adams, 21 Wall. 185; Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall. 120; Montford v. Cadogan, 17 Ves. 485; Urch u. Walker, 3 My. & Cr. 702; Barclay v. Goodloe's Excr., 83 Ky. 493. 2 Shepherd v. McEvers, 4 Johns. Ch. 136 ; Tainter v. Clark, 5 Allen, 66 ; Crnger w. Halliday, 11 Paige, 319; Bowditch v. Banuelos, 1 Gray, 220; Filchirst v. Stevenson, 9 Barb. 9; People v. Norton, 9 N. Y. 176; Drane V. Gunter, 19 Ala. 731; Diefendorf v. Speaker, 16 N. Y. 246; In re Bern- stein, 3 Redf. 203 Wilkinson v. Parry, 4 Russ. 272; Greenwood v. Wake- ford, 1 Beav. 576; Forshaw v. Higginson, 20 Beav. 485; Tildenc. Fiske, 4 Dem. 356; Barclay v. Goodloe's Exr., 83 Ky. 493. 499 § 511 TEUSTS. [part 11. such an appointment until the trustee has made a more for- mal disclaimer, 1 § 511. Survivorship. — If there are more than one trustee they take and hold the legal estate in joint-tenancy. If, therefore, one of them dies, the estate vests in the survivors to the exclusion of the heirs of the deceased trustee, and they are generally competent to administer the trust. This rule is without limitation when applied to executed trusts, but whether an executory trust survives depends upon the amount of personal confidence reposed in them all as one body.^ If the special powers in an executory trust are granted to the trustees ratione officii, i. e., given in general terms to " my trustees," the ordinary construction is that such trust powers survive.^ But if they are granted to ihem. nominativiy indicating a personal confidence in the discretion of each, there will be no survivorship.* The same rule governs the right to exercise trust powers of the new trustee appointed Tainter u. Clarke, 13 Mete. 220; Judson v. Gibbons, 5 Wend. 224; Goss V. Singleton, 2 Head, 77; McCosker u. Brady, 1 Barb. Ch. 329; White «j. Hampton, 13 Iowa, 259; Cloud ». Calhoun, 10 Klch. Eq. 358; Adams v, Adams, 21 Wall. 185 ; Flint v, Clinton Co., 12 N. H. 430 ; Byrick v. Hetriok, 13 Pa. St. 488 ; Lyle v. Burke, 40 Mich. 499; King v. Donnelly, 5 Paige, 46; Putnam's Free School v. Fisher, 80 Me. 526; Jones v. Moftett, 5 Serg. &R. 623. 2 Lane u. Debenham, 11 Hare, 188; Cole v. Wade, 16 Ves. 28; War- burton V. Sands, 14 Sim. 622; Franklin ». Osgood, 14 Johns. 553; Petert?. Beverly, 10 Pet. 564 : Jackson v. Schauber, 7 Cow. 194 ; Stewart ». Pettus, 10 Mo. 755; Burrill v. Shield, 2 Barb. 457; Saunders i). Schmaelzle, 49 Cal. 59. In New York, If one of two or more trustees resign, the others have not the power to execute the trust. In the same manner as if he were dead. Another trustee must be appointed in his place. Van Wick's Peti- tion, 1 Barb. Ch. 570. " Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 564 ; Jackson v. Given, 16 Johns. 167 ; Talnter V. Clarke, 13 Mete. 220; Zebach o. Smith, 3 Biun. 69; Gray v. Lynch, 8 Gill, 403; Bloomer v. Waldin, 3 Hiel, 365; Bergen v. Duff, 4 Johns. Ch. 308; Franklin v. Osgood, 14 Johns. 553; Co. Lit. 113 a, note, 146; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1062; Cole v. Wade, 16 Ves. 28; Wells ». Lewis, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 271; Lewin on Tr. 239. ^ See preceding note, and post, sect. 566. 500 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 513 by the court. Ordinary trust powers may be exercised by him, but those involving a personal confidence die with the removal of the trustee, in whom the confidence was reposed.^ § 512. Merger of interests. — If the legal and equitable estates of a trust become lawfully united in one person, the equitable is merged in the legal estate, in accordance with the general law of merger. But the conjunction of the two estates in one person will not produce a merger, if it would be prejudicial to the rights of any one lawfully interested in the trust property. As a general rule, it is necessary that the equitable estate should be of equal extent with the legal estate, so that a merger might take place. ^ § 513. Kights and powers of trustees. — Their rights and powers must necessarily vary materially with the char- acter and terms of the trust. So, also, do the rights and powers of the cestui que trust. The authority of the former is greatest and the powers of the latter are least in the case of executory trusts, while the converse is true of passive trusts. The powers, that either may have in active trusts, and which are peculiar to such trusts, are wholly dependent upon the particular provisions of each trust, and no general rules can be laid down in explanation of them.' It may be said of every species of trusts that possessory actions, and 1 Cole V. Wade, 16 Ves. 44 ; Hibbard v. Lamb, Ambl. 309. Doyley v. Atty.- Gen.,2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 195; Burrill^. Shield, 2 Barb. 457; LewinoDTr. 239. 2 3 Prest. Conv., 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 608, 572 ; Nicholson v. Halsey, 7 Johns. Ch. 422; Rogers «. Rogers, 18 Hun, 409; Gardner v. Gardner, 3 Johns. Ch. 53; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 307; BoUes v. State Trust Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 308; Cooper v. Cooper, 1 Halst. Ch. 9; James v. Morey, 2 Cow. 284; Donalds v. Plumb, 8 Conn. 453; Mason v. Mason, 2 Sandf. Ch. 432; Healy v. Alstoon, 25 Miss. 190; Badgett v. Keating, 31 Ark. 400; Hunt i;. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374 ; Downes v. Grazebrook, 3 Meriv. 208 ; Brydges V. Brydges, 3 Ves. 126; Selby u. Alston, 3 Ves. 339; Wade v. Paget, 1 Bev. Ch. 363; Butler v. Godley, 1 Dev. 94. s See Morse v. Morrell, 82 Me. 80; In re Roe, 119 N. Y. 609;Kenady». Edwards, 130 U. S. 117; Harris v. Petty, 66 Tex. 614; Kintner v. Jones, 122 Ind. 148. 501 § 513 TRUSTS. [part II. actions for the protection of the legal estate, must be brought by the trustee. The cestui que trust cannot maintain them. In a court of law the trustee is deemed to be entitled to the possession of the land, and may even oust the ces^wz g'ue trust from possession. The latter, if in possession, holds it merely as a tenant at sufferance or at will.^ Where there are two or more trustees, all must join in any formal act under the trust, particularly if the exercise of discretion is required, as in the case of a sale of the trust property. ^ In ordinary informal proceedings, the act of one is deemed to be the act of all. But they are not responsible for the un- lawful acts of each other unless they participate in the wrongful acts, or are guilty of negligence in the discharge of their duties, and the wrongful act could have been pre- vented by the exercise of ordinary care.* Whenever the 1 1 Cruise Dig. 414; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sect. 991; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 483; Russell v. Lewis, 2 Pick. 508; Woodman v. Good, 6 Watts & S. 169; Newton v. McLean, 41 Barb. 289; Trustees, etc., ». Stewart, 27 Barb. 553; Jackson v. Van Slick, 8 Johns. 487; Beach v. Beach, 14 Vt. 28; Mordecai v. Parker, 3 Dev. 425; Hcpburne v. Hepburne, 2 Bradf. 74; Williams' Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 377; Freeman v. Cooke, 6 Ired. Eq. 373; Allen V. Imlet, 1 Holt, 641 ; May v. Taylor, 6 Man. & Gr. 261; White v. Alberston, 3 Dev. 241; Aikin v. Smith, I Saeed, 304; Stone v. Bishop, 4 Cliff. 593; Kennedys. Fury, 1 Dall. 72; Browns. Coombs, 5 Dutch. 36; Gunn V. Barrow, 17 Ala. 743; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzgerald, 13 Gray, 400. And as the legal owner of the land, he is bound to use all proper diligence in collecting rents and profits, and paying off all taxes and other charges against the estate. Mansfield v. Alwood, 84 111. 497; Hepburne v. Hep- burne, 2 Bradf.74. 2 Cole V. Wade, 16 Ves. 28; Townsend v. Wilson, 1 B. & Aid. 608; Sin- clair S.Jackson, 8 Cow. 586; Ridgfley v. Johnson, 11 Barb. 527; Franklin V. Osgood, 14 Johns. 553; Peter u. Beverley, 10 Pet. 564; Latrobe v. Tier- nan, 2 Md. Ch. 474; Wilbur v. Almy, 12 How. 180; Taylor v. Dickinson, 15 Iowa, 484; Story's Eq. Jur., sect. 1280; 1 Cruise Dig. 455; Busse u. Schenck, 12 Daly, 12. If, however, the trust is a public one, the rule does not apply. lu public trusts, in the absence of any special rule or by-law, a mijority of the trustees are competent to act. Wilkinson v. Malin, 2 Tyrwh. 644; Hill v. Josselyu, 13 Smed. & M. 597; Chambers ». Perry, 17 Ala. 726. * The trustee cannot leave the entire control of the property in the hands of his co-trustees. And, if in consequence of such surrender, 502 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. § 513 trustees violate the rights of the cestui que trust, or fail or refuse to perform their duty, courts of equity are the proper courts to apply to for relief. And the decrees of those courts are paramount in all questions relating to the powers and duties of the parties to a trust. ^ But third parties which is in itself a clear neglect of duty, the co-trustee has been enabled to vioUvle the trust, the former will be responsible for the wrongful acts of the latter, whether they be acts of commission or omission. Kip v. Ueuiston, i Johns. 23; Ward v. Lewis, 4 Picli. 618; BanliS u. Wilkes, 3 Saindf. Ch. 99; Towne v. Ammidon, 20 Pick. 635; Spencer v. Spencer, 11 Paige, 299; Pim. v. Downing, 11 Serg. & R. 66; Jones' Appeal, 8 Watts & S. 143; Ringgold v. Ringgold, 1 Har. & G. 11 ; Latrobe v. Tiernan, 2 Md. Ch. 474; Wayman i7. Jones, 4 Md. Ch. 500; State v. Guilford, 15 Ohio, 593; Rayall's Admr. ■». McKenzie, 25 Ala. 363; Edmonds v. Crenshaw,, 14 Pet. 166; Worth v. McAded, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 199; Hall u. Carter, 8 Ga. 388; Schenck «. Schenck, 1 C. E. Green, 174; Maccubb n v. Cromwell's Exrs., 7 Gill & J. 157; Irwin's Appeal, 35 Pa. St. 294; Graham v. David- son, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 165. But if he is not the acting trustee, and merely joins in the execution of the trust in some particular matter for the sake of formality, as where he signs a receipt for money paid to the co-trustee, he will not be liable for a misappropriation by the co-trustee. Brice v. Stokes, 11 Ves. 319; Ingle v. Partridge, 32 Beav. 661; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 531; 1 How. 134; Taylor v. Benham, 5 How. 233; Sinclair v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 643. See Ormiston v. Olcott, 84 N. Y. 339; Brice ». Stokes, 2 Eq. Ld. Cas. 1748-1805. 1 Jones V. Dougherty, 10 Ga. 373 ; Tucker v. Palmer, 3 Brev. 47 ; Buslt V. Bush, 1 Strobh. Eq.377; Den v. Troutman, 7 Ired. 155; McLean «. Nel- son, 1 Jofies L. 396; Robinson v. Mauldin, 11 Ala. 997; lies v. Martin, 69 Ind. 114; Pressly v. Stribling, 24 Miss. 527; James v. Cowing, 82 N. Y. 449; Williams^. Dwinelle, 51 Cat. 442. If the duty of the trustee be purely discretionary, the court will not compel an execution. Siauley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 168 ; see post, sect. 674. Nor will the court attempt to control the discretion of a trustee in any manner, except to prevent an unreason- able exercise of it, which, on account of the injury to the beneficiaries, could not have been intended by the donor. Arnold u. Gilbert, 3 Sandf. Ch. 531; Morton v. Southgate, 28 Me. 41; Zabriskie's Exrs. u. Wetmore, 26 N. J. Eq. 18; Littlefleld v. Cole, 33 Me. 552; Leavitt v. Beirne, 21 Conn. 1; Goddard ». Brown, 12 R. I. 31; Pulpress v. African Ch., 48 Pa. St. 204; Haydell v. Hurck, 5 Mo. App. 267; Starr u. Moulton, 97 111. 625; Vallette v. Bennett, 69 111. 632; Phelps v. Harris, 61 Miss. 789; Luige v. Lachesi, 12 Nev. 306; Rammelsberg v. Mitchell, 29 Ohio St. 22; Brophy V. Bellamy, L. R. 8 Ch. 798; Bankes ». Le Despencer, U Sim. 508; Cos- tabadie v. Costabadie, 6 Hare, 410; Mauser v. Dix, 8 De G. M. & G. 371 ; Prendergast v. Prendergast, 3 H. L. Cas. 195; In re Shaw's Trusts, L. R. 503 ^514 TRUSTS. [PAET II. cannot avoid their contracts with trustees on account of the want of power of the trustee, if they have been ratified by the cestui que trust} An injunction will lie against a trustee for committing waste. ^ § 514. Bights and powers of cestuis que trust. — Where it is a passive trust, the rights of the cestui que trust are in equity almost equivalent to legal ownership. The trustee has the bare legal title, and may be compelled by chancery to do whatever in respect to the legal title is necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the property by the cestui que trust. The latter is entitled to the possession, can collect the rents and profits and apply them to his use. But the cestui que trust can only acquire possession against the will of the trustee by means of a decree in equity. A court of law would sustain an action of ejectment by the trustee. A court of equity will grant the possession to the cestui que trust if consistent with the trust, and for a further protec- tion may enjoin the trustee from proceeding at law in eject- ment.^ Wherever the code of procedure is in force as a matter of course, these distinctions as to the relative stand- ing of the trustee and cestui que ti-ust, in courts of law and 13 Eq. 124; In re Strutt's Trusts, L. R. 16 Eq. 639; Evans v. Bear, L. B. 10 Ch. 76; lies v. Martin, 69 Ind. 114; James v. Cowing, 82 N. Y. 449; Williams v. Dwinelle, 51 Cal. 442, 446. 1 Matheney v. Sandford, 26 "W. Va. 836. 2 Moses v. Johnson, 88 Ala. 517. s Lewin on Tr. 23, 470, 480; Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 113; Harris V. McElroy, 45 Pa. St. 216; Stevenson v. Lesley, 70 N. Y. 512; Battle o. Petway, 5 Ired. 576; Williamson D. Wilkins, 14Ga. 416; Gnppill b. Isbell, 2 Bailey, 230; Presley v. Stribling, 24 Miss. 527; Heard v. Baird, 40 Miss. 800 ; Stewart v. Ohadwick, 8 Iowa, 469 ; Barkley v. Dosser, 16 Lea, 629. See Watts v. Ball, 1 P. Wms. 108; Lewis u. Lewis, 1 Car. 102; Cholmon- deley v. CUnton, 4 Bligh, 115. But if there are other persons interested in the estate the court may either refuse to decree the possession to the cestui que trust, or impose such conditions and restrictions as may be nec- essary for the protection of the other beneficiaries. Shankland's Appeal, supra; Harris v. McElroy, supra; Battle v. Petway, supra; Williamson V. Wilkins, supra; Barkley v. Dosser, supra, 504 CH. XIII. J TRUSTS. § 515 of e.quity, have been necessarily abolished, and every one finds an appropriate remedy in the same civil action, and in the same court. § 515. Alienation of trust estate. — It is also a well es- tablished rule that the trustee of a dry or passive trust may be compelled by decree in chancery to convey the estate as the cestui que trust may direct. And this rule, it would seem, applies to every species of trust where such a decree is not inconsistent with the express terms of the trust. Equity will give to the cestui que trust the full power to dis- pose of the estate, whenever it can do so without violating the express or implied purpose of the trust, and without doing injury to any one interested therein. Where there is no prohibition against alienation the execution of the deed of conveyance by trustee and cestui que trust passes the ab- solute title, and the trust is destroyed by the consequent merger of interests.^ To what extent these general powers exist in an active trust must depend upon the peculiar limit- ations of such trust. Wherever the power of the trustee involves the exercise of a proprietary authority over the property, equity will regard him as the owner so far as it is necessary for the performance of the trust. And to that Bxtent will the rights and powers of the cestui que trust be curtailed.^ In New York, and other States in which the 1 1 Cruise Dig. 448; Lewin on Tr. 470; Vaux v. Parke, 7 W. & S. 19; Harris v. MaElroy, 45 Pa. St. 216; Barnett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 399; Bat- tle ?;. Petway, 5 Ired. 576; Arrington v. Cherry, 10 Ga. 429; Stewart u. Chadwick, 8 Iowa, 469. But see ante, sect. 469, where it is claimed that in the case of a passive trust of a married woman, the conveyance of the equitable estate by her without the co-operation of the trustee, will pass the legal title as well. 2 Lewln on Tr. 470; Barnett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 399; McCosker ». Brady, 1 Barb. Ch. 329; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 496, 497; Culbertson's Appeal, 76 Pa. St. 145; Williams' Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 377; Smith ». Harrington, 4 Allen, 666; Bowditch v. Andrew, 8 Allen, 339; Douglas v. Cruger, 80 N. Y. 15. But when the duties which have made the trust active have been performed the trust again becomes passive, and if It is not executed by 505 § 517 TRUSTS. [part II. New York statutes on the subject of trusts have been sub- stantially followed, the cestui que trust is now possessed of no interest which he may assign, where the trustee is charged with the collection and payment of the rents and profits of the estate to the cestui que trust. § 516. liiability of third persons for performance of the trust. — It has been held in England and in some of the American States, where a trustee has a power of sale, that the land in the hands of purchasers is subjected to a constructive trust, which compels the purchasers to see to the proper application of the purchase-money. This doc- trine has been warmly contested and denied in many of the States, and presumably the rule is generally limited to such cases where the trust is special and the sale is for a special purpose, as for the satisfaction of a particular debt or claim. Where the trust is general it is impossible for the purchaser to secure a proper application of the purchase money, and he is not held liable for any misappropriation by the trustee.^ § 517. Compensation of trustee. — Formerly the trustee was not entitled to any compensation for his services, it being considered a matter of honor. The policy of the law in respect thereto has since been changed, and it is now almost the universal rule that trustees receive a rea- sonable percentage — usually five per cent. — upon all dis- bursements made by them. But they are not permitted to make any further charge against the trust estate, even the Statute of Uses, the court may direct a conveyance by the trustee in accordance with the desires ot the cestui que trust. Welles v. Castles, 3 Gray, 323; Sherman u. Dodge, 28 Vt. 26; Waring v. Waring, 10 B. Mon. 331;Leonard's Lessee v. Diamond, 31 Md. 636; Perry on Tr., sect. 351. 1 Story Eq. Jur., sects 1127, 1130; 1 Cruise Dl?. 450; Potter v. Gard- ner, 12 Wheat. 498; Duffy v. Calvert, 6 Gill, 487; Duiich v. Kent, 1 Vern. 260; Spalding u. Shiilmer, 1 Vern. 301; Andrews «. Sparhawk, 13 Pick. 393; Davis V. Christian, 15 Gratt. 11; Stall v. Cincinnati, 16 Ohio St. 169. 506 CH. XIII.] TRUSTS. §517 though the services rendered may be unusual, and for the performance of which they have hired others.^ If the estate is held in trust for the life of the cestui que trust, and provides for a distribution of the property at her death, the cost of administration, including the compensa- tion of the trustee, should be charged up to the account of the cestui que trust for life.^ 1 Story Eq. Jur., sect. 1266; 1 Cruise Dig. 451; Bobinson v. Pett, 2 Eq. Ld. Cas. 512, 538-6C0 C^^th Am. ed.); Meacham v. Sternes, 9 Paige Cli. 398; In tlie matter of Schell, 53 N. Y. 9 Paige, 263; Denny v. Allen, 1 Pick. 147; Barrell v. Joy, 16 Mass. 221; Singleton v. Lowndes, 9 S. C. 465; Hall v. Hall, 78 N. Y. 535; Warbass v. Armstrong, 2 Stockt. Ch. 263; Wagstafl V. Lowerne, 23 Barb. 209. But see Constant v. Matteson, 22 111. 546; Mayor v. Galluchat, 6 Rich. Eq. 1. ' Cammann v. Cammann^ 2 Demarest (N. Y.), 211. 507 CHAPTER XIY. EXECUTOET DEVISES. Skction 530. Nature and origin. 531. Executory devises, vested or contingent. 532. Classes of executory devises. 533. Distinguished from devises in prcesenti. 534. Reversion of estate undisposed of. 535. Distinguished from uses. 536. Distinguished from remainders. 537. Same — Limitation after a fee. 538. Same — Limitation after an estate-tail. 539. Same — "Where first limitation lapses. 540. Same — Limitations after an executory devise. 541. Indestructibility of executory devises. 542. Limitation upon failure of issue. 543. Same — In deeds. 544. Doctrine of perpetuity. 545. Rule against accumulation of profits. 546. Executory devises of chattel interests. § 530. Nature and origin. — An executory devise is a future interest or estate in lands limited in a will in such a manner that it cannot take effect as a remainder or as a fu- ture use. The law of executory devises has been evolved by a course of judicial legislation based upon the Statute of Wills enacted in the reign of Henry VIII.^ The cardinal rule for the construction of wills is that the intention of the testator must be carried out, if at all possible. In conform- ity with this liberal rule of construction, the common-law rules for the limitation of future interests in real property were discarded, and estates or interest were created and rec- ognized under the name of executory devises, which could not have been created at common law by deed. Mr. Fearne ' See post, sect. 872. 508 CH. XIV. J EXECUTORY DEVISES. § 530 defines an executory devise to be " such a limitation of a future estate or interest in lands as the law admits in the case of a will, though contrary to the rules of limitation in conveyances at common law." ^ A remainder, the only common-law estate which could be directly created by con- veyance, has been defined to be a future estate in lands which is preceded and supported by a particular estate in possession, which takes effect in possession immediately upon the determination of the prior or particular estate, and which is created at the same time and by the same con- veyance.^ It follows, therefore, that every devise of a fu- ture estate," which is not preceded by a particular estate created by the same instrument, or which, if there is such a prior limitation, takes effect in possession before or after the natural expiration of the prior limitation, is an executory devise.' An executory devise was once held to be an inter- est somewhat different from an estate, although not a mere naked possibility.* But whatever need there may have been for such refined distinctions in the incipient stages of the growth of those interests, none exists now, and for all prac- tical purposes executory devises may be considered as es- tates in land, having all the characteristics and appurtenances of a common-law estate, differing from the latter only in the mode of creation and limitation. They are alienable ' Pearne Cont. Rem. 386; 2 "Washb. on Eeal Prop. 680; 2 Bla. Com. 172; 4 Kent's Com. 264 ; 2 Jar. on Wills (5tli Am. ed.), 483 ; Purefoy v. EoKers, 2 Lev. 39; n. c, 2 Saund. 388; Goodright v. Cornish, 4 Mod. 258; McRee's adm'rs ». Means, 34 Ala. 349. ' See ante, sect. 396. ' Moore v. Parker, 1 Ld. Eaym. 37 ; Doe v. Scarborough, 3 Ad. & El. 2, 897 ; Key v. Gamble, 2 Jones, 123 ; Gore v. Gore, 2 P. Wms. 28 ; Harris v. Barnes, 4 Burr. 2157 ; Doe v. Morgan, 3 T. E. 763 ; Bullock . Cornish, 1 Salk. 226; Harris ». Barnes, 4 Burr. 2157; Yeaton v. Eoberts, 28 N. H. 465; Holderby v. Walker, 3 Jones Eq. 46; Thompson «. Hoop, 6 Ohio St. 480; Darcus o. Crump, 6 B. Mon. 366. Thus, i£ there is a devise to the children of A. to be begotten, although the devise would, without the words in italics, have been construed as a devise in prxsenti, and would have been confined to the children born at the testator's death, the presence of the words to be begotten, or other- words of similar import, would be sufficient evidence of the intention of the testator to include all the children of A., whether they are born before or after his death, and the devise would, therefore, be executory. Mogg V. Mogg, 1 Meriv. 654; Newill v. Newill, L. R. 12 Eq. 432; Eldowes 512 CH. XIV. J EXECUTORY DEVISES. § 534 where there are persons in being who have the capacity to take the devise, it will be considered that it will be a devise in prcesenti, and not an executory devise, if this con- struction is not rendered impossible by the other provisions of the will.i And this rule has been followed even in the case of an alternate devise which is to take effect upon the death of the first devisee without ctiildren or issue. The presumption would be that the contingency referred to the death of the first devisee during the life of the testator.* § 534. Reversion of estate undisposed of. — Where there is no limitation preceding the executory devise, the estate descends to the testator's heirs and remains in them until the event happens, when the devise is to take efiect. And if the executory devise is an estate less than a fee simple, the land will revert to the heirs upon its termination.^ If V. Eldowes, 30 Beav. 603; Amiable v. Patch, 3 Pick. 360; Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Serg. & K. 144; Eupp v. Eberly, 79 Pa. St. 141; Napier v. Howard, 3 Ga. 202 ; Dunn v. Bk. of Mobile, 2 Ala. 152. And where there are no persons in esse, who would come under the class of devisees named at the time of the testator's death, nor had there been any before his death, it seems to be the presumption of law that the testator intended to create an executory devise. Shepherd v. Ingram, Amb. 448; Weld v. Bradbury, 2 Vern. 705; Doe v. Carleton, 1 Wils. 226; Haughton v. Harrison, 2 Atk. 329; Ross V. Adams, 28 N. J. L. 160. And where there is a devise to children, or some other definite class of persons, and some of them are born and others are unborn at the death of the testator, or where none are born then, but some come into being afterwards, leaving others which are subsequently born, those who are in being take vested estates, and are entitled to the whole income until the others are born, when the devise opens and lets them In. These executory devises have a close resemblance to remainders to a class. Shepherd v. Ingram, Amp. 448; Mainwaring v. Beevor, 8 Hare, 44; Shawe v. Cunliffe, 4 B. C. 144; Mills V. Norris, 6 Ves. 335; Stone v. Harrison, 2 Call, 715. See ante, sect. 402. 1 Webster v. Welton, 53 Conn. 183 ; Kouvalinka v. Geibel, 40 N. J. Eq. 443; Toner v. Collins, 67 Iowa, 369; s. c. 56 Am. Rep. 346; Scott v. West, 63 Wis. 529. 2 Carroll v. Conley (IVf. T. 1890), 9 N. Y. S. 865; Jones v. Webb, 5Del. Ch. 132; Burdge v. Walling (N. J. 1888), 16 Atl. 51. 3 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 686, 687 ; 2 Prest. Abst. 120 ; 4 Kent's Com. 268. 33 513 § 534 EXECUTORY DEVISES. [PART II. the preceding limitation is not sufficient to support the fu- ture limitation as a contingent remainder, and the former expires before the latter vests, there will be an intermediate reversion of the estate to the heirs. The same general prin- ciples would apply to executory devises of the second class. The only difficulty experienced in applying them is when the vesting and enjoyment of the executory devise do not absolutely require the destruction of the entire preceding estate, as where the former is a particular estate and the latter is a fee. Thus, where the land is devised to A. and his heirs, and, upon the happening of some contingency to B. for life, it is a mooted question, both sides sustained by eminent authority, whether the estate in A. would be de- stroyed altogether by the vesting of B.'s estate for life, or whether A. is only divested of his estate during the contin- uance of B.'s estate, and retains the reversion in him and his heirs. Mr. Fearne supports the former view, while the latter is maintained by Mr. Preston, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Washburn.^ The intention of the testator certainly must govern in such a case. If a fee simple be devised to one, there is a manifest intention on the part of the testator to deprive his own heirs of any interest in the land. If he attaches thereto an executory devise to B. for life, in the absence of any express evidence to the contrary, it only so far negatives the presumed intention that A. should have the fee as is required to give to B. an estate for his life. Upon the vesting of B.'s estate the present estate in A. would be only suspended until B.'s death, when the estate will revert to him and his heirs. ^ 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 686; Fearne Cent. Rem. 251; 2 Prest. Abst. 140; 2 Pow. Dev. 241. Mr. Washburn states that a case, involving this question, is said to have arisen in the Delaware courts, p. 687. See to the same effect, Thomas v. Thomas (N. J.), 18 Atl. 355. 2 Mr. Powell says: "To this important rule, namely, that an estate subject to an executory devise, to arise on a given event, is, on the hap- pening of that event, defeated only to the extent of the executory Interest, the only possible objection that can be advanced is the total absence of 514 CH. XIV. J EXECUTORY DEVISES. § 536 § 535, Distinguished from uses. — Uses may be created by devise as well as by deed, and a future limitation in a will will not be construed as an executory devise if it ia limited as a use, especially if there is a seisin raised by the will to support the use. Thus, where the devise is to A. to the use of B., the Statute of Uses would be required to operate upon the devise and transfer the legal estate from A. to B.^ But the mere expression "to the use of" appearing in a devise will not necessarily convert the devise into a use, and it is held that a simple devise to the*use of A. will take effect as an executory devise.^ § 536. Distinguished from remainders. — Whenever a future limitation in a devise can take effect as a remainder, it will be construed as such. It cannot operate as an executory devise. This rule of construction arises from the desire of the courts to confine themselves to common-law estates and the rules governing them ; and the doctrine of executory devises is recognized and applied only when the intention of the testator cannot otherwise be effectuated.^ direct authority for it, for the hooks do not furnish a single example of its application." 2 Pow. Dev. 211. 1 Co. Lit. 271 b, note 231, sect. 3; Sandf. on Uses, 243; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 433, 434. Whether the use will be executed by the statute, or remain a trust, leaving the legal title in the devisee as trustee, is governed by the same rules which apply to uses created by act inter vivos. See Doe v. Field, 2 B. & Ad. 564; Doe v. Homfray, 6 A. & E. 206; Norton V. Leonard, 12 Pick. 152; Ayer v. Ayer, 16 Pick. 327; Upham v. Varney, 16 N. H. 467; Wood v. Wood, 5 Paige Ch. 596. 2 1 Sugden on Pow. 2, 3. ' Purefoy v. Kogers, 2 Wm. Saund. 388; Doe v. Morgan, 3 T. R. 763; Doe V. Fonnereau, Dougl. 487; Doe v. Considine, 6 Wall. 475; Nightin- gale V. Burrell, 15 Pick. 104; Terry v. Briggs, 12 Mete. 17; Hall v. Priest 6 Gray, 18; Manderson v. Lukens, 23 Pa. St. 31. In Purefoy v. Rogers, the rule was stated thus: "Where a contingency is limited to depend upon an estate of freehold, which is capable of supporting a remainder, it shall never be construed to be an executory devise, but a contingent remainder only." Goodright v. Cornish, 4 Mod. 258; Reeve u. Long. Garth. 310; Doe v. Scarborough, 3 Ad. & El. 2, 897; Gore v. Gore, 2P, Wms. 28; Harris v. Barnes, 4 Burr. 2157. 515 § 537 EXECUTORY DEVISES. [PAET II. What are the requisites and characteristics of remainders have been already discussed, and it will be necessary to mention here only certain important cases in which doubt may arise. In respect to the first class of executory devises where there is no sufficient particular estate, or none at all, no question can arise as to the proper construction. The difficulty is presented in the second class, in determining whether the second limitation takes effect in derogation of the prior estate. In New York, Michigan, Wiscousin, Minnesota, California and Dakota, it is provided by statute that no contingent remainder is defeated by the termination of the precedent estate before the happening of the contin- gency ; but that it will take effect thereafter, whenever the contingency happens. This is a practical abrogation of all distinction between contingent remainders and executory devises. So, also, in Alabama, all contingent remainders are abolished, and all estates in expectancy declared to have the effect of executory devises. § 537. Same — liimitation after a fee. — It has been seen that a remainder cannot be limited after a fee.^ And where the preceding estate is in fact a fee, whether it is vested or contingent, a subsequent limitation, which is made to defeat the preceding estate after it has vested, is an execu- tory devise and not a remainder. But the fact that there is a preceding limitation of the fee will not necessarily make the subsequent limitation an executory devise. If the sub- sequent limitation defeats and takes the place of the pre- ceding limitation upon the breach of a condition, subsequent to the vesting of the first estate, the second limitation is an executory devise.^ But if the subsequent limitation is merely 1 See ante, sects. 396, 398, 418. 2 Gulliver u. Wicketts, 1 Wils. 105; Meadows v. Parry, X Ves. & B. 124; Fonnereau v. Fonuereau, 3 Atk. 315: Doec. Selby, 2 B. & C. 930; Night- ingale V. Burrell, 15 Pick. 104; Doe v. Beauclerk, 11 East, 657; Carr v. ErroU, 6 East, 58; Doe Heneage, 4T. R. 13; Nicholl w. NichoU, 2 W. Bl. 516 CH. XIV.] EXECUTORY DEVISES. § 538 an alternate devise which depends upon a condition prece- dent to the first, and which must vest, if at all, before the first, then it is a contingent remainder and not an executory devise. It is an alternate remainder, or a remainder with a double aspect. "^ § 538. Same — Lilmitation after an estate tail. — A re- mainder can be limited after an estate tail, which is to take effect upon the failure of issue. ^ But it is often difficult in a devise to one and his heirs, and a limitation over in case of a failure of issue, to discover whether it was the inten- tion of the testator to give to the first taker an estate tail, or only that his estate of inheritance should cease when there should be a failure of issue, the failure of issue be- ing the contingency, when the limitation over should takp effect. If it was his intention to create an estate tail, the limitation over is a remainder;^ otherwise, an executory devise.* 1159; Barney «. Arnold, 15 E. I. 78; Shadden v. Hembree (Or. 1888), 18 Pac. Rep. 572. 1 Luddington v. Kime, 1 Ld. Raym. 203; Goodwright u. Dunham, 1 Dougl. 265; Doe v. Selby, 2 B. & C. 926; Doe v. Challls, 2 Eng. L. Eq. 215; Dunwoodie v. Reed, 3 Serg. & R. 452; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ; 3 Am. Rep. 565; Wilson v. White, 109 N. Y. 59. See ante, sect. 415. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 690; Wiscot's Case, 2 Rep. 61; Roe v. Bald- were, 5 T. E. 110; Page v. Hayward, 2 Sallc. 570. Wilkes v. Lion, 2 Cow. 392; Hall v. Priest, 6 Gray, 18; Poole v. Morris, 26 Ga. 374. See ante, sect. 398. 3 Parker v. Parker, 5 Mete. 134; Nightingale v. Burrill, 15 Pick. 104; Allen V. Trustees, 102 Mass. 263; Hannau v. Osborn, 4 Paige Ch. 336; Conklin v. Conklin, 3 Sandf. Ch. 64; Dolfe v. Van Nostrand, 2 N. Y. 436; Ferris v. Gibson, 4 Edw. Ch. 707; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 21 N. J. L. 480; Goddard v. Goddard, 10 Pa. St. 79; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481; 3 Am. Rep. 565; Hill v. Hill, 74 Pa. St. 173; 15 Am. Rep. 545; Richardson V. Richardson, 80 Me. 585; East v. Garrett, 84 Va. 523; Summers v. * Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153; Jackson v. Elmendorf, 3 Wend. 222; Jackson v. Thompson, 6 Cow. 178; Jackson v. Staats, 11 Johns. 337; Pond V. Bergh, 10 Paige, 120; Guernsey v. Guernsey, 36 N. H. 267; Lion V. Burtlss, 20 Johns. 483 ; Richardson o: Noyes, 2 Mass. 56 ; Couch v. Gor- ham, 1 Conn. 36; Rapp v. Rapp, 6 Pa. St. 45; Mifflin v. Neal, 6 Serg. & 517 § 539 EXECUTORY DEVISES. [PART II. S 539. Same — Where first limitation lapses. — The will goes into effect at the testator's death, and is construed according to the circumstances surrounding the testator at that time. No change of circumstances can affect the will Smith, 127 III. 645; Reinselil v. Shirk, 119 Pa. St. 108; Titsell v. Cochran (Pa. 1887), 10 Atl. Rep. 9 ; Knoderer v. Merriman (Pa. 1887), 7 Atl. Eep. 152. And at common law the limitation over upon failure of issue is always presumed to bo a remainder after an estate tail, unless there is something in the context to the contrary, in conformity with the general rule requiring a future limitation to be construed as a remainder, if it can take effect as such. Haw ley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 3; Parker v. Par- ker, 5 Mete. 134; Vedder v. Evartson, 3 Paige, 281; Wolfe v. Van Nos- trand, 2 N. Y. 436; Stehman v. Stehman, 1 Watts. 466; Wall v. Maguire, 21 Pa. St. 248; Manderson v. Lukens, 23 Pa. St. 31. But it must be re- membered that estates tail have now been abolished in very many of the States; in some they are converted into fees simple, while in others the first taker has an estate for life, and the rest of the estate constitutes a contingent remainder in fee in the first taker's issue and their descend- ants. See ante, sect. 52. In both classes of States the doctrine that a remainder can be limited after a fee tail has become obsolete and impossible through the inability to create an estate tail. If there is, in one of these States, a devise to A. and the heirs of his body, with a limitation over upon failure of issue, the limitation over can only take effect as an exe- cutory devise, and will be a good or a void limitation, according as the testator is construed to intend a definite or indefinite failure of issue. Heepost, sect. 542. R. 460; Nicholson v. Bettle, 57 Pa. St. 3S4; Morris v. Potter, 10 R. I, 58; Sutherland v. Cox, 3 Dev. L. 394; Garland v. Watts, 4 Ired. Eq. 287; Burfoot V. Burfoot, 2 Leigh, 119; Hart v. Thompson, 3 B. Mon. 482; Al- lender's Lessee v. Sussan, 33 Md. II; 3 Am. 171 ; Wilson v. WiUon (N. J.), 19 Atl. Rep. 132; Gordon v. Gordon (S. U. 1890), II S. E. Rep. 334; Pate V. French, 122 Ind. 10; Fields v. Whiifleld (N. C. 1888), 7 S. E. 780; In re Swinburne (R. I. 1888), 14 Atl. Rep. 850; Martin v. Renaker (Ky. 1888), 9 S. W. Rep. 419; Buchanan v. Buchanan, 99 N. C. 308; Galloway V. Carter, 100 N. C. Ill; Henley v. Robb, Pickle (Tenn.), 474; Williams V. Lewis, 100 N. C. 142; Matthews v. Hudson (Ga. 1888), 7 S. E. Rep. 286; Henderson ». Kinard (S. C. 1888), 6 S. E. Ri'p. 853; Stokes v. Van W.ck, 83 Va. 724; O'Brien v. O'Leary, 64 N. C. 332; Johnson's Exr. v. Citizens' Back, 83 Va. 65; Parrlsh v. Parrish's Trustees (Ky. 1887), 4 S. W. 819; Randall v. Josselyn, o9 Vt. 557; Goddard v. Whitney, 140 Mass 92; Trexler v. Holler, 107 N. C. 617; Prosser v. Hardesty, 101 Mo. 593. Generally the construction depends upon the express words of the testa- tor used in limiting the estater But if they leave the character of the limitation doubtful, then resort must be had to the context; and if it ap- 518 CH. XIV. J EXECUTORY DEVISES. § 539 which occurs afterwards. If, therefore, there be a suffi- cient particular estate to support the future contingent lim- itation at the death of the testator, it will taiie effect as a contingent remainder, and any subsequent lapse of the par- ticular estate, before the future estate vested, would defeat such contingent estate. Once a remainder, always a remain- der. But if the particular estate is void or lapses because of a change of circumstances, occurring between the execu- tion of the will and the testator's death, the devise will be construed as if there had been no preceding limitation, and the contingent limitation will be supported as an executory devise.^ But the testator may expressly provide that the pears from the context that it was the intention of the testator to create an executory devise, it will be held to be one, notwithstanding the ordi- nary presumption that such a limitation is a remainder. The presump- tion prevails only when it is absolutely impossible to ascertain the intention of the testator. Ferson v. Dodge, 23 Pick. 237; Hallu. Chaffee, 14 N. H. 215; Hill v. Hill, 4 Barb. 419; Den v. Allaire, 20 N. J. L. 6; Armstrong v. Kent, 21 N. J. L. 509; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 29 N. J. L. 185; Scott V. Price, 2 Serg. & R. 59; Berg v. Anderson, 72 Pa. St. 87; Hill v. Hill, 74 Pa. St. 173; 15 Am. Rep. 545; Hilleary v. Hilleary, 26 Md. 275; Rucker ?J. Lambden, 12 Smed. & M. 231; Jones v. Miller, 13 Ind. 337; Booker v. Booker, 5 Humph. 505; Smith v. Hunter, 23 Ind. 580; Sum- mers V. Smith, 127 111. 645; Devecmon v. Shaw, 70 Md. 219; Chaplin v. Doty (Vt. 1888), 15 Atl. 362. So, also, vyhere a statute makes all limita- tions over upon failure of issue, refer to a deflnite failure of issue, the limitation will be construed ordinarily to be an executory devise. Pink- ham V. Blair, 57 N. H. 226; Macombe v. Miller, 26 Wend. 229; Wilson . Lavalle, 27 111. 448; Funkhouser w. Langkopf, 26 Mo. 45; Edwards v. McClung, 39 Ohio St. 41. 36 561 SECTION II. BASEMENTS. Section 597. What are easements. 598. When merger takes effect. 6'J9. How acquired. 600. Easements by express grant. 601. Implied grant. 602. Equitable easements. 603. Easements im[)lied from covenant. 604. Rights of action in defense of easement. 605. How easements may be lost or extinguished. 606. Kinds of easements. 607. Right of way. 608. A private way. 609. Ways of necessity. 610. Who must repair the way. 611. Public or highways. 612. Licht and air. 613. How acquired. 614. Right of water. 615. Percolations and swamps. 616. Artificial water courses. 617. Easements in watercourses and surface dalnage. 618. Right of lateral and subjacent support. 619. Implied grant of lateral support. 620. Party walls. 621. Double ownership in buildings — Subjacent support. 622. Legalized nuisances. § 597. What are easements. — As has been explained in distinguishing between commons and easements, the latter are rights of enjoyment in, or issuing out of, an- other's land, which restrict or limit the owner's right of enjoyment either affirmatively by giving another person a right to use the hind for certain purposes, as, for example, a right of passing over the land, or negatively, by restrain- ing tlie owner from using it in a particular manner, such as the erection of buildings so near to the boundary line as 562 CH. XVI. J ■ EASEMENTS. § 598 to exclude the light and air from the residence of an ad- joining proprietor.^ A technical easement can only exist as appurtenant to an estate in lands, although there may be an incorporeal hereditament in the nature of an ease- ment, which exists and is owned independently of any estate in the land.^ Two estates are thereby brought into relation with each other, and the existence of both is necessary to the maintenance of an easement. They are called the dominant and servient estates. The dominant estate is the one enjoying the easement, and to which it is attached ; the servient estate is the one upon which the easement is im- posed. As appurtenant to the dominant estate, the ease- ment passes with it into whose hands soever the land may come. The easement cannot be severed from it.^ § 598. When merger takes effect. — When the dominant estate falls into the possession of the owner of the servient ' Ritger v. Parker, 8 Gush. (Mass.) 145; Gale on Easements, p. 5; Oliver V. Hook, 4T Md. 301 ; see also Fetters v. Humphreys, 3 C. E. Green (N. J.), 2G0; Tabor v. Bradley, 18 N. Y. 109; Pierce v. Keator, 70 N. Y. 419; Posti;. Pearsall, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 425; Scriver v. Smith, 100 N.Y. 471 ; Big Mt. Imp'v't Co.'s App. 54 Pa. St. 361; Kieffer «. Imhof, 26 Pa. St. 438; Pomeroy . Dyer, 125 Mass. 287; Wentworth v. PMlpot, 60 N. H. 193; Burns v. Gallagher, 62 Md. 462; see, also, Mitchell V. Seipel, 63 Md. 251; Oliver v. Hook, 47 Md. 301; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 fMet. (Mass.) 234; Carbrey v. Willis, 7 Allen (Mass.), 364; Randall v. McLaughlin, 10 Allen (Mass.), 366; Thayer v. Pajne, 2 827. 568 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 602 that the grantee can get to it only with great difficulty and inconvenience. § 602. Equitable easements. — Corresponding to, and forming a part of, the subject of implied easements, is the doctrine of equitable easements. At law it is impossible for an easement to exist between two estates owned by the same person. If the two parcels had had separate owners, upon the union of them in the one owner, as we have seen, the easement would at least be suspended during the con- tinuance of such union and revive upon their separation. The easement would revive only when the dominant and servient estates were of unequal value in the matter of du- ration. ^ But notwithstanding the fact that at law there can be no easement in favor of one parcel imposed upon another, both being held by the same owner, yet in equity such a re- lation may exist. If the owner of two parcels so uses them as to make one servient to the other, as, for example, in the construction of a drain carrying waste water from one estate over the other, in equity an easement will be imposed upon one lot in favor of the other, which, upon the severance of ownership by alienation, assumes the character of a legal ■easement,^ if its continuance is essential to the enjoyment of the estate which is sold.^ It seems also that the servitude must be an open and notorious incumbrance, particularly 1 See ante, sect. 598. 2 Pyer v. Carter, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 410: Guy v. Brown, 5 Moore, 644; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 Mete. 234; Kenyon v. Nichols, 1 R. I. 411; New Ips- wich i"actory v. Batcheldor, 3 N. H. 190; Brakely v. Sharp, 9 N. J. Eq. 9; s. e. 10 N. J. Eq. 206; Kieffer v. Imhoff, 26 Pa. St. 438; McTavish v. Car- roll, 7 Md. 352; Jones v. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1; 6 Am. Eep. 300; Lampman V. Milks, 21 N. Y. 505; Hubbard v. Town, 33 Vt. 295; Gerber v. Grubell, 16 111. 217; Smith v. Blanpied, 62N. H. 652; Smith v. Smith, 62N. H.429; Crosland v. Eogers (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 874; Lamprnan v. Milks, 21 N. Y. 505; Huttemeier v. Albro, 18 N. Y. 48; Lansing v. Wiswall, 5 Denio (N. Y.),213. 3 Smith V. Blanpied, 62 N. H. 652; Smith v. Smith, 62 N. H. 429; Cros- land V. Eogers (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 874. 569 § 602 EASEMENTS. [PART II. where the servient estate is conveyed away.^ The same principle has been applied to a case where the owner of two lots conveys them to different grantees, and so divides them that the wall of the house conveyed to one of them falls within the boundary line of the other, held to create an equitable easement in favor of the owner of the house. ■^ Especially does an easement arise when the quasi dommsLut estate is granted to another. If the quasi servient estate has been conveyed, it is a question of some doubt whether there is reserved to the grantor by implication an easement to maiutain the drain or other burden upon the granted estate. The authorities, English and American, are rt va- riance on this question. In this country the better opinion is that the rule would be the same as in the case of the con- veyance of the quasi dominant estate,^ especially if it was strictly necessary to the enjoyment of the dominant estate, and the existence of the easement is apparent or known to the grantee.* 1 TredwplI v. Insley, 120 N. Y. 458; 24 N. E. 651; Fetters v. Hum- phreys, 19 N. J. Eq. 471 ; Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 1 Zab. (N. J.) 133; Par- sons V. Johnson, 68 N. Y. 62; s. c. 23 Am. Eep. 149; Lampman ». Milks, 21 N. Y. 505; Outerbridge v. Phelps, 13 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 117; Schrymser V. Phelps, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 1 ; Grant v. Chase, 17 Mass. 443. 2 Reluers v. Young, 38 Hun, 335; John Hancock, etc. y. Patterson, 103 Ind. 582; 53 Am. Etp. 550. 3 Warren v. BlaUe, 54 Me. 289; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 Mete. 234; Car- brey B. Willis, 7 Allen, 369; Randall v. McLaughlin, 10 Allen, 366; Keats V. Huao, 115 Mass. 204; 15 Am. Rep. 80; Butterworth v. Crawford, 4GN. Y. 349; 7 Am. R p. 352; Parsons v. Johnson, 68 N. Y. 62; 23 Am. Rep. 149; Haverstick i>. Sipe, 33 Pa. St. 368; McCarty v. Kitchenman, 47 Pa. St. 243; Powell v. Sims, 5 W. Va. 1; 13 Am. Rep. 629; Turners. Thomp- son, 58 Ga. 268; 24 Am. Rep. 297; Mullen v. Striker, 19 Ohio St. 135; 2 Am. Rep. 379; Morrison v. Marquardt, 24 Iowa, 35. But see Jones v. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1; 6Am. Rep. 300; Hubbard b. Town, 33 Vt. 295; Ger- ber u. Grubell, 16 III. 217; Sloat v. McDougall, 9 N. Y. S. 631; Burr v. Mills, 21 Wend. 290; Treadwell v. Inslee, 120 N Y. 458. * Scott V. BcQlel, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 1; Hardy v. McCuUough, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 251; Burrell v. Hobson, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 322; Dillman v. Hoffman, 38 Wis. 559; Jarstadt v. Smith, 51 Wis. 96; Butterworth u. Crawford, 46 N. Y. 349; Curtis v. Avrault, 47 N. Y. 73; Smyles v. Hastings, 570 CH. XVI. J EASEMENTS. § 603 § 603. Easement implied from covenant. — Somewhat similar are the cases where, iu the conveyance of several parcels of land to different grantees, the grantor imposes a restriction upon the use and mode of enjoyment of the land so granted, which creates a mutual benefit to the owners of the several parcels. Even though the restriction l)e in the form of a covenant, equity will construe it to have the binding force of an easement, and will sustain an action for its enforcement in favor of any one of the owners. They are covenants running with the land, and can be enforced by any one in whose possession any one of the parcels should fall.^ Such would be the case where, in granting several parcels of land, the conveyances contain covenants that any buildings thereafter erected upon any one of them shall be set back from the street a certain distance. An injunction would be granted at the suit of either of the owners of the several pieces of property restraining another from violating the covenant.^ But if the covenant as to the use of the land is imposed upon only one of the lots, and omitted in the conveyance of the others, the covenant 22 N. Y. 21T; Ogden v. Jennings, 62 N. Y. 526; Griffiths v. Mor- rison, 106 N. Y. 165; Outerbridge v. Phelps, 13 Abb. N. C. (N.Y.) 117; Morrison v. King, 62 III. 30; Life Ins. Co. v- Patterson, 103 Ind. 582; s. c. 53 Am. Rep, 550; Robinson v. Thraillsill, 110 Ind. 117; Cave V. Crafts, 53 Cal. 135; Sanderlin v. Baxter, 76 Va. 299; s. c. U Am. Rep. 165; Galloway i;. Bouesteel, 65 Wis. 79; Petland u. Keep, 41 Wis. 490; Turner w. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268; U. S. i). Appleton, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 492; Hazard v. Robinson, 3 Mason (U. S.), 272; Shoemaker v. Shbe- maker, 11 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 80; Reins v. Young, 38 Hun, 335; Voorheis V. Burchard, 6 Lans. (N. Y ) 196; Havens v. Klein, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 82; Alexander v. Tolleston Club, 110 111. 65; Cihak v. Klekr, 117 111. 643. 1 Martin v. Martin (Kan. 1890), 25 Pac. 418; Clement v. Burtis (N. Y. 1890), 24 N. E. 1013; Nye v. Hoyle, 120 N. Y. 195; 24 N. E. 1; Graves V. Deterling, 120 N. Y. 447: Pittsburg, etc., R.R. Co. v. Reno, 22 HI. App. 470; s. c. 123 111. 273; 14 N. E. 195; Medland Ry. Co. v. Fisher (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 756, 758. 2 Whatman v. Gibson, 9 Sim. 196; Harrison v. Good, L. R. 11 Eq. 338; Harkerij.Nightingale, 6 Allen,341; Hubbellu. Warren, 8 Allen, 173; Greene V. Creighton, 7 R. I. 1; Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf. Ch. 72; Tallmadge v. 571 § 604 EASEMENTS. [PART II. is held to be thereby abandoned even as to the grantee in ■whose deed the covenant was inserted.^ § 604. Bights of action in defense of easements. — The actions are of two kinds, (1) by injunction ^ restraining some future injury or impairment of the easement, or en- forcing the performance of the conditions of such easement, and ( 2 ) an action for damages for the objection to, or in- East River Bk., 26 N. Y. 105; Brewer v. Marshall, 19 N. J. Eq. 543; Win- field i;. Henning, 21 N. J. Eq. 188; Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. St. 290; St. Andrews Ctiurch Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 518; New Ipswich W. L. Factory v. Batchelrter, 3 N. H. 190; Pingree v. McDuffle, 56 N. H. 306; McTavish v. Carroll, 7 Md. 352 ; Oliver v. Hook, 47 Md. 301 ; Burns v. Gallagher, 62 Md. 462; Viallu. Carpenter, 14 Gray (Mass.), 126; Day v. Walden, 46 Mich. 575; N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Milnor, 1 Barb. Ch. (N.Y.)353; Smyles v. Hastings, 22 N. Y. 217; Wheeler v. Gilsy, 35 How. Pr. (N. T.) 139; Holmes «. Seely, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 607; Collins ». Prentice, 15 Com. 39; s. c. 38 Am. Dec. 61; Brown ». Burkenmeyer, 9 Dana(Ky.), 159;Len- nig 1). Ocean City Ass., 41 N. J. Eq. 606; s. c. 56 Am. Eep. See also. White's Bank of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 N. T. 65; Foster v. City of Buffalo, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 127; in the Matter of Opening Eleventh Ave., 81 N. Y. 436; Baxter v. Arnold, 114 Mass. 577; s. c. 11 Am. Eep. 335; Bagnall v. Davies, 140 Mass. 76; Atty.-Gen. o. Williams, 140 Mass. 329; 54 Am. Eep. 468; Payson v. Burnham, 141 Mass. 547; Hamlin u. Werner, 144 Mass. 396; Winnepesaukee, etc.. Ass. v. Gordon, 63 N. H. 505; Webb ». Bobbins, 77 Ala. 176; Hull o. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 65 Iowa, 713; Coudert V. Sayre (N. J. 1890) , 19 Atl . 190 ; Chautauqua Assembly o. Ailing, 46 Hun, 682; Rose v. Hawley, 118 N. Y. 602; 23 N. E. 904; Graves v. Detenling, 120 N. Y. 447; 24 N. E. 655; Page v. Murray (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 11; Mackenzie v. Chllders, 43 Ch. Div. 265; Foster v. Foster, 62 N. H. 46; Avery ii. N. Y. Cent. & C. R. E. Co. (N. Y. 1890) ; 24 N. E. 20, 24; Smith V. Bradley (Mass. 1891), 28 N. E. 14. In the same manner a covenautto build and maintain a party wall, if the wall has been constructed, will operate as an easement. Richardson v. Tobey, 121 Mass. 467; 23 Am. Eep. 283. But an executory agreement or covenant to build a party wall cannot operate as an easement, since such a covenant does not run with the land, and is binding only upon the covenantor. Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; 13 Am. Eep. 611. ' Duncans. Central Pas. R. R. Co. (Ky.), 4 S. W. Eep. 228; Stuartc. Diplock, 23 Ch. Div. 343. 2 Eogerson v. Shepherd, 33 W. Va. 307; 10 S. E. 632; Herman v. Roberts, 119 N. Y. 37; 23 N. E. 442; Swift v. Coker, 83 Ga. 789; 10 S. B. 442; Frey u. Lowden, 70 Cal. 550; 11 Pac. 838. 572 CH. XVI. J EASEMENTS. § 605 terference with, the easement which has already happened.^ And in order to sustain the action for damages, no actual damage need be proven. It would be an injuria sine damno, or wrong without damage, which is always actionable. But the owner of the servient estate may make any use of it, which does not materially interfere with the exercise of the easement. 2 § 605. How easements may be lost or extinguished. — This may occur (1) by acts of the owner of the dominant estate, or (2) by acts of the owner of the servient estate. An easement may be released by deed of the owner of the dominant estate, or it may be lost by abandonment. It cannot be released by parol agreement, unless the agreement is carried into execution by some affirmative act, as the creation of a new easement in the place of the old one, so that by non-user the first has been lost.^ Mere non-user, even though for twenty years, will not of itself extinguish 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 339; Tud. Ld. Cas. 129; Bane «. Bean, 63 Mich. 652; 30 N. W. 373; Autenreitlj v. St. Louis, etc., K. K. Co., 36 Mo. App. 254; Ladd v. City of Boston (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 858. 2 Patterson tJ.Phila., etc., R. R. Co., 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 186; Phillips v. Dress- ier, 122 Ind. 414; 24 N. E. 226; Ames v. Shaw, 19 Atl. 831; 82 Me. 379; Joslin V. Sones (Iowa, 1890), 45 N. W. 917; Grafton v. Moir, 9 N. Y. S. 3; Spalding v. Bemiss (Ky.), 1 S. W. 468; McKenzie v. Elliott (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 965; Tyler v. Cooper, 47 Hun, 94; Smith v. HoUoway (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 886; Edgar v. Stevenson, 70 Cal. 286; 11 Pac. 704. ' Liggius i>. Inge, 7 Bing. 682; Ward v. Ward, 7 Exch. 838; Stokes v. Hewsinger, 8 E. & B. 811; Moore v. Rawson, 3 B. & C. 332; Regina v. Chorley, 12 Q. B. 515; Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. 531; Jewett u. Jewett, 16 Barb. 150; Jackson v. Dysllng, 2 Caines, 20; Stnyles ». Hastings, 22 N. Y. 217; Arnold v. Stevens, 24 Pick. 106; Williams v. Nelson, 23 Pick. 141; French v. Braintree Manf. Co., 23 Pick. 216; Jennison v. Walker, 11 Gray, 423 ; Pope v. Devereux, 5 Gray, 409 ; Hayford v. Spokesfleld, 100 Mass. 491; Manning?). Smith, 6 Conn. 289; Mowry o. Sheldon, 2 R. I. 369; Dyer v. Depul, 5 Whart. 584; Hall v. McCaughey, 51 Pa. St. 43; Pue V. Pue, 4 Md. Oh. 386; Parkins v. Dunham, 3 Strobh. 224; Pearce v. Mc- Clenagban, 5 Rich. 178; Shaffer i>. State Bank, 37 La, Ann. 242; Snell v. Leavitt, 39 Hun, 227. 573 § 605 EASEMENTS. [PART II. the easement unless there has been adverse possession.^ It must be accompanied with the express or implied intention of abandonment, and the owner of the servient estate, act- ing upon the intention of abandonment and the actual non- user, must have incurred expenses upon his own estate.^ The three elements, non-user, intention to abandon and damage to the owner of the servient estate, must concur in order to extinguish the easement. In cases of easements created by prescription the last element is not considered essential.' The easement may also be destroyed when the owner of the dominant estate gives a license to the owner of the servient estate to perform or do certain acts upon the servient estate, the performance of which will effectuaiij'^ prevent the enjoyment of the easement. The execution of the license will destroy or extinguish the easement, since ' Veghte V. R. W. P. Co., 4 C. E. Green (N. J.), 142; see also Horner V. Still well, 35 N. J. L. 307 ; Pratt t>. Sweetser, 68 Me. 344 ; Eddy v. Chace, 140 Mass. 471. 2 Eddy u. Chace, 140 Mass. 471; Poison v. Ingram, 22 S. C. 541; King v. Murphy, 140 Miss. 264; Tyler v. Cooper, 47 Hun, 94; Whitney?;. Wheeler Cotton Mills (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 774; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 407. See also Pope v. O'Hara, 48 N. Y. 446; Pol.«on v. Ingram, 22 s. c. 541; Hamilton v. Farrar, 128 Mass. 492; King v. Murphy, 140 Mass. 254; Tay- lor V. Hampton, 4 McCord (S. C.) 61; see also Cartwright ». Maplesden, 53 N. Y. 622; Ballard v. Buttler, 30 Me. 94; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 407; Steere v. Tiffany, 13 R. I. 568; Warren v. Syme, 7 W. Va. 476; Central Wharf, etc.. Crop. v. Proprietors of India Wharf, 123 Mass. 567 ; Johnston V. Hyde, 32 N. J. 446; see also Hulme v. Shreve, 3 Green's Ch. (N. J.) 116; Merritt u. Paiker, Coxe (N. J.), 460; Tillotson v. Smith, 32 N. H. 90; Dewey v. Bellows, 9 N. H. 282; Jewett v. Whitney, 43 Me. 242. 8 Jewett V. Jewett, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 150; see also Pope v. O'Hara, 48 N. Y. 446; Smyles v. Hastings, 22 N. Y. 217; Smyles v. Hastings, 24 N. Y. 44; Snell v. Levitt, 39 Hun, (N. Y.), 227; Whiter. Crawford, 10 Mass. 183; Bannon v. Angier, 2 Allen (Mass.), 128; Eddy v. Chace, 140 Mass. 471; Brouson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175; Barnes v. Lloyd, 112 Mass. 224; HoUenbeck v. McDonald^ 112 Mass. 247; Knecken v. Voltz, 110 111. 264; Day 11. Walden, 46 Mich. 575; Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 531; see also Miller v. Garlock, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 153; White's Bank v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 65; Steere v. Tiffany, 13 R. I. 568; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Covington, 2 Bush (Ky.), 526; Wilder «. St. Paul, 12 Minu. 192. 574 CH. XVI. J EASEMENTS. § 605 the license is irrevocable after execution.^ Finally, any actions on the part of the owner of the dominant estate, which increase the burden upon the servient estate and which so materially change the easement, as th:it it cannot be restored to its original condition, will operate in a discharge of the servient estate from the burden of the easement. But if the increase in the burden can be separated from the original easement, the latter will still remain.^ In the same way as easements may be acquired by prescription so may ihey also be lost or extinguished.^ This subject is similar in its character, and is allied to the subject of loss by abandonment. 1 Winter v. Brockwell, 8 East, 308; Liggins v. Inge, 7 Bing. 682; Dyer V. Sanford, 9 Mete. 395; Addison v. Hacli, 2 Gill, 221; Elliott v. Rhett, 5 Rich. 405; McConnell v. Am. Bronze, etc., Co. 41 N. J. Eq. 447; Morse v. Copeland, 2 Gray (Mass.;, 302; Compare Dyer v. Saudford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 395. 2 Luttrell's Case, 4 Rep. 87; Saunders v. Newman, 1 B. & Aid. 258; Garrett v. Sharp, 3 A. & E. 325; Blanchard v. Bridges, 4 A. & E. 17G; Hall V. Swift, 6 Scott, 167; Cherrington v. Abney Mill, 2 Vern. 646; Bullen ». Ruuuells, 2 N. H. 255; Whittier v. Cochero Mfg. Co., 8 N. H. 454; Taylor V. Hampton, 4 McCord, 96; Carpenter v. Graber, 66 Tex. 465; 1 S. W. 178; Hicox v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 143; Pres- cott V. White, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 341; Prescott?;. Williams, 5 Met. (Mass.) 429; Gary v. Daniels, 8 Met. (Mass.) 466; Doane v. Badger, 12 Mass. 65; Thompson v. Uglow, 4 Oreg. 369; Blaisdell v. Stephens, 14 Nev. 17; Hall u. McCaughey, 51 Pa. St. 43; Frailey v. Waters, 7 Pa. St. 221; Smith v. Wiggin, 52 N. H. 112; Kaler v. Beaman, 49 Me. 207; Gillis v. Nelson, 16 La. Ann. 275; Schaffer v. State Bank, 37 La. Ann. 242; Veghte v. R. W. P. Co., 4 C. B. Green (N. J), 142; Jaqui v. Johnson, 27 N. J. Eq. 552; Darlington v. Painter, 7 Barr (Pa.), 473; Stevenson v. Stewart, 7 Phila. 293; Evangelical, etc.. Home v. Buffalo Hydraulic Assn., 64 N. T. 563; Onthanki). Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 15 N. Y., Sup. Ct. 131; Spencer V. Weaver, 20 Hun (N. Y.), 450; Fitcher v. Anthony, 20 Hun (N. Y.), 495; Roberts i). Roberts, 55 N. Y. 275; see also Holmes ». Serby, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 507 ; Brown v. Bowen, 30 N. Y. 519 ; Wynkoop v. Burger, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 222; Stiles v. Hooker, f Cow. (N. Y.) 266; Huson u. Young, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 63. 3 Clarke v. Gaffeney, 116 111. 362; Veghte v. R. W. P. Co., 4 C. E. Green (N. J.), 142; see also Horner v. Still well, 35 N. J. L. 307; Pratt v. Sweetser, 68 Me. 344; Eddy v. Chance, 140 Mass. 471. 575 § 608 EASEMENTS. [PAKT U. § 606. Kinds of easements — The easements most com- moaly knowu are right of way, liglit and air, water sup- port, and party walls. Many other servitudes may be imposed upon the land, but a discussion of the classes just mentioned will be sufficient to illustrate the general prin- ciples. § 607. Right of way. — Eights of this character are divided into private, where the right is in favor of one or more private individuals, and is appurtenant to an estate owned by them, and public, where it is enjoyed by the public generally. They are easements imposed upon an- other's land, authorizing certain persons or the public, as the case may be, to pass over it, in pursuit of specific or general objects. § 608. A private way — May be created by express grant, oi- it may be implied from the circumstances sur- rounding the estate granted (these are called ways of ne- cessity), or it may further be acquired by prescription. A way acquired for a particular mode of use will not be extended so as to include the right to use it in some other manner. Thus, if the right be limited to a foot-path, it cannot be used as a carriage-way or horse-way. Such an extension of the right would be an act of trespass, and ren- der the owner of the dominate estate liable for damages to the owner of the servient estate. This would be the case, even though the burden upon the servient estate has not been materially increased. ^ Neither can the way be used for the benefit of any other estate but the one to which the 1 Brunton v. Hall, 1 Gale & D. 207 ; Cowling v. Higginson, 4 Mees. & W. 245; Ballard o. Tyson, 1 Taunt. 279; Allan v. Gourme, 11 A & E. 759; French v. Marstin, 24 N. H. 440; 32 N. H. 316; Kirkham v. Sharp, 1 Whart. 323. But a general right of way will be inferred from evidence that the way has been used in every manner necessary for the full en- joyment of the dominant estate. Parks v. Bishop, 120 Mass. 340; 21 Am. Rep. 519. 576 CH. XVI. J EASEMENTS. § 609 easement is appurtenant. ^ A right of way may he granted subject to a coadition and limitation, and the right in such cases cannot be claimed after the breach of the condition or happening of the limitation. ^ Where the way is ac- quired by express or implied grant, the owner of the ser- vient estate has the right to lay out the way in whatever manner will be most convenient to him, and will at the same time secure to the owner of the dominant estate the full enjoyment of the easement. But if the owner of the servient estate refuses to do this, the owner of the dominant estate may exercise the power. Once the way has been laid out, it cannot be changed by either party without the consent of the other. ^ Private ways may be acquired also by prescription.* § 609. Ways of necessity. — A way of necessity exists where the land granted is completely environed by land of the grantor, or partially by his land, and the land of stran- gers. The law implies from these facts that a right of way over the grantor's lands was granted to the grantee as ap- purtenant to the estate.^ Inasmuch as the application is raised from the existence of a necessity, the easement ex- pires with the cessation of the necessity, as, for example, 1 Colchester v. Eoberts, i Mees. & W. 769; Williams v. James, L. E. 2 C. B. 580; Northam v. Hurley, 1 E. & B; 665; Senhouse v. Christian, 1 T. E. 560; Garritt v. Sharp, 3 A. & E. 325; Eussell v. Jackson, 2 Pick. 57i; Comstock v. Van Deusen, 5 Pick. 163; Davenport v. Lamson, 21 Pick. 72; French v. Marstin, 24 N. H. 440; 32 N. H. 316; Hayes v. De Vity, 141 Mass. 233; Brightman v. Chaping, 1. Atl. 412; 15 B. I. 166; E&ise V. Enos (Wis. 1890), 45 N. W. 414. 2 Hall V. Armstrong, 53 Conn. 554. 3 Henning v. Burnett, 8 Exch. 187; Northam v. Hurley, IE. &B. 665; Garritt v. Sharp, 3 A. & B. 325; Eussell v. Jackson, 2 Pick. 574; Jennlson V. Walker, 11 Gray, 426; Holmes v. Seeley, 19 Wend. 507; French v. Williams. 82 Va. 462. * Gay V. Boston & Albany E. R. Co., 141 Mass. 407. 5 Eogerson v. Shepherd, 33 W. Va. 307; 10. S. B. 632; Kripp v. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62; 11 Pac. 879. 37 577 § 610 EASEMENTS. [PART II. when a new way is. acquired.' When such a necessity exists as will create by implication a right of way, is a question of fact determined by the circumstances of each particular case. Mere inconvenience will not constitute such necessity. It must be strict necessity ; but excessive expense in pro- curing another way would make it a case of strict neces- sity.^ Rear entrances to city lots cannot be claimed as ways of necessity.^ If a way of necessity is implied foi- any purpose, it may be used for any and all purposes for which private ways are generally adapted.* § 610. Who must repair the way. — In the absence of an express agreement, the grantee of the right of way must keep the way in repair ; and if he fails to do so, he has no right to use other adjacent land of the servient estate be- cause the way has become impassable. But the obligation to repair may by covenaut be imposed upon the owner of 1 Pettingill v. Porter, 8 Allen, 9; Baker v .Crosby, 9 Gray, 421; Vlial n. Carpenter, 14 Gray, 126; Kimball v. Cocheco R. R. Co., 27 N. H. 448; Abbott ». Stewartstown, 47 N. H. 258; Pierce v. Selleck, 18 Conn. 321; Simmons v. Sines, 4 Keyes (N. Y.), 153; N. Y. Life Ins., etc., Co v. Mil- nor, 1 Barb. Ch. 352; Wissler v. Hershey, 23 Pa. St. 333;McTavish». Car- rol, 7 Md. 352 ; Thomas v. Bertram, 4 Bush, 317 ; Brown v. Berry, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 98. 2 Pettingill v. Porter, 8 Allen, 1; Carbrey v. Wilson, 7 Allen, 364; Johnson v. Jordon, 2 Mete. 234; Brigham v. Smith, 4 Gray, 297; Plimp- ton V. Converse, 42 Vt. 712; O'Rorke v. Smith, 11 R. I. 259; 23 Am. Rep. 440; Bartlett v. Prescott, 41 N. H. 493; McDonald v. Lindall, 3 Rawle, 492; Ogden v. Grove, 38 Pa. St. 487; TurnbuU v. Rivers, 3 McCord, 131; Screven v. Gregory, 8 Rich. 158; Ramirez v. McCormick, 4 Cal. 245; Barr v. Flynn, 70 Mo. 383; Fischer v. Laack fWis. 1890), 45 N. W. 104; Morse v. Benson (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 675; Pearson v. Allen (Mass. J890), 23 ,N. E. 731; Nat. Exch. Bank v. Cunningham, 46 Ohio St. 575; 22 N. E. 924; Murphy j). Lee, 144 Mass. 371; Bell u. Todd, 51 Mich. 21; Smyles v. Hastings, 22 N. Y. 217; approving 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 44; Pratt V. B. C. R. Co., 19 Hun (N. Y.), 30; Foster v. Buffalo, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 127. 3 Fischers. Laack (Wis. 1890), 45 N. W. 104; Smith v. GrifSn (Col. 1890), 23Pac..905. * Whittier v. Winkley, 62 N. H. 338. 578 OH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 611 the servient estate. In such a case, if the latter violates the agreement, the grantee of the way may, if it is neces- sary, pass over the adjoining land of the servient estate.^ § 611. Public or highways. — Here no reference is made to such highways where the fee simple title to the land is in the State or municipal corporation. In such eases there can be no question in respect to easements. This section relates to such cases where the land, over which the highway ex- tends, belongs to the owners of the contiguous land, and a right of way over it is enjoyed by the public.'' Where it is doubtful whether the grantor intended to convey an ease- ment or a fee simple title to the land, the presumption is held to be in favor of the grant of an easement.^ Such highways are established either by dedication by the owners of the land, or by appropriation by the State under the right of eminent domain. In the case of dedication no formal acts are necessary to the creation of the way. Any act or acts such as conveyances of lots bounding on such streets, platting and recording a map, in which the streets- are laid out, and the like, which show a clear intention to dedicate the land to the public use will be sufficient.* The 1 Pomfretu. Elcord, 1 Saund. 323; BuUard v. Harrison, 4 M.&S. 387; Eider v. Smith, 3 T. K. 766; Doane v. Badger, 12 Mass. 65; Jones v. Per- cival, 5 Pick. 485; Hamilton v. "Wlilte, 6 N. Y. 9. 2 The right of the public to the use of a highway, where the soil or bed belongs to the adjoining owners, is not strictly an easement; it is an incorporeal hereditament in the nature of an easement. Since the subject of highways is not to be treated at any length, it is discussed in this connection to avoid the necessity of a separate subdivision of this chapter. 3 N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co. V. City of Providence (R. I. 1890), 19 Atl. 759. < Pope V. Town of Union, 18 N. J. Eq. 282; Hawley v. City of Balti- more, 33 M. D. 270; Mayor, etc., of Macon v. Francklin, 12 Ga. 239; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; TricRey v. Schlader, 52 111. 78; Mo. Inst, for Blind u. How, 27 Mo. 211; Buchanan v. Curtis, 25 Wis. 99; 3 Am. Rep. 23; Point Pleasant Land Co. v. Cranmer, 40 N. J. Eq. 81; Re Pearl St., Ill Pa. St. 565; Harrison v. Augusta Factory, 73 Ga. 447; Brooks v. 579 5 611 EASEMENTS. ' [PAET II coaireyance of lands for the purpose of a highway may always be subjected to conditions, restrictions and limitations as to use, which can only be removed by the exercise of the right of eminent domain. ^ A highway may also be created by custom, as from long use by the public, although there had been no dedication by the owner .^ To make the dedica- tion complete and binding upon the public, there must be an acceptance of the same. But continued use of the land in conformity with the dedication will be sufficient evidence of acceptance. A. formal acceptance is not necessary.^ A dedication to public use as a highway or other thorough- Topeka, 34 Kan. 277; Shea v. Ottumwa, 66 Iowa, 39; State ij. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207; Dorman v. Bates Mfg. Co., 82 Me. 438; Johnson v. Shelter Island Grove, etc., Co., 47 Hun, 374; In re Ladue, 118 N. Y. 213; 23 S". E. 465. The evidence of an Intention to dedicate the land, must be clear and maoifest. Manchester ii. Hoag, 66 Iowa, 649 ; Robinson v. Coflin, 2 Washb. 251. 1 Odneal v. City of Sherman, 77 Texas, 182. 2 Holt V. Sargent, 15 Gray, 97; Comptou's Petition, 41 N. H. 197; Hughes V. Providence & Worcester E. E,., 2 U. I. 493; Devenpeck v. Lam- bert, 44 Barb. 596; Holcraft v. King, 25 Ind. 352; Loukt). Woods, 15 111. 256; Lewiston ■o. Proctor, 27 111. 414; Lemon o. Hayden, 13 Miss. 159;. Parrish u. Stevens, 1 Oreg. 59; State ». Van Derveer, 57 N. J. L. 259; South Branch R. R. Co. v. Parker, 41 N. J. Eq. 489; Strong u. Makeever, 102 Ind. 578; Toof v. Decatur, 19 111. App. 204; Hart v. Red Cedar, 63 Wis. 634; Fritschew. Pritsche (Wis.l890),45N. W. 1088. Butsee Forres V. Falgoust, 37 La. An. 497; Tocker o. Conrad, 103 Ind. 349, where it is held that mere user of the land as a highway, without some evidence of an adverse claim, will not give the public any vested rights in the land. Stuart V. Frink, 94 N. C. 487; 55 Am. Rep. 618; State v.. Horn, 35 Kan. 717. 3 Muzzey 1). Davis, 54 Me. 361; Cole v. Sprowle, 35 Me. 161; Beming- ton V. Millard, 1 R. I. 93; State v. Atherton, 16 N. H. 203; Stevens v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 192; Dodge v. Stacey, 39 Vt. 558; Curtis v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154; Requa v. City of Rochester, 45 N. Y. 129; 6 Am. Rep. 52; Pope V. Town of Union, 18 N. J, Eq. 282; Beach v. Frankenberger, 4 W. Va. 712; Day v. AUender, 22 Md. 511; State v. Carner, 5 Strobh. 217; New Orleans, etc., R. R. u. Moye, 39 Miss. 374; Pickett v. Brown, 18 La. An. 560; Gentleman u. Soule, 32 IH. 271; Rees v. Chicago, 38 111. 322; Manderschid v. Dubuque, 29 Iowa, 73; Barteau v. West, 23 Wis. 416; Buchanan v. Curtis, 25 Wis. 99; 3 Am, Rep. 23; Brown «. Kansas City, etc., E. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 427. 580 f!H. XVI. ] EASEMENTS. § 613 fare is not affected by an attempted appropriation of the land to other public uses in the exercise of the right of eminent domain. The defective condemnation may be set aside, but the dedication as a highway survives, and the -original owner cannot maintain, ejectment for the land.^ § 612. Light and air. — There may, like a right of way, he an easement in the light and air coming from over the land of an adjacent owner, which would prevent its obstruc- tion by any erections upon the adjoining land near the boundary line. Thus, the owner of a house may acquire an •easement in the adjoining land to permit the free passage of light and air through his windows. This easement, in its more important features, resembles the right of way, which tas been already discussed. It will not, therefore!, be nec- essary to present in detail the law upon the subject. Like the right of way, the owner of the dominant estate cannot do anything which will increase the burden upon the ser- vient estate. Any act, such as closing windows and open- ing new ones, increasing the size of the windows, or remov- iilg the house, which operates in changing or increasmg the burden upon the survient estate, will destroy the ease- ment. ^ § 613. How acquired. — In England an easement of light and air may be, and is generally, acquired by pre- scription or long user. An uninterrupted enjoyment of twenty years will be sufficient to create the easement. It is necessary, however, that there should be a building, for the benefit of which the easement is acquired. There can be no such easement in favor of an open lot. The extent of the easement, therefore, depends upon the amount of I Moses V. St. Louis Sectional Dock Co., 84 Mo. 242. ' Luttrell's Case, 4 Rep. 87; Tud. Ld. Cas. 132, 13.?; Cherringtoni;. Abney Mill, 2 Vern. 646; Moore v. Rawson, 3 B. & C. 332; Blanchard v. Bridges, 4 A& E. 176. 581 § 613 EASKMENTS. [PART II. enjoyment derived from it during the period of prescrip- tion.* During the period of prescription the right is in- choate, and may be defeated by the erection on the adjacent land of any structure which will exclude the light and air, and interrupt the adverse enjoyment. The owner of the adjoining land cannot be prevented from imposing such barriers to the acquisition of the easement.^ In this country the right to acquire the easement by prescription has not met with general recognition. On the contrary, the tendency is to deny the right altogether. At the present day the courts of New Jersey, Illinois, and Louisiana are the only ones which still uphold this doctrine,^ while it is repudiated by the other courts.* In some of the States it is held that, 1 Martin v. Goble, 1 Comp. 322; Moore k. Kawson, 3 B. & C. 332; Clark V. Clark, L. R. 1 Ch. 16; Robers v. McCord, 1 Mo. & Rob. 230. 2 Smith o. Kendrlck, 7 C. B. 515, 565; Moore v. Rawson, 3 B. & C. 332; Chandler v. Thompson, 3 Camp. 82; Pierce v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436; Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. 395; Ray ». Lynes, 10 Ala. 63; Corcoran ». Nailor, 6 Mackey, 580. 3 Ropesou V. Pittinger, 2 N. J. Eq. 57; Durel v, BoisbJanc, 1 La. An. 407; Gerber v. Grubell, 16 111. 217. * Collier v. Pierce, 6 Gray, 18; Rogers v. Sawin, 19 Gray, 376; Carrlg V. Dee, 14 Gray, 583; Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen, 169; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204; 15 Am. Rep. 80; Mahan u. Brown, 13 Wend. 263; Banks c. Am. Tract. Soc, 4 Sandf. Ch. 438; Parkers. Foote, 19 Wend. 309; Pierce u. Fernald, 26 Me. 436; Ingram v. Hutchinson, 2 Conn. 597; Hubbard v. Town, 33 Vt. 295; Haverstick v. Sipe, 33 Pa. St. 368; Hoy v. Sterritt, 2 Watts, 331; Cherry «. Stein, 11 Md. 1, overruling Wright v. Freeman, 5 H. & John. 477; Napier i). Bulwinkle, 5 Rich. 311, overruling McCready V. Thompson, Dudley, 131 ; Turner v. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268; 24 Am. Eep'. 497; Ward v. Neal, 37 Ala. 501, overruling Bay v. Lynes, 10 Ala. 63; Mullen V. Strieker, 19 Ohio St. 135; 2 Am. Rep. 379; Morrison v. Mar- quardt, 24 Iowa, 35; Keats i). Hugo, 115 Mass. 204; Randall v. Sander- son, 111 Mass. 114; Carrlng v. Dee, 14 Gray (Mass.) ; 583; Richardson v. Pond, 15 Gray (Mass.); 387; Mullen v. Strieker, 19 Ohio St. 135; Haver- stick V. Sipe, 33 Pa. St. 368; Maynard u. Esher, 11 Pa. St. 222; Klien v. Gehrung, 25 Tex. (Sup.) 232; Powell v. Sims, 6 W. Va. 1; Napier v. Bul- winkle, 5 Rich. (S. Car.) 311; Hubbard v. Town, 33 Vt. 295; Keiper ». Klien, 51 Ind. 316; Stein v. Hauck, 56 Ind. 65; Turner v. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268; Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. (N. Y), 309; Radcliff v. Mayer, 4 N. Y. 195; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. (N.Y. ), 537; Shipman v. Beers, 3 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 435; Ward e. Neal, 37 Ala. 501; Ray ». Lynes, 10 582 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 614 where one person owns two contiguous lots, and sells one of them, which has a building on it with windows opening on the remaining lot, an easement passes to the grantee to have free passage of light and air over the adjoining lot.^ But this rule is repudiated by some of the other courts,^ and perhaps the better rule is, that such an easement will be implied from the existence of windows overlooking the other lot of the grantor, only when it is really necessary to the enjoyment of the estate granted.^ It is possible, however, although very unusual, to acquire a right to the easement of light and air by express grant in any State, and the same rules of construction are applied to them which govern in cases of such prescriptive rights under the English law.* § 614. Bight of water. — Where a stream of water passes over the land of two or more adjacent owners, it has been established, upon the doctrine of law that there can be no right of property in water except as to its use, that the ad- jacent owners have mutual easements upon the soil of each other for the free and unrestricted Q.ovr of water. This rule, however, applies in its full force only to the natural strums. The riparian owners have the right to use the water to a reasonable extent, but cannot so use it as to di- minish the flow, corrupt the water,^ or to dam it up, and Ala. 63; Ingraham v. Hutchinson, 2 Conn. 584; Morrison v. Marquardt, 24 Iowa, 35; Pierre v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436; Cherry v. Stein, II Md. 1. 1 Jones V. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1 ; 6 Am. Eep. I ; Hubbard v. Town, 33 Vt. 295; Lampman v. Milks, 21 N. Y. 505; Gerber v. Grubell, 16 111. 217. 2 Keats V. Hugo, 115 Miss. 204; 15 Am. Eep. 80; Haverstick v. Sipe, 33 Pa. St. 368; Mullen v. Strieker, 19 Ohio St. 135; 2 Am. Rep. 379; Mor- rison V. Marquardt, 24 Iowa, 35. 8 Powell V. Simmes, 5 W. Va. 1; 13 Am. Rep. 629; Turner v. Thomp- son, 58 Ga. 268; 24 Am. Eep. 497. * Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. 263; McCready v. Thompson, Dudley (S. C.J, 113; Grimley v. Davidson (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 439. See also cases cited in preceding note. » Washb. V. Gilman, 64 Me. 163; 18 Am. Rep. 246; Richmond Mannf. Co. ». Atlantic DeLaiae Co., 10 R. I. 106; 14 Am. Rep. 658; Jacobs v, •583 § 614 EASEMENTS. [PAET n. cause an overflow of the land above or diminish the volume of the stream below. ^ But if the stream is prevented from inundating lowlands in times of freshets there is no liability for so doing although the volume of the stream may be thereby increased to the greater damage of the banks below. ^ The stream cannot be diverted from its regular course, if by so doing injury results to the owners above or below.' To what extent the water may be used by a riparian owner depends upon the circumstances of each case. And the only general rule which can be stated is, that it must not be so used as to produce a perceptible damage to the other proprietors.^ The detention of water, if it is for a reasona- AUard, 42 Vt. 303; 1 Am. Rep. 331. But pollution of the water of a stream by the sewage is not actionable against tne city, unless the pollu- tion results from a negligent construction or use of the sewers. The city is not responsible in damages, if it is the result of a defective plan of sewerage. Merrifleld v. City of Worcester, 110 Mass. 211; 14 Am. Kep. S92. 1 Sampson v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. (n. s.) 590; Colburn v. Richards, 13 Mass. 420; Anthonys;. Lapham, 5 Pick. 175; Kankakee, etc., R. R. Co. v. Horan, 30 111. App. 553; affirming 23 N. E. 621; Miss., etc., R. R. Co. v. Archibald (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 212. And where the erection of a dam is authorized by legislative enactment, the owner of the dam mast make compensation to all riparian proprietors, who have been injured thereby. Lee ». Pembroke Iron Co., 57 Me. 481; 2 Am. Rep. 59; Gray v. Harris, 107 Mass. 492 ; 9 Am. Rep. 61 ; Proctor v. Jennings, 6 Nev. 83 ; 3 Am. Rep. 240 ; Kankakee, etc., R. R. Co. v. Horan, 30 111. App. 563 ; affirming 23 N. B. 621. 2 St. Louis, etc., il. R. Co. v. Schneider, 30 Mo. App. 620. ' Elliott o. FitchbargR. R. Co., 10 Cash. 191; Macomber v. (Jodfrey, 108 Mass. 219; 11 Am. Rep. 349; Tuthill v. Scott, 43 Vt. 525; 5 Am. Rep. 301. Water may be diverted from the channel for any reasonable use, but it can only be detained as long as it is necessary and reasonable, and it must be returned to the channel, before it passes to the land of the riparian proprietor below. Clinton v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511 ; 7 Am. Rep. 373; Arnold 11. Foot, 12 Wend. 330; Miller «, Miller, 9 Pa. St. 74; Pool v. Lewis, 46 Ga. 162; 5 Am. Rep. 526. ■■ Mason v. Hill, 6 B. & Aid. 1 ; Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353; Blanchard V. Baker, 8 Me. 253; Gerrish v. Brown, 61 Me. 256; Anthony V. Lapham, 5 Pick. 175; Merrifleld v. Lombard, 13 Allen, 16 Weston !). Alden, 8 Mass. 136; Brace v. Yale, 97 Mass. 18 Merritt v. Brinkerhoff, 17 Johns. 306; Pollitt v. Long, 68 Barb. 20 584 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 614 ,ble use, will not be actionable, even though it may cause injury to the proprietors below. But if the use be an unusual one, then it is not likely that the rule would apply.' This rule is well established in favor of mill owners, the working of whose mills by the water prevents its use for a similar purpose by a riparian proprietor below. The right to run a mill in such cases, and to dam up the water for that purpose, depends upon the priority of establishment. He who first creates a mill upon the banks of the stream obtains a prior right to the use of the stream for that purpose, and if the quantity of water is not sufficiently large to permit the runuing of more than one miU, no other mill can be erected. If a second mill is erected by a pro- prietor above, and the diversion and detention of water for the purpose of the mill ai^e so great as to diminish materially the supply of water to the first mill, the owner of the latter can enjoin such detention or diversion of the water.^ The mill owner cannot, under any circumstances, so dam up the water as to cause it to overflow the land above, or to divert it from the proprietor below, although in some States by statute mill owners are permitted to inflict such injury upon the adjoining proprietors by the payment in compensation in the way of damages, the assessment, and recovery of which are regulated by the statutes.^ Amoia -v. Foote, 12 Wend. 339; Clinton v. Myers, 4'6 N. K. 511; 7 Am. Kep. 873; Jacobs ». AUard, 42 Vt. 303; 1 Am. K'ep. 331; Howell d. McCoy, S Rawle, 256; Miller v. Miller, 9 Pa. St. 74; Webb v. Portland Co., 3 Sumn. 189; Holeman v. Boiling Spring Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 335; Dumont v. Kellogg, 29 Mich. 430; 18 Am. Rep. 102. 1 Springfield v. Harris, 4 Allen, 494 ; Gould v. Boston Duck Co., 13 Gray, 443; Clinton u. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511; 7 Am. Rep. 373; Pool v. Lewis, 41 Ga. 162; 5 Am. Rep. 526; Whitney v. Wheeler Cotton Mills (Mass. i890), 24 N. B. 774. 2 Liggins V. Inge, 7Bing. 682; Masons. Hill, 6 B. & Ad.l; Williams r. Moreland, 2 B. & C. 910; Bealey v. Shaw, 6 East, 209; Ang. on Wat. Cour. sects. 130, 135; Carey v. Daniels, 8 Mete. 466; Calmount v. Whitaker, 3 Eawle, 84. 3 Washb. on Ease., ch. 3, sect. 5, pi. 35-46; Ang. Wat. Cour., sect. 482. 585 § 615 EASEMENTS. [PAKT II. § 615. Percolations and swamps — Surface drainage. — The above statements are only applicable to what are known in the law as natural water courses. There must be a regular stream flowing in a regular channel, whether on the surface or under ground, in order that such rights may be claimed in it. iJf the water constituted a swamp upon the adjacent land, which flowed in no fixed channel, or if it percolated through the soil from one tract of land to another, the rules enunciated in the preceding paragraph do not apply. The owner of the land may draw off the water from the swanip, or divert the percolation, so as to collect the water in a well upon his own land, notwithstanding it results in serious det- riment to the adjacent proprietor.^ But if the owner of the land is actuated by malice, as where he pollutes the water, or cuts off the underground current, simply for the purpose of rendering his neighbor's well useless, an action would lie for the damage thus inflicted.^ If the pipes and other con- duits can be so arranged that one well need not interfere with the other, as in the case of the artesian wells, the par- ties will be required to observe this caution.^ In draining one's land of surface water, no action will lie if it be allowed to flow over the adjoining land through 1 Ocean Grove, etc., Assn. v. Asbury Park, Com. u, 40 N. J. Eq. 447. 2 Eawstron v. Taylor, 11 Exch. 369; Dudden v. Guardians, etc., 1 H. & N. 627; Morton v. Scholefleld, 9 Mees. & W. 665; Chasemore v. Rich- ards, 5 H. & N. 982; Dickinson v. Canal Co., 7 Exch. 300; Hodgkinsono. Ennor, 4 B. & S. 229; Smitti v. Kendrick, 7 C. B. 666; Acton v. Blundell, 12 Mees. & \V. 324 ; Chase u. Silverstone, 62 Me. 475; 16 Am. Rep 419; Greenleaf I). Francis, 18 Pick. 117; Luther o. Winnisimett Co., 9 Cush. 171; Parker v. Boston & M. R. R., 3 Cush. 107; Wilson v. City of Bed- ford, 108 Mass. 261; 11 Am. Rep. 352; Roath v. DriscoU, 20 Conn. 533; Brown v. Illins, 25 Conn. 583; Village of Delphi v. Youmans, 45 N. Y. 362; 6 Am. Rep. 100; Ellis v. Duncan, 21 Barb. 230; Smith v. Adams, 6 Paige Ch. 435; Radcliffe v. Mayor, etc., 4 N. Y. 200; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 528; Clark v. Lawrence, 6 Jones Eq. 783; Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio, 311; Hansons. McCue, 42 Cal. 303; 10 Am. Rep. 299; Hougan ». Milwaukee, etc., E. R., 35 Iowa, 558; 14 Am. Rep. 502; Burroughs v. Saterlee, 67 Iowa, 396; 56 Am. Rep. 350. " Burroughs v. Saterlee, 67 Iowa, 366; 56 Am. Rep. 350; Collins v. Chartiers Val. Gas Co., 131 Pa. St. 143; 18 Atl. 1012. 586 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 615 natural channels.^ It is sometimes held that the owner of the adjoining land may prevent such overflow of his land by the erection of barriers, or by the use of any other suitable means.'* And while this is without doubt a sound rule in the case of urban servitudes, the better opinion is, at least in respect to drainage on farms and woodlands, that the upper land has a natural right to natural drainage over the land.^ But in the drainage of one's land it is not per- missible to direct the flow of the water upon the adjoining land or to increase the volume of the flow by the construc- tion of a drain or ditch.* Still, it is permissible by the use of such means to empty 'the water into a natural stream, and if the volume of the streani is thereby increased to such an extent as to cause damage to the riparian owners below, they are without remedy.' The same rule applies to the drainage of one's land into the highway.' 1 Sentnerv. Tees, 132 Pa. St. 216; 18 Atl. 1104; Boynton c. Londey, 19 Neil. 69; 6 Pac. 43. 2 Greeley v. Maine Cent. E. R., 53 Me. 200; Gannon v. Hagadon, 10 Allen, 106; Parks o. Newburyport, 16 Gray, 29; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439; 9 Am. Rep. 276; Goodale v. Tattle, 29 N. Y. 459; Kowlsby». Speei, 31 N. J. L. 351; Hoyt v. Hudson, 27 Wis. 656. Contra, if it does injury, Gerrish v. Clough, 48 N. H. 9; 2 Am. Rep. 165; Ogbarn v. Connor, 46 Cal. 346; 13 Am. Rep. 213. " Farris v. Dudley, 78 Ala. 124; 56 Am. Rep. 24; Boyd v. Conklin, 54 Mith. 583; 52 Am. Rep. 831; Ribordy v. Pellaclioud, 28 111. App. 303; Abbott v. K. C, etc., R. R. Co., 83 Mo. 271; 53 Am. Rep. 581; C. & A. R. R. Co. a. Smith, 17 111. App. 58; Burke v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 370; Schneider v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 681. * Weidekin v, Snelson, 17 111. App. 461; Wagner v. Chaney, 19 III. App. 546; White v. Sheldon, 8 N. Y. S. 212; Boyntonv. Langley, 19 Nev. 69; 6 Pac. 437; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Glenney, 28 111. App. 364; Beach v. Gay lord, 43 Minn. 476; 45 N. W. 1095; Chapel v. Smith (Miqh. 1890), 45 N. W. 69; Weddell v. Hapner (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 368; David Heiser v. Rhodes (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 400. s Dickinson v. Worcester, 7 Allen, 19; Waffle v. N. Y. Central R. R., 53 N. Y. 11; 13 Am. Rep. 467; Miller v. Laubach, 47 Pa. St. 154; Butler t>. Peck, 16 Ohio St. 334; Pettigrew v. Evansville, 25 Wis. 223; 3 Am. Rep. 50; Smith v. Kendrick, 7 C. B. 515; Hoester v. Hemsath, 16 Mo. App. 485; Wagner v. Chaney, 19 111. App. 546. « Huddleston v. West Bellevue, 111 Pa. St. 110. 587 i§ 617 EASEMENTS. [PAET II. § 616. Artificial water courses. — The rule is also dif- ferent where the water course is artificial. No one has the right to establish an artificial water course upon the land of another ; but if the latter permits its construction he ac- quires no easement in the water, and cannot compel its perpetual maintenance, whatever injury he might suffer from its discontinuance. An uninterrupted enjoyment of the artificial water course for twenty years will not give him such a right. The construction of the water course being only for certain purposes, the adjoining owner could not by mere enjoyment acquire a prescriptive right to its continu- ance. He who creates the artificial stream may stop or ■divert it when he pleases, but at the same time he cannot maliciously foul the water to the detriment of the riparian owners below. ^ § 617. Easements in water courses and surface drain- age. — The various rights so far mentioned are nat- ural rights incident to riparian ownership, implied or established by law. These rights are enjoyed inde- pendent of any contract or grant. But it is manifest that an express grant may operate in enlarging, di- minishing or altogether extinguishing, the natural rights. They may be varied, and new rights may be acquired by prescription ^ or grant. An express grant or prescription will alter the natural or common law rights of the riparian owners in the same manner as the creation of express and special easements affects the rights of property in other 1 Arkwright v. Gell, 5 Mees. & W. 203; Mayor v. Chad wick, 11 A. &E. 671; Elliott v. Northeastern Railway Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 333; Beaston v. Weate, 5 E. & B. 986; "Wright v. Williams, 1 Mees. &W. 77; Saunders ». Newman, 1 B. & Aid. 258; Napier v. Bulwiukle, 5 Rich. 817. ' "Whitney v. Wheeler Cotton Mills (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 774; Cox v. Clough, 70 Cal. 845; Terry v. Smith, 47 Hun, 833 ; Keyser v. Covell, 62 N. H. 288; Johnson v. Boorman, 63 Wis. 268; McGeorge v. Hoffman (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 413. 588 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 617 cases. 1 The same rule applies to the right of surface drain- age and the maintenance of water pipes across another's lands.^ But in order that such a right may be claimed by prescription, the right must have been exercised during the statutory period of limitation in defiance of or adverse to the claims of the owner of the servient estate.^ Where special rights are acquired in a stream of water by grant, the owner of the dominant estate or grantee has no right to make such use of the water as will inflict greater injury upon the other ripariau owners than is ex- pressly permitted by the terms of the grant. And the right acquired by prescription cannot in the same way be enlarged or extended.^ Where one has the right of a water course over another's land, he is obliged to keep it in repair, in the absence of covenants imposing that obligation upon the owner of the land, and for that purpose he has the right to enter upon the land to make the repairs, taking care that no unnecessary damage be done to the servient estate.^ 1 Manning v. Wasdale, 5 A. & E. 758; StockportWaterworkst). Potter, 3 H. & C. 300; s. c. 31 L. J. Exch. 9; Dudley Canal v. Grazebrook, 1 B. & Aid. 59; Carlyon v. Lovering, 1 H. & N. 784; Goldsmith v. Tunbridge- Wells Commissioners, L. R. 1 Ch. 349; Crossly v. Lightowler, L. R. 2 Ch. 479 ; Nuttal v. Bracewell, L. R. 2 Ex. 1 ; Cooke v. Hull, 3 Pick. 269 ; -Stowell V. Lincoln, 11 Gray, 434; Watkins v. Peck, 13 N. H. 360; Watson V. Bartlett, 62 N. H. 447; McDaniel v. Cammings, 83 Cal. 515; 22 Pac. 216; Peaslee v. Tower, 62 N. H. 434; Carleton Mills Co. v. Silver, 82 Me. 215; 19 Atl. 154; Warner v. Cushmau, 82 Me. 164; 19 Atl. 159; Curtis v. La Grande Water Co. (Or. 1890), 23 Pac. 808; Terry v. Smith, 47 Hun, 333; Whitney v. Wheeler Cotton Mills Co. (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 774. 2 Johnson v. Knapp, 150 Mass. 267; 23 N. E. 40; White v. Sheldon, 8 N. Y. S. 212; Ribordy v. Pellachoud, 28 111. App. 303. s White V. Sheldon, 8 N. Y. S. 212; Boynton v. Longley, 19 Nev. 69; 6 Pac. 437. * Sampson v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. fN. s.) 590 ; Blckett v. Morris, L, E. 1 , H. L. Cas. 47; Northam v. Hurley, 1 E. & B. 665; Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353; Jennison v. Walker, 11 Gray, 423; Gilford Hosiery Co. v. Pitman Mfg. Co., 63 N. H. 590; Smith i). Langewald, 140 Mass. 205; Mack V. Bensley, 63 Wis. 80. ' Peter v. Daniel, C. B. 568; Prescott a. White, 21 Pick. 341. 589 § 618 EASEMENTS. [PART 11. § 618. Right of lateral and subjacent support. — As an incident to the right of property in lands, the proprietor cannot make excavations upon his land, which will deprive the adjoining land of that lateral support which is necessary to keep it from falling in.i In the same manner, where there is a separate ownership in the surface, and the mines beneath, the owner of the mines cannot, by working them, so weaken the subjacent support to the surface as to cause it to cave in.^ The cases are numerous in which the right to lateral and subjacent support is claimed and conceded, and the same general principles determine the character and limitations of both kinds of support.* These are nat- 1 Partridge v. Scott, 3 Mees. & W. 220 ; Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 743; Bibby v. Carter, 4 H. & N. 153; Wyatt o. Harrison, 3 B. & Ad. 871 ; Backliouse v. Bonomi, 9 H. L. Cas. 503 ; Elliott v. Northeastern Rail- way, 10 H. L. Cas. 333; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220; CoUender v. Marsh, 1 Pick. 418; Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen, 131; Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. 92; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige Ch. 169; Hay v. The Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 162; Austin v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 334; Richardson V. Vermont Central R. R., 25 Vt. 465 ; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 101 ; Mc- Guire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 356; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566. 2 Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 739; Smart v. Morton, 5 E. & B. 30; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 E. & B. 123; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. &W. 60; Micklin v. Williams, 12 Exch. 259 ; Jones v. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ; 5 Am. Rep. 385. 3 Homer v. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 242; s. c. 21 Am. Kep. 55; Richardson V. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 465; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Id. 99; Roath v.' DriscoU, 20 Conn. 533; s. c. 52 Am. Dec. 352; Yandes v. Wright, 66 Ind. 319; Jones v. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429; Hoy». Sterrett, 2 Watts (Pa.), 337; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 524; Haverstick v. Sipe, 33 Pa. St 368; Wier's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 230; O'Neill v. Harkins, 8 Bush (Ky.), 620; Mc- Guire?;. Grant, 1 Dutch. (N. J.) 356; Executors of Lord v. Carbon Iron Mfg. Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 452; Scranton v. Phillips, 94 Pd. St. 15; Carlin ». Chappell, 101 Pa. St. 348: Buskirk u. Stickland, 47 Mich. 389; Busby v. Holthaus, 40 Mo. 161; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566; B. & P. R. Co. v. Reaney, 42Md. 117; Shafer ». Wilson, 44 Md. 268; Dyer v- City of St. Paul, 27 Minn. 457-, Marvin v. The Brewster Iron Mfg. Co., 55 N. Y. 538; Bellows V. Sackett, 15 Barb. (N. Y.), 96; Hay v. The Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159; Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co., 55 N. Y. 538; s. c. 14 Am. Rep. 322) Calender v. Marsh, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 418; White v. Dresser, 135 Mass. 150; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige (N, Y.), 169; Coleman, et al. v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St. 81. See, also, Myer v. Hobbs, 57 Ala. 175; Gilmore 590 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § 618 ural rights of easements, which are independent of any covenant or grant. They extend, however, only to the support of the adjoining land or surface in its natural con- dition. If the burden of support is increased by the erection of buildings upon the land, and because of such increase the excavation has caused the injury to the adjacent owner, he is without remedy. He had no natural easement upon the land of his neighbor for the support of his build- ings. Such is also the rule where in the case of mines, the erection of the buildings causes the surface to give way.^ But if the excavation is made in a negligent or unskillful manner, and the damage results from negligence or unskill- fulness, and not from the increase of the burden by the erection of the house, an action will lie for the injury thus sustained.^ And it is generally held that the party intend- ing to make an excavation on his own land must notify the adjoining proprietor if the excavation is likely to endan- ger the foundation of his building.' The English courts, V. Driscoll, 123 Mass. 199; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220; Angus v. Dalton, L. K. 6 App. Cas. 740; Partridge v. Scott, 3 M. & N. 220; Wyatt V. Harrison, 3 B. & Ad. 871; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. 59; Smart o. Morton, 5 El. & B. 30; a. c. 30 Eng. L. & Eq. 385: Yandes v. Wriglit, 32 Am. Rep. 109; Mamer v. Lussem, 65 111. 484; Nevinsu. Peoria, 4f 111.502; Wilms V. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; s. c. 34 Am. Rep. 242 ; Tunstall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1 ; s. c. 56 Am. Rep. 581 ; Northern Trans. Co. of Ohio v. Chicago, 99 U. S. (9 Otto) 635. 1 Rogers v. Taylor, 2 H. & N. 828; Palmer M.FIeshees, 1 Sid. 167; Gay- ford V. Nichols, 9 Exch. 702; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220; Lasala V. Holbrook, 4 Paige Ch. 169; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 356; Napier V. Bulwinkle, 5 Rich. 311; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566. " Foley 17. Wyeth, 2 Allen, 131; Richardson v. Vermont. Cent. R. R., 25 Vt. 465; Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. 92; Austin v. Hudson River E. R., 25 N. Y. 338; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 356; Shrieve v. Stokes, 8 B. Mod. 453; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 573; Yandes v. Wright, 66 Ind. 319 ; Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; Coleman v. Chad wick, 80 Pa. St. 81 ; Horner V. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 242; Scranton v. Phillips, 94 Pa. St. 15; Carlin v. Chappell, 101 Pa. St. 348 ; Livingston v. Moingona Coal Co., 49 Iowa, 369. 3 See Payton v. Mayor of London, 9 Barn. & Cress. 725; 4 Man. & Ky. 625; Walters v. Pfeil, 1 Moody & Malk. 362; Massey v. Goyder, 4 Car. & Payne, 161; Lasala t>. Holbrook, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 169. 591 § 618 EASEMENTS. [PABT II- however, deny the right to an action in such a case, if injury w»uld not have resulted from the negligence, had there been no building or other superstructure upon the land.i A common case for the application of the right to lateral and subjacent support, is that of cutting down the grade of streets to such an extent as to cause, a caving in of adjoining land.^ But these natural rights may be en- larged or diminished by express grant, or entirely new rights may be acquired by prescription. Thus a house may have annexed to it by grant or prescription an easement for lat- eral or subjacent support on the adjacent or underlying property of another, which cannot be claimed as a natural incident of the right of property. On the other hand, the right to such a support may be surrendered altogether.* Where the natural easement is thus extended to include the support of buildings then all excavations must be so con- 1 Smith V. Thackerah, L. E. 1 C. B. 564; Brown v. Robins, 4 H. & N. 186; Strogan v. Knowles, 6 H. & N. 454; Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9 H. L. Cas. 503. ■ 2 Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. D. 743; Wyatt v. Harrison, 3 Barn. & Adol. 871; s. c. 23 Eng. Com. L. 380; Hendricks u. Spring Valley Mining and Irrigation Co., 58 Cal. 190; Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9 H. L. Cas. 503; Hunt v. Peake, 1 Johns. (Eng.) 705; s. c. 29 L. J. Ch. 785. •" Rogers V. Taylor, 2 H. & M. 828; Wyatt v. Harrison, 3 B. & Ad. 817; Hyde v. Thornburgh, 2 Car. & K. 250; Dodd v. Holme, 1 A. &E.493; Par- tridge V. Scott, 3Mees. & "W. 220; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige Ch. 169; RichartB. Scott, 7 Watts, 460; Dalton ». Angus, 6 App. Cas. (Eng.) 740; reversing 3 Q. B. D.85; Hunt v. Peake, IJohns. (Eng.) 7C5; s. e. 29 L.J. Ch. 785; Partridge v. Scott, 3 Mee. & W. 220; Brown v. Windsor, 1 Cromp. &J. 20; Hide v. Thornborough, 2 Car. & Kir. 250; Robinson b. Grave, 27 L. T. 648; affirming 29 L. T. 7. See also Rigby v. Bennett, 21 Ch, D. 559; <,. c. 40 L. T. 47; Murchie?7. Black, 19 C. B. (N. s.) 190; Cale- donian R. Co. B. Sprot, 2 Macq.H. L. Cas. 479; Palmer u. Fleshees, 1 Sid. 167; Cox !>. Mattliews,l Vent. 237; Brown v. Windsor, 1 Compt. & J. 20. It has been held in Georgia and elsewhere that the right to lateral sup- port for a building cannot be acquired by prescription. Mitchell v. Mayor, 49 Ga. 19; 15 Am Rep. 469; Hoy v. Sterrett, 2 Watts (Pa.), 327; Richart v. Scott, 2 Watts (Pa.), 460; Gilmore v. DriscoU, 122 Mass. 199; Tunstall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1 ; s. c. 56 Am. Rep. 591 ; Napier v. Bulwinkle, 6 Rich. (S. Car.) 311. 592 CH. XVI. j EASEMENTS. § 619 ducted that uo damage be done to the buildings or other structures.^ § 619. Implied grant of lateral support. — Another exception to the general rule arises where the owner of two adjoining lots conveys one with a building thereon ; he can- not by excavations on the other lot deprive the building of the requisite support. The grant of an easement for lateral support is implied from his conveyance of the lot and build- ing. He will not be permitted to do anything upon the remaining lot which will detract from its full enjoyment.* The same rule applies when adjacent houses rely for lateral support upon the walls of each other, as where houses are built in a block, and the walls between them mutually sup- port each other. If one man erects the block, and after- wards sells one or more of the houses, an easement for support arises in favor of the owners of the several houses. 1 Partridge v. Scott, 3 Mee. & W. 220; Brown v. Windsor, 1 Compt.& J. 20; Hide v. Thornborough, 2 Car. & Kir. 250; McMillen v. Watt, 27 Ohio, 306 ; Bibby v. Carter, 3 H. & N. 153 ; s. c. 28 L. J. Ex. 182 ; Peyton v. liOjdon, 9 Barn. & C. 725; 4 Mann. & Ey. 625; Walters v. Pfeil, 1 Mood. & M. 362; Massey v. Goyder, 4 Car. & P. 161; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99: Stevenson «. Wallace, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 77; Aston u. Nolan, 63 Cal. 269; Smith ». Hardesty, 31 Mo. 411; Towers. Chadwick, 3 Bing. (N. Car.) 1; Paton v. Holland, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 92; Eno o. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 66; «. c 6 Duer, 17; Eadcliff's Ex. v. Mayor, etc., of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195 ; Partridge v. Gilbert, 15 N. Y. 601 ; Austin B. Hudson Biver E. Co., 26 N. Y. 334; Jones v. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429; O'Neil i>. Haskins, 8 Bush (Ky.), 650; Shrieve v. Wilson, 44 Md. 268; Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen (Mass.;, 131; Gilmore o. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199; Smith v. Hardesty, 31 Mo. 411; Bushy ». Holthaus, 46 Mo. 161; Bernheimer v. Kilpatrick, 6 N. Y. S. Eep. 858; see also City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231; s. c. 20 Am. Eep. 243; Tnnstall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1 ; «. c. 56 Am. Eep. 581 ; O'Connor «. Pittsburg, 18 Pa. St. 187. 2 Brown v. Windsor, 1 C. &. J. 20; Eichards v. Eose, Ex. Ch. 218; Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 743; Palmer v. Fleshees, 1 Sid. 167; United States v. Appleton, 1 Sumn. 492 ; Lasala v, Holbrook, 4 Paige Ch. 169 ; Eno u. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer, 53 ; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 366. 38 . 593 § 620 EASEMENTS. [PART II. This easement may also be acquired by express grant in all cases where it will not be implied.^ § 620. Party walls. — Rights similar to lateral support are acquired by the erection of the so-called party walls. A party wall is one which is erected between two lots for the common benefit of the owners thereof in supporting the beams of their adjoining buildings. They are not ten- ants in common of the entire wall. Each has the title in severalty to one-half, with an easement for support in the other half. Each of the owners can do whatever he pleases with his own half, provided he does not weaken the support of the other hnlf. And if he tears down his half he does it at the risk of rendering himself liable for any injuries sus- tained by the remaining portion of the wall.^ But it is not every wall which is common between two houses that has the characteristics of a party wall.' But every such wall by constant use as a common wall for twenty years will become a party wall by prescription.* Party walls are generally erected by express agreement between the parties, each paying his share of the expenses. The mere erection by one of a common wall between them will not subject the 1 Solomon v. Vintner's Co., 4 H. & N. 598; Walters v. Pfeil, Mood. & M. 362; Peyton ». Mayo of London, 9 B. & C. 725; Massey ». Goyder, 4 C. & P. 161; Kichards v. Eose, 24 Eng. S. & Eq. 406; s. c. 9 Ex. Ch. 218; Eno V. Del Vecchlo, 4 Duer, 53; Webster v. Stevens, 5 Duer, 553; Napier V. Bulwinkle, 5 Rich. 311; Pierce v. Dyer, 109 Mass. 374. See also Story V. Odin, 12 Mass. 157; Casselbery v. Ames, 13 Mo. App. 575; Charless v. Eankin, 22 Mo. 566; McGuire v. Grant, 1 Dutch. (N. J.) 356; Eno v. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 53; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 169; Kieffer v. Imhof, 26 Pa. St. 438; City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231 ; U. S. V. Appleton, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 492. 2 Matts V. Hawkins, 5 Taunt. 20: Sherred v. Cisco, 4 Sandf. 480; Dubois V. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 127; Brooks v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 639; 10 Am. Kep. 545 ; Orman u. Day, 5 Ela. 385 ; Berry u. Todd, 14 Daly, 450. 3 Traute v. White (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 196. * Eno V. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer, 53; Dowling v. Hennings, 20 Md. 179. But see Mitchell v. Mayor, 49 Ga. 19; 15 Am. Rep. 669; Napier i). Bul- winkle, 5 Rich. 311. 594 CH. XVI.] EASEMENTS. § ()21 other to liability for one-half the expenses of erection, even though he derives as much benefit thereform as the one who caused its erection.^ Party walls are generally, though not necessarily, erected one-half on each of the contiguous es- tates.^ The easements of the adjoining owners in each other's half of the party- wall are lost whenever the party- wall is pulled down or otherwise destroyed.^ § 621. Double ownership In buildings — Subjacent support. — Where there is a separate ownership in the upper or lower half of a house, similar easements of support are enjoyed by the respective owners. The owner of the upper half is entitled to the subjacent support from the lower half, and the owner of the lower half has an easement in the upper half, the roof, etc., for protection from rain and other elements. The owner of the upper story would also have as a way of necessity, if not by express grant, a right to use the hall and stairs in getting to and out of the upper story.* The law is not very clear as to the obliga- tions of the owners to each other. Without doubt one cannot do any affirmative act to his half which will result in damage to the other. But whether he is under a legal ob- ligation to keep his half in repair for the benefit of the 1 Richardson ». Tobey, 121 Mass. 457; 23 Am. Eep. 283; Sherred v. Cisco, 4 Sandf. 480; Dole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; 13 Am. Rep. 611;' Orman v. Day, 5 Fla. 385. And one part owner o£ a party wall may be sued on his contract or covenant for his share of the expenses. Day V. Caton, 115 Mass. 513; 20 Am. Rep. 347; Rindge v. Baker, 57 N. Y: 207; 15 Am. Rep. 475. But a covenant to build a party wall is executory and personal in its nature, and does not run with the land so as to bind the assigns of the covenantor. Coleu. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; 13 Am. Rep. 611. 2 See Cubitt v. Porter, 8 B. & C. 257; Wiltshire v. Sidford, 8 B. & C. 259 ; Bradley v. Christ's Hospital, 4 Mann. & G. 761 ; Brondage v. Warner, 2 Hill, 145; Partridge v. Gilbert, 15 N. Y. 601; Evans v. Jayne, 23 Pa. St_ 36; Cowling v. Hennings, 20 Md. 179; Hammann v. Jordan, 9 N. Y. S. 423. 3 Heartt v. Kruger (N. Y.), 24 N. E. 841, 5 N. Y. S. 841. < Mayo V. Newhoff (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 837. 595 § 622 EASEMENTS. [PAET IT, other is not well settled,^ although that would seem to be a just and equitable doctrine. If there is no such obligation to repair, the owner of the other half has the right to enter and make the repairs himself. There seems also to be a tendency to adopt the French rule, making all expenses for repair a common charge upon all the owners.^ But it will require further adjudication in order to settle the rights and obligations of these parties. If there is no provision for rebuilding, the title of the purchaser of an upper story or single room of a building is completely extinguished by the destruction of the build- § 622. Legalized nnlsances. — Where one acquires from^ the owners of the land in the neighborhood by grant or prescription the right to do things which without such license would be a nuisance, and for which an action would lie, he is said to have acquired an easement in the lands to com- mit the nuisance, free from liability for the consequences. Such is very often the case with noisome or offensive trades. The trade must, however, be lawful, and likely to be pro- ductive of benefit to the public, in order that the easement may bind the owners of the neighboring land. And a nui- sance, legalized in this manner, must be kept strictly within the conditions upon which the right was acquired. The 1 The authorities generally deny the right of action. Calvert v. Al- drich, 99 Mass. 74; Pierce v. Dyer, 109 Mass. 374; 12 Am. Rep. 716; Cheeseborongh v. Green, 10 Conn. 318. But if the owner of the upper half repairs the roof, he bears the whole expenses, and cannot compel the owner of the other half to pay any proportion of it. Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa, 67; 11 Am. Rep. 135. See also Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 601; Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318; McCormick v. Bishop, 28 Iowa, 239. 2 Campbell v. Mesier, 4 Johns. Ch. 334. Contra, Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa, 67; 11 Am. Rep. 135. And see Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 501; Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318; McCormick v. Bishop, 28 Iowa, 239. 5 Hahn v. Baker Lodge COreg. 1891), 27 Pac. Kep. 166. 596 <3H. SVI.] BASEMENTS. § 622 licensee will not be permitted to increase the nuisance, or to establish a new one in its place, and the right must be exercised with the least possible discomfort or annoyance to the owners of the adjoining lands. ^ 1 AlcTred's Case, 9 Kep. 59 a; Cole v. Barlow, 4 C. & B. (??. s.) 434; Baxendale v. McMurray, L. R. 2 Ch. 790 ; Eliotson v. Feetham, 2 Bing. N. C. 134; Bower v. Hill, lb. 339; St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, 11 H. L. Cas. 642; Dana W.Valentine, 5 Mete. 8; Atwater v. Bodflsh, 11 Gray, 152; Holeman v. Boiling Spring Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 346. 597 SECTION HL FBAKCHISES. Shctiok 633. Definition. 634. Kinds of franchises. 635. Mutual obligations. 636. Conflicting franchises — Constitutional prohibition. § 633. Definition. — A franchise is a privilege granted by the government to individuals which is not enjoyed by, and do not belong in common to, the people of a country. In England it is conferred by letters patent from the crown, and in this country by grants from the legislative depart- ment of the government. It is a privilege which is granted because it is calculated to promote the public benefit, while at the same time it affords a source of revenue to those who engage in its exercise.^ A franchise is generally, but not necessarily, granted to a corporation. Individuals may possess it, but it is usually of such a nature that it is easier and more convenient for corporations to exercise it. It is an estate of inheritance, unless its enjoyment is limited to a specific period, and is inheritable.^ It can be aliened, and may be sold to satisfy the debts of the corporation or the individuals who own it.' The franchise is to be distinguished from the charter of the corporation which owns it, although the franchise is often granted in the same act which contains 1 Bk. of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet 519; 2 Bla. Com. 87; Ang. & Ames, on Corp., sect., 737 ; People v. Utica Ins. Co., 16 Johns. 358. In England franchises are now granted by the Legislature, instead of by the crown as formerly. 1 Cool. Bla. Com. 274, n. » 3 Kent's Com. 459 ; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 291 ; Chadwick v. Haver- hill Bridge, 2 Dane Abr. 686 ; Stark v. McGowen, 1 Nott & M. 393 ; Clark ». White, 5 Bush, 353. « 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 297. 598 CH. XVI. ] 1-RANClllSES. § G35 the charter. Thus, in the case of a railroad company, the franchise of the road may be sold to satisfy debts, but the charter does not pass with it. § 034. Kinds of franchises. — There are as many kinds of franchises as there may be privileges granted by the gov- ernment. The most common are ferries, bridges, turnpike roads, and railroads. A ferry is the right to conduct pas- sengers and freight by boat across a navigable stream be- tween two points on the opposite banks. The right to a ferry does not depend upon the proprietorship of the water, or of the banks. Neither gives the right to set up a ferry, nor does the grant of a ferry interfere with the general navigation of the stream.^ In the same^ manner is therieht to construct a bridge across a stream, or to build a railroad or turnpike, a privilege, and not a common right whicb may be enjoyed by any one.^ § 635. Mutual obligations In the grant of a franchise, mutual obligations are assumed by the government and the individuals or corporation who receive it. The govern- ment confers upon the latter the right to exercise the right of eminent domain over private property, so far as . it is necessary for the enjoyment of the franchise, and the further right to provide for its own compensation, by charging a toll to all persons who make use of the benefits thus provided. On the other hand, the corporation undertakes to provide for the public safe and convenient accommodations, and for any failure to carry ' Peter v' Kendall, 6 B. & C. 703 ; Fay, Petitioner, 15 Pick. 243 ; Mills u. County Commissioners, 4 111. 533 ; McKobertg u. "Washburn, 10 Minn. 27 j Fall V. County Sutter, 21 Cal. 252. * Beckman v. Saratoga, etc., R. R., 3 Paige Ch. 45 ; Bloodgood v. Mohawk Eailroad, 18 Wend. 9; Milhan ». Sharp, 27 N. Y. 619; Davis v. Mayor, etc., 14 N. Y. 506 ; Bush o. Peru Bridge Co., 3 Ind. 21 ; McKoberts v. Washburn, 10 Minn. 27. 599 § 63G FRANCHISES. [PAKT II. out its part of the contract it is liable to any person who may be injured thereby, and it may lose its franchise by forfeiture to the State. The franchise is forfeited only at the suit of the government, by a judgment in a proceeding of scire facias or quo warranto} § 636. Conflicting francliises — Constitutional prohibi- tion. — If the government, in granting a franchise, obli- gates itself not to grant a similar franchise to be exercised in the same neighborhood, or between the same points, any subsequent franchise would be void, under the provision of the United States Constitution, which prohibits a State from passing any law impairing the obligation of a contract.'' But if there is no express restriction of that kind, none will be implied. And the grant of a second franchise would be good, even though its exercise would render the first alto- gether valueless.^ A franchise is not necessarily a monopoly. And even when there is such a restriction, the State is not prohibited from destroying the first franchise by the grant of a second, under the doctrine of eminent domain, when- ever the public wants require such a forfeiture. In such a case, however, the owners of the first franchise would be entitled to, and would receive, a proper compensation for 1 Peter v. Kendall, 6 B. & C. 703 ; "Willoughby ». Horridge, 12 C. B. 742 ; Chadwick v. Haverhill Bridge Co., 2 Dane Abr. 683 ; Ferrell v. Woodward, 20 Wis. 461 ; McRoberts v. Washburn, 10 Min. 27 ; 3 Kent's Com. 458 ; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 293. 2 Dartmouth College ». Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 ; Boston & Lowell E. R V. Salem & L. E. E., 2 Gray, 1 ; Newburgh Turnpike Co. v. Miller, 5 Johns. Ch. 101 ; People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 273; Milhan v. Sharp, 27 N. T., 620; McEoberts v. Washburn, 10 Minn. 29. ^ Charles Eiver Bridge Co. v. Warren Eiver Bridge Co., 7 Pick. 344; s. c, 11 Pet. 429 ; Eichmond E. E. Co. v. Louisa R. E. Co., 13 How. 71 ; Mills w. St Clair Co., 8 How. 581 ; Pisoataqua Bridge Co. v. Ne\V" Hampshire Bridge Co., 7 N. H. 59; Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica E. E. Co., 6 Paige Cb. 664; Port Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 61 ; Bush v. Peru Bridge Co., 3 Ind. 21; McEoberts v. Washburn, 10 Minn. 28 ; Pall v. County Sutter, 21 Cal. 252. 600 CH. XVI. J FRANCHISES. § 636 such loss. A franchise is just as much subject to the exer- cise of eminent domain, under similar restrictions as to compensation, as any other kind of private property.^ If, however, private persons attempt, without a franchise, to exercise the same rights as are granted by the franchise, to the prejudice of the owners of the franchise, such an inter- ference would be considered a nuisance, which will be abated and damages awarded upon proper application to the courts.* • West River Bridge Co. u. Dix, 6 How. 507 ; Eiehmond E. E. Co. v. Louisa E. R. Co., 13 How. 71 ; Boston "Water Power Co. v. Boston & TV. E. E. Co, 23 Pick. 360 ; Boston & Lowell E. E. v. Salem & L. E. E., 2 Gray, 1 ; Central Bridge Co. u. Lowell, 4 Gray, 474 ; White River Turnpike Co. v. Vermont Cent. E. E., 21 Vt. 590; New York, etc., E. R. v. Boston, etc., E. E., 36 Conn. 196; Matter of Kerr, 42 Barb. 119; McRoberts v. Washburn, 10 Minn. 27. => 2 Bla. Com. 219; 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 294; Ogden ». Gibbons, 4 Johns. Ch. 150; Newburgh Turnpike Co. u. Miller, 6 Johns. Ch- 101; Mo- Eobertst;. Washburne, 10 Minn. 27; Pall i>. County Sutter, 21 CaO- 252. 601 SECTION IV, KENTS. Sbction 641. Rents defined. 642. Kent-service. 643. Rent-charge and rent-seek — Fee farm rents. 644. How created. 645. How extinguished or apportioned. 646. Remedies for the recovery of the rent. 647. Liens arising from charges by will or by deed. 648. Liens by express charges. § 641. Rents defined A rent, according to Mr. Wash- burn, " is a right to the periodical receipt of money or money's worth in respect of lands, which are held in pos- session, reversion or remainder, by him from whom the payment is due." ^ It is, in other words, a right to the payment of something out of the profits of lands, to be rendered by the owner thereof and his privies. At common law there were three kinds of rents, viz. : Rent service, rent seek and rent charge. § 642. Bent service. — A rent service is that which the owner of a feud reserves to himself in conveying a part or the whole of his estate therein, to be paid by the grantee. In every such conveyance there was a tenure existing between grantor and grantee even of the fee, and out of this tenure, and as an incident thereof, whenever there was a rent reserved the owner of the rent had the right, to go upon the land aad distrain the grantee's goods and chattels, and satisfy himself for the accrued and unpaid rent by a sale thereof. This right of distress was enjoyed by the holder of a rent service, without its l:)eing expressly reserved. 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 272; Co. Lit. 142 a. 602 CH. XVI. J RENTS. § 644 The Statute Quia Emptores abolished all tenure between grantors and grantees of the fee, so that at present a rent service cannot be reserved out of a fee.' But this tenure does exist between reversioner or remainder-man, and the tenant of a term of years, and therefore a rent service may be reserved in a lease. ^ § 643. Rent charge and rent seek — Fee farm rents. — Rent charge is that, the payment of which is made a charge upon the land, but to which no right of distress was attached, unless expressly granted or reserved. If the owner of the rent was given this right, it was called a rent charge, if he did not possess it, the rent was a mere dry rent, or rent seek, the payment of which cannot be enforced by any seizure of the property out of which it was to issue. ^ The characteristics of these two kinds of rents, at present, present no dissimilarity except in the matter of remedies for their enforcement, and are generally known under the common na,vaQ of fee-farm rents, and are thus distinguished from 7-enls service} They will, therefore, be treated together under that common appellation. § 644. How created. — Fee-farm rents are created by any form of conveyance which constitutes a valid transfer of other incorporeal hereditaments. And they may be either reserved by the owner of the land in the deed conveying the land, or granted by him to a stranger, 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 273; 3 Prest. Abst. 64; Van Bensselaer v. Bead, 26 N. Y. 563; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa St. 495. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 273; Williams on Real Prop. 247. See ante, sect. 192, 193. 3 3 Prest. Abst. 55; 2 Bla. Com. 42; Williams on Real Prop. 329, 330; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 273, 274; Cornell u. Lamb, 2 Cow. 652; Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 N. Y. 68; Van Rensselaer v. Chadwlok, 22 N. Y. 33; Wallace ». Harmstad, 44 Pa. St. 495. * 3 Prest. Abst. 54; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 273; Langford ». Selmes, 3 Kay & J. 229; Williams on Real Prop. 333. 603 § 644 RENTS. [part II. while he retains the land/ or they may be acquired by prescription. 2 It may be granted in fee, in tail, for life or for years, and there may be a grant of the rent to one for a particular estate, with a remainder to another.^ But the rent will be only good so far as the estate of the grantor extends. A tenant for life cannot grant a rent for a longer period than his own life.* Once the rent is created it is itself the subject of a grant or devise, and may be carved up into any number of estates, as long as the fee is not parted with. It descends to the heirs, and is capable of being conveyed to uses and in trust.* The wife also may have her dower or the husband his curtesy out of a rent held in fee or in tail.* Fee-farm rents are not very common in this country. Indeed they are rarely met with in prac- tice. But they are valid limitations, and will receive the same recognition in this country as is accorded to them in England. Whenever used, they are resorted to for the purpose of securing to certain heirs their shai'e in the inher- itance without partitioning the land, or for raising joint- ures for married women.' 1 3 Prest. Abst. 53; 3 Cruise Dig. 273; Williams on Real Prop. 334; Van Eensselaer «. Hays, 19 N. Y. 68; lugersoll v. Sergeant, 1 Whart. 337. 2 Wallace v. United Presb. Church, 111 Pa. St. 164. = 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 275; Williams on R«al Prop. 334; "Van Rens- selaer u. Hays, 19 N. Y. 68; Van Rensselaer o. Read, 26 N. Y. 664. ^ Williams on Real Prop. 329; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 277; 2 Dane's Abr. 452. 5 3 Prest. Abst. 53 ; 2 Washb on Real Prop. 276 ; 3 Cruise Dig. 285, 292 ; Van Rensselaer •», Hays, 19 N. Y. 68 ; Van Rensselaer -o. Read, 26 N. Y. 664; Toan u. Pline, 60 Mich. 385; Truloct v. Donahue, 76 Iowa, 758. 6 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 276; 3 Cruise Dig. 291. ' Scott V. Lunt, 7 Pet. 596; Adams u. Buclilin, 7 Pick. 121; Van Rens- selaer V. Plainer, 2 Johns. Cas. 17; Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 N. Y. 68; Van Rensselaer i;. Read, 26 N. Y. 564 ; Williams Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 290; Parley v. Craig, 11 N. J. L. 262; Wartenby v. Moran, 3 Call, 424; Mar- shall «. Conrad, 5 Call, 364; Alexander «. Warrence, 17 Mo. 228; Walk. Am. Law. 266; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 277, 278; Atkinson ■o. Orr (Ga. 1889), 9 S. E. 787. 604 CH. XVI.] EENTS. ' § 646 § 645. How extinguished or apportioned. — If one having a rent-charge acquires by purchase a part of the premises, out of which the rent issues, the rent is wholly extinguished, since a rent-charge is not capable of appor- tionment. This rule is the result of repugnance enter- tained at common law to this kind of rent. The rale is the same if he releases any portion of the land from the charge.^ But the rule is confined to cases of acquisition by purchase. If a portion of the land is acquired by descent, the rent will be apportioned.' The owner of the rent may avoid the operation of this rule by entering into a new agreement with the owner of the land. Thus if the land is held by tenants in common, in case of partition between them, the owner of the rent may by agreement apportion the rent between them, or he may release a portion of the land with the consent of the other land-owners.^ These agreements, however, would virtually be new grants of rent, and cannot technically be said to secure au apportionment of the old rent. Although there can be no apportionment of rent in case of a release, or transfer to the grantee, of a part of the land charged with the rent, it can be divided up indefinitely by the owner of the rent, and it can be apportioned among the heirs of the grantee at his death, or a part may be severed by levy of execution to satisfy the debts of the grantee.* § 646. Remedies for the recovery of the rent. — The ordinary common-law remedy was that of distress. Upon 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 288; Co. Lit. 148; Williams on Real Prop. 337; Dennett v. Pass, I Bing. (N. C.) 388; Parley v. Craig, 11 ST. J. L. 262. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 288; Williams on Real Prop. 337; Cruger V. McLanry, 41 N. T. 223. -' Van Rensselaer v. Chadwick, 22 N. Y. 38; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 289. * Rlvin V. Watson, 5 Mees. & W. 255; Farley v. Craig, 11 N.J. L. 262; Reyerson v. Quackenbush, 26 N. J. L. 236; Cook v. Brightly, 46 Pa. St. 440. 605 § 646 RENTS. [PAKT II. failure to pay the rent, the person entitled to payment could distrain the tenant's personal property found upon the land, out of which the rent issues. This right of distress was in- variably an incident to a rent service, but had to be expressly reserved in the case of a rent chai-ge.^ In most of the States in this country the right of distress has at sometime been adopted and enforced, as modified by Stat. 4, Geo. II. ch. 28, which extended it to rents seek and rents charge, thereby abolishing all distinction between them.^ But it has never existed in New England, and has now been abol- ished in New York and several of the other States, while perhaps, everywhere the remedy has been subjected to stat- utory changes and restrictions.' In addition to the right of distress, there is the ordinary personal action against the tenant and his assigns for the recovery of the rent as it falls due. This remedy always exists together with, or iu the absence of, the right of distress.* In the common-law pleading, the form of action varies with the form of the deed, in which the rent is reserved or granted. If the deed is an indenture, covenant will lie, if a deed poll, assumpsit is the proper form of action, while the action of debt will lie in most cases, whether the instrument be an indenture or a deed poU.^ Sometimes, in the creatiou of a fee-farm 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 278; 2 Shars. Bla. Com. 43 n. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 278,293; 3 Kent's Com. 472; Coburn u. Har- ney, 18 Wis. 147; Grant v. Whltwell, 9 Iowa, 154. 3 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 278, 279; Guild v. Rogers, 8 Barb. 502; S Kent's Com. 473 n ; 2 Dane's Abr. 451. * 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 479; Swasey v. Little, 7 Pick. 296; Van Rens- selaer V. Bonesteel, 24 Barb. 365; "Van Rensselaer v. Slingerland, 26 N. Y. 587; Van Rensselaer v. Read, 26 N. Y. 564; Van Rensselaer v. Dea- nisoD, 35 N. Y. 400. 5 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 281; Parker v. Webb, 3 Salk. 5; Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Saund. 281; Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 B. & C. 410; Goodwin v. Gil- bert, 9 Mass. 610; Adams ». Buclilin, 7 Pick. 121; Newell t>. Hill, 2 Mete. 180; Burbank o. Pillsbury, 48 N. H. 476; Johnson v. Muzzy, 45 Vt. 419; Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 15 Conn. 433; Gale v. Nixon, 6 Cow. 445; Trust- ees V. Spencer, 7 Ohio, 149. 606 CH. XVI. j RENTS. • § 647 rent, a right of entry and forfeiture is granted, which turns the estate into one upon condition. Or the right of entry is only granted for the purpose of giving the possession of the premises to the grantee of the I'ent, to re-imburse him- self for the accrue'd rent out of the profits of the land. Whether the entry result^ in a total or only a partial for- feiture of the estate, the grantee can enforce his right to the possession by the ordinary common-law action, by writ of assize, or by ejectment.^ The remedies vary greatly ac- cording to the terms of each grant, and the local statute law of each State. For a more detailed statement of the ap- propriate remedies, the reader is referred to these statutes. § 647. Liieus arising from charges by will or by deed. — Charges upon land, similar in their effect as an incumbrance upon lands to rents are held by equity to exist when specific property, or property in general, in- cluded in a residuary devise is conveyed or disposed of by will subject to or charged with, the payment of debts, legacies, or annuities in favor of some third party. The legal title to the property was conveyed or devised to the grantee or devisee subject to a lien or incor- poreal right in favor of the person to whom the legacy, debt, or annuity is to be paid. This lien can be enforced against the property subject to it in favor of the in- tended beneficiary. These equitable liens may appear in deeds, as in the case of marriage settlements and the like, but it is more common, — and in this country it is rarely otherwise, — to be found in wills. ^ This lien may be en- 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 279, 280; Co. Lit. 201, note 86, 202; Farley »). Craig, 11 N. J. L. 262. See Stephenson v. Haines, 16 Ohio St. 478; Marshall v. Conrad, 5 Call. 364. 2 Hill V. Bl£. of London, 1 Atk. 618, 620; Bright v. Larcher, 4 De G. & J. 608; Markings v. Markings, 1 De G. F. & J. 355; Pearson v. Helli- well, L. E. 18 Eq. 411; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 N. Y. 142; Finch ». Hull, 24 Hun, 226; Dill v. Wisner, 23 Id. 123; Ferris v. Van Vechten, 9 Id. 12; Loder v. Hatfield, 4 Id. 36; Horning v. Wiederspalen, 28 N. J. Eq. 387; Grode ». VanValen, 25 Id. 95; Gardenville, etc., Assn. o. Walker, 52 607 § 648 RENTS. [part n. forced not only against the derisee, but also against the grantee, mortgagee and other subsequent purchasers who take it with notice.^ And the record and probate of the will in which the charge is made is notice to a subsequent purchaser of the equitable lien arising therefrom. ^ At one time this was the only way in which land could be subjected to liability for the debts of the decedent owner, and therefore the charge of the land by the will with the payment of the debts was a provision of the greatest impor- tance to creditors. But now all lands, as well as personal property, are made generally liable for the satisfaction of the debts, and the testamentary charge is only valuable to creditors so far as such charge of the specific property with the payment of specific debts gives to the particular cred- itors a special exclusive lien for the satisfaction of their claims. Commonly, and in order that any property may be subject to an equitable lien in favor of the payment of debts or legacies, the intention of the testator to so charge the property must either be expressly stated in the will so as to create an express charge upon the property, or the charge upon the property must be implied from the provisions of the will, or from the circumstances surrounding the parties and the disposition of the property by will ; so that the lien may arise from express and implied charges whenever the intention of the testator to so charge the property can be clearly deduced from all the circumstances of the case.^ § 648. Liiens by express charges. — The testator may of course by express terms charge the payment of his debts or Me. 452; Siron v. Euldman's Exr., 32 Gratt. 215; Burch v. Burch, 52 Ind. 136; Ehoades v. Rhoades, 88 111. 139. 1 Perkins v. Emory, 55 Md. 27; Donnelly v. Edenlen, 40 Id. 117; Blauvelt v. Van Winkle, 29 N. J. Eq. 111. 2 Wilson V. Piper, 77 Ind. 437. 3 Hoyt V. Hoyt, 85 N. Y. 142; Taylor v. Dodd, 58 Id. 335; Owens. ». Clayton, 56 Md. 129 ; Steene v. Steele's Admr., 64 Ala. 438 ; Taylor v. Harwell, 65 Id. 1; Heslop v. Gatton, 71 111. 628; Kirkpatrick v. Chestnut, 6 S. C. 216. 608 CH. XVI. J RENTS. § 648 liens or of any one of them either upon the particular piece of land, or upon the land in general disposed of in the residuary- devise. Whenever such intention is made plain by the lan- guage of the will, these charges could be made upon both real and personal property as well as upon the residue of personal pro'perty which is given to the residuary legatee. No par- ticular language is required to be used in creating the express char ge, provided the intention to so charge the property with the payment of the legacy or debts is mani- fest in the will. The express charges of property with the payment of debts and legacies may be divided into two classes. In the first class will be found all those cases where the testator devises the land or funds expressly for A the payment of debts and legacies. In such a case the prop- '- ' erty devised, or funds bequeathed, will be expressly charged with the payment of the specified debts or legacies, but p the devisee or legatee will not be personally liable for the payment of such debts or legacies. The only remedy in such a case for the beneficiaries of the charge will be against the property which has been charged with the pay- / ment of debts and legacies. On the other hand the second class of cases will include all those where the language em- '^ ployed charges the devisee or legatee with the payment of a debt or legacy in consideration of a devise or bequest to him. In such a case the charge created not only a lien upon the property devised or bequeathed, but likewise im- ,. posed a personal liability upon the devisee or legatee, and the beneficiary of the charge can proceed against the devisee personally as well as against the subject-matter of the devise.^ 1 Gardenville, etc., Assn. v. Walker, 52 Md. i52; Donnelly «. Edelen, 40 M. 117; Frampton v. Blume, 129; Mass. 152; Birch u. Sherratt, L. R. 2 Cli. 644; Metcalf v. Hutchinson, L. K. 1 Ch. D. 591; Taylor v. Taylor, L. K. 17 Eq. 324; Brook e. Beadley, L. R. 4 Eq. 106; 3 Ch. 672. 39 609 L CHAPTEE XVn. LICENSES . Section 651. What is a license? 652. Revocation of tlie license. 653. Revocation ol license — Continued. 654. How licenses are created. § 651. What is a license? — A license is an authority or power to make use of land in some specific way, or to do certain acts or a series of acts upon the land of another. It differs from an easement in that it is not created by deed or by prescription, and hence it is not a right or inter- est issuing out of land, no jus in re; simply a naked authority.^ A license is a personal interest or right, which is terminated either by the death of the licensor or licensee, or by the sale and transfer of the land without notice of the license, and which cannot be assigned without the con- sent of the licenser.^ The licensee must exercise his 1 Taylor v. Waters, 7 Taunt. 374; Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 633; Blaisdell v. Railroad, 51 N. H. 485; Wol£ v. Frost, 4 Sandf.Ch. 72; Mum- ford II. Whitney, 15 Wend. 580; Bridges v. Purcell, 1 Dev. & B. 486; Greenwood, etc., Co. v. New York, etc., Ry., 8 N. Y. S. 26; Ex parte Coburn, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 568; Wiseman v. Luckinger, 84 N. Y. 31; Mum- ford V. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 384; Post «. Pearsall, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 425; Banks v. The American Tract Soc, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 438; Forbes o. Balenseifer, 74 HI. 183; Oliver v. Hook, 47 Md. 301; Wolf v. Frost, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 72, See also Foot ». N. H. & N. R. Co., 23 'Conn. 214; Prince v. Chase, 10 Conn. 375; Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Stevens B. Stevens, 11 Met. (Mass.) 251; Seidensparger «. Spear, 17 Me. 123; Desloge v. Peace, 38 Mo. 588; Fuhr v. Dean, 26 Mo. 116; Harris v. Gillingham, 6 N. H. 9; Veghte v. The Raritan Water Power Co., 4 C. E. Green, (N. J.) 142 ; Dark u. Johnston, 55 Pa. St. 164 ; Foster v. Browning, 4 E. I. 47; Hazelton u. Putnam, 3Pinn. (Wis.) 107; s. c. 3 Chand. (Wis.) 117; s. <;. 54 Am. Dec. 158; De Harou. U. S., 5 Wall. (U. S.) 599; 2 Am. Lead. Cas. (5th ed.) 549, note. ' Wickham v. Hawker, F. M. &. W. 77; Coleman u. Foster, 37 Eng. Law & Eq. 489; Emerson v. Fisk, 6 Me. 200; Buggies v. Lesure, 24 Pick. 610 CH. XVII. J LICENSES. § 652 authority in a reasonably prudent manner, and he will be held liable for all damages resulting from his negligence or uuskillfulness ; but he will not be responsible for any dam- age, which is but the natural consequence of the exercise of his authority.^ § 652. Revocation of the license. — Since the license does not create any interest or estate in the land as a general proposition it would seem that the continued enjoyment of the license should depend upon the will of the licenser. But the antagonism of interest and consequent loss, arising from the grant and subsequent revocation of a license, have produced no little confusion in the decisions of the courts. As long as the license remains executory there can certainly be no fixed indefeasable right to its en- joyment. The licensee has no remedy by which he may enjoin the licenser from prohibiting the exercise of his license.^ The power to revoke is undoubted. So also is this the case with ■ an executed license, where the revoca- tion will leave the parties in the same condition as they were before the license was granted. Such would be the case of a license to fish or hunt upon another's land, or to witness some performance, as where one purchases a ticket for the theater. All such licenses may be revoked at the will of the licenser. And in the case of a theatrical performance or other show, the licensee or ticket holder may be bidden to leave, and ejected by force if he refuses 187; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N. H. 364; Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 204; Blalsdell v. Railroad, 51 N. H. 485; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375; Jack- son ». Babcock, 4 Johns. 418; Wolf v. Froat, 4 Sandf. Ch. 93; Snowden V. Wilas, 19 lad; 13 ; Cox v. Levison, 63 N. H. 283. 1 Selden v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 29 N. Y.-640; Pratt v. Ogden, 34 N. T. 20; Kent t). Kent, 18 Pick. 669; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375; Sampson V. Burnside, 13 N. H. 265; Fentiman v. Smith, 4 East, 107; Webb v. Paternoster, Palmer, 71. 2 Cook V. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Sterling v. Warden, 57 N. H. 217; 12 Am. Kep. 80; Dodge v. McClintock, 47 N. H. 483; Miller v. Auburn, etc., R. R., 6 Hill. 61 ; Veghte v. Rariton, 19 N. J. Eq. 154. 611 § 652 LICENSES. [part II. to do so, even though there is uo valid cause for his removal.^ But the revocation of the license will not be permitted to have a retroactive effect, so as to make the acts done by the licensee upon the land before revocation a trespass, or to make him liable for damages flowing naturally from the exercise of his authority.^ And if there is a valid subsisting contract for the grant and exercise of the license the revocation of the license will constitute a breach of the contract, for which the licenser will be liable in an action for damages. And so also, if in the exercise of the authority the licensee has taken property of his own upon the land (as, for example, where he erects a building), or acquires a title to personal property formerly the property of the licenser (as where the license is to go upon the land and cut trees for his, the licensee's, own use), a reasonable time must be given to the licensee within which to remove his property. To that extent under such circumstances is the license irrevocable. The revocation does not vest in the licenser the property of the licensee found upon the land.' ' Wood V. Leadbitter, 13 M. &. W. 838; Coleman v. Foster, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 489; Morse u. Copeland, 2 Gray, 302; Sampson v. Burnside, 13 N. H. 264; Hill v. Hill, 113 Mass. 103; 18 Am. Eep. 455; McCrea v. Marsh, 12 Gray, 213; Burton v. Scherff, 1 Allen, 184; Desloge v. Pearce, 38 Mo. 599. See Ford v. Whitlock, 27 Vt. 268; Hays v. Kichardson, 1 Gill & J. 383; Falir v. Dean, 26 Mo. 119 ; Quinn v. Anderson, 70 Cal. 454; 11 Pac. 746; Totel u. Bounefoy, 23 111. App. 55; 123 111. 653; 24 N. E. 687; Williams ». Flood, 63 Mich. 487; 30 N. W. 93. Likewise, a Ucense to cut trees is revocable. Hill ■». Hill, 113 Mass. 103; 18 Am. Rep. 455; Giles V. Simonds, 16 Gray, 444; Tillotson v. Preston, 7 Johns. 285; Westcott V. Delano, 20 Wis. 516; Roffey v. Henderson, 17 Q. B. 586; Ward ». Eapps (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 934. 2 Hewlins v. Shlppam, 6 B. & C. 221; Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Stevens v. Stevens, 11 Mete. 251 ; Kent v. Kent, 18 Pick. .569; Foot t).Ne"w Haven, etc., Co., 23 Conn. 223; Price v. Case, 10 Conn. 378; Selden v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 639; Pratt v. Ogden, 34 N. Y. 20; Barnes V. Barnes, 6 Vt. 388 ; Bridges v. Purcell, 1 Dev. & B. 496. * Wood V. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W. 856; Ashman v. Williams, 8 Pick. 402; Churchill v. Hulbert, 110 Mass. 42; 14 Am. Rep. 578; Burk v. Hollis, 98 Mass. 56; Nettleton v. Sikes, 8 Mete. 34; Barnes v. Barnes, 6 Vt. 388; White V. Elwell, 48 Me. 360; Town v. Hazen, 51 N. H. 596; Parsons ». 612 "CH. XVII. J LICENSES. § 653 § 653. Revocation of license — Continued. — Where the licensee in the exercise of his license has been put to con- siderable expense, and a revocation of the license results in great damage to the licensee, because of the impossibility to place the parties in statu quo, whether the license can be revoked has been differently decided. A large number of the courts have held that such a license is, nevertheless, revocable, and the revocation will not render the licenser liable to any action for damages.^ While, on the other hand, a number of the cases maintain, on the equitable grounds of estoppel and part performance of a contract, that the license is i rrevocable in such cases. ^ If the authority is connected with, or is exercised in pursuance of, a contract for the grant of an easement, the licensee may prevent a revocation by an action for specific performance of the con- tract for an easement.' But a simple license, which is ;^iot Camp, 11 Conn. 525; Smith a. Gonlding, 6 Cush. 155; Desloge v. Pearce, 38 Mo. 599. ^ Cocker v. Cowper, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 418 ; Fentlman v. Smith, 4 East, 107; Owen v. Field, 12 Allen 457; Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 633; Stevens ■B. Stevens, 11 Mete. 251; Batchelder v. Wakefield, 8 Cush. 252; Foster v. Browning, 4 R. I. 47 ; Harris v. Gillingham, 6 N. H. 9; Housten v. LafEee, 46 N. H. 507; Sampson v. Barnside, 13 N. H. 264; Foot u. New Haven, etc., Co., 23 Conn. 223; Selden v. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 639; Thompson v. Gregory, 4 Johns. 81; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. 380; Ex parte Cobnrn, 1 Cow. 568; Dexter v. Hazen, 10 Johns. 246; Hetfleld V. Centre E. R., 2,9 N. J. L. 671; Hall v. Chaffers, 13 Vt. 150; Trammell •B. Trammell, 11 Rich. 474; Addison u. Hack, 2 Gill, 221; Bridges v. Pur- cell, 1 Dev. & B. 492; Woodward v. Seeley, 11 111. 157; Clute v. Carr, 20 Wis. 533 ; Hazleton «. Putnam, 3 Chand. (Wis.) 117 ; St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 112 111. 380. 2 Rerick ». Kern, 14 Serg. & R. 267; Lacey v. Arnett, 33 Pa. St. 169; Huff V. McCauley, 53 Pa. St. 209; Cook v. Prigden, 45 Ga. 331; Wickers- ham V. Orr, 9 Iowa, 260; Beatty ». Gregory, 17 Iowa, 114; Snowden «. Wilas, 19 Ind. 14. In others of the States, a middle ground is taken, that the licenser cannot revoke thp license until he has re-imbursed the licensee for his expenditures. See Woodbury v. Parshlly, 7 N. H. 237; Addison v. Hack, 2 Gill, 221; Rhodes v. Otis, 83 Ala. 600, and cases cited supra from Iowa and Indiana. 8 Veghte V. Raritan Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 153; Williamston, etc., E. R. v. Battle, 66 N. C. 646. 613 § 653 LICENSES. [part II. ia the nature of an executory contract for the future grant of an easement, not being an incorporeal hereditament or an estate in lands, is not an indefeasible fixed right, and can therefore be revoked. Perhaps a failure to observe this distinction has been the cause of the doubt and confusion to be met with in the cases. ^ Perhaps the better rule is that where the licenser revokes his license in violation of a valid subsisting contract for its continuance, and thereby pro- duces damage to the licensee, such damages should be, and are, recoverable in an action for the breach of the contract.^ But, as a corollary to the above proposition, it may be sug- gested that where the length of the enjoyment of the license is indefinite, as where the license is to erect and maintain a house, that being a bargain for a permanent interest inland in the nature of an easement, it can be granted only in the way in which such interests are required to be created, viz. : by deed, and therefore no action for damages will lie for its revocation. But a license upon sufiicient consideration to cut and take away a certain number of trees or to dig for minerals for a specific time, and the like, are valid, sub- sistino; contracts, and the revocation of the license would be a breach of it, for which the licenser may be held liable. 1 A further distinction, drawn from the law of Easements, would serve to suggest the most rational doctrine. If the license only involves the abandonment of the licenser's easement upon the licensee's land, and imposes no direct burden upon the licenser's land, the license is irrevo- cable, for an easement may be abandoned by parol. But if the license in- volves the permanent use of the licenser's land, and structures are to be maintained upon it, since that is nothing more than the grant of the ease- ment, it may be revolted, if not granted by deed. This appears to be the position of the Illinois courts. See Russell v. Hubbard, 59 111. 337; Woodward v. Seeley, 11 III. 157; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 636, 639. See also Winters. Brocl^well, 8 East, 308; Hewlins v. Shippam, 5B. & C. 221; Morse u. Copeland, 2 Gray, 202; Dyer u._ Sandford, 9 Mete. 895; Foot v. New Haven, etc., Co., 20 Conn. 223; Veghte v. Raritan Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 153; Addison v. Hack, 2 Gill, 211; Jamieson v. Milleman, 3 Duer, 255; Hazleton v. Putnam, 4 Chand. (Wis.) 12-1. '^ Whitmarsh v. Walker, 1 Mete. 316; Giles v. Simonds, 15 Gray, 444. 614 • CH. XVII.J LICENSES. § 654 § 654. How licenses are created. — Licenses may be created either by express agreement, by parol/ or they may be implied from the inducements and representation of the land owner. Thus, merchants, professional men and arti- sans impliedly give the public a license to enter tlieir places of business for the purpose of transacting business. Such would also be the case between persons sustaining social relations, in respect to the right to enter each other's premises for the purpose of visiting.^ 1 Wood V. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W. 838 ; King v. Horndon, 4 M. & Sel. 562; Muskett v. Hill, 6 Bing. N. C. 694; Doolittle v. Eddy, 7 Barb. 74; Ex parte Coburn, 1 Cow. 568; Blaisdell v. E. K., 51 N. H. 485. 2 Martin v. Hougbton, 45 Barb. 60; Adams v. Truman, 12 Johns. 408; Gowan v. Phila. Exchange Co., 5 Watts & S. 141 ; Kay v. Penn. K. R., 65 Pa. St. 273; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 231; 12 Am. Eep. 80. 615 PART III TITLES. Chapter XYIII. General Classification of Titles. XIX. Title by Descent. XX. Title by Original Acquisi- tion. XXI. Title by Grant. XXII. Deeds, Their Requisites ajsd Component Parts. XX III. Title by Devise. 617 CHAPTER Xyill. TITLES GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF TITLES. Section 659. What is title? — By descent and purchase. 660. Original and derivative titles. § 659. What is title ? — By descent and purchase. — A title is the means by which one may acquire a right of own- ership in things ; Jusf.a causa possidencU quod nostrum est} When applied to real property, titles may be, divided into two general classes, title by descent and title by purchase. Title by descent is that title which one acquires by law as heir to the deceased owner. It is cast upon the heir with or without his consent. His assent is not necessary, and he cannot by any disclaimer divest himself of the title so acquired.^ Every other kind of title, whether vested by act of the parties or by operation of the law, is called a title by purchase. The party, in whose favor it is created, must accept it in order that any title may pass, either expressly or by acts which clearly indicate his assent. But he cannot be compelled to accept unless he has placed himself under obligations by a valid contract of sale." § 660. Original and derivative titles. — Titles by pur- chase may be again subdivided into original and derivative. 1 Co. Lit. 345 b ; 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 1, 2 ; Bart, on Real Prop., sect. 314. 2 Co. Lit. 191 a, note 77, sect. V., 1 ; Bao. Law Tracts, 128 ; 2 Bla. Com. 201 ; Williams on Eeal Prop. 97 ; Womack v. Womack, 2 La. An. 339. But he may formally renounce in Louisiana. Eeed v. Crocker, 12 La. An. 436. » 3 Cruise Dig. 317 ; Co. Lit. 18 b, note 106 ; 4 Kent's Com. 373 ; Williams on Keal Prop. 96, 97 ; Nicolson v. Wardsworth, 2 Swanst. 365, 372. 619 § 660 TITLES GENERAL CLASSIFICATION. [PAET III. An original title is one which is acquired solely by act of the party claiming it, and is obtained by his entry into pos- session. It is a general rule of both natural and civil law, that things under dominion of no person may become the property of any one by mere entiy into possession, and it includes not only those things which have never been under the dominion of any one, but also those, the dominion over which has been lost or abandoned. Derivative title is that by which property is acquired from another, in whom the right of property has been vested. It involves the idea of a transfer or assignment of the right of property from one to another. This transfer may be effected by act of the former owner, as byconveyance«ni!erz;z?;os, or testamentary disposition, or it may be by operation of law.^ ' This subdivision is very generally used by the continental jurists instead of the division of titles into descent and purchase. See HoltzendorflPs Ency- clopaadie der Eechtswissenschaft, pp. 386-390. It is here introduced in the belief that the distinction might serve to explain a few di£Scult questions •which arise in respect to several kinds of titles, more notably titles by limita- tion and estoppel, as they are called by the different authors. It will be observed that in the present work they are not considered as modes of acquir- ing titles — only modes of perfecting titles already acquired by destroying or nullifying other outstanding rights or titles in other persons. See post, sects. 717, 729, 730. 620 CHAPTEE XIX. TITLE BT DESCENT. Sbctiok 663. Definition. 664. Lex loci rei siioe. 665. Consanguinity and affinity. 666. How lineal heirs take. 667. Lineal consanguinity in the ascending Beries» 668. Collateral heirs. 669. Computation of collateral relationship. 670. Ancestral property. 671. Kindred of the whole and half blood. 672. Advancement — Hotchpot. 673. Posthumous children. 674. Illegitimate children. 675. Alienage a bar to inheritance. § 663. I>eflnition. — Title by descent is that title, by which one acquires by operation-of law upon the death of the owner the estates of inheritance, which the deceased has not dis- posed of in any other manner. The person from whom the property descends is called the ancestor.^ The person who is appointed by the law to take the estates is called the heir. Technically, one who takes property under a will is not an heir. And the word heir is also confined to those persons who take the real estate. One cannot be an heir to personal property.^ The heirs cannot be ascertained until ' In that sense a child might be the ancestor of his parents, a grandchild the ancestor of his grandparents. 3 Washb. 18 ; Prickett v. Parker, 3 Ohio St. 390 ; Williams on Keal Prop. 105. This was opposed to the common law, according to which "the inheritance lineally descends, but never lineally ascends." See post, 667. 2 Bac. Law Tracts, 128 ; Co. Lit. 191a, note 77 ; Donahue's Estate, 86 CaL 329; Lincoln v. Aldrich, 149 Mass. 368. 621 § 663 TITLE BT DESCENT. [PAET IH. the death of the ancestor. Nemo est hoeres viventis.^ The heir never takes in pursuance of the deceased owner's in- tention or will ; consequently no one, who by law is entitled to the property as heir, can be shut out from his inheritance by any act of the ancestor, unless such act amounts to a disposition of the property by will.^ And even where a will, disposing of all the ancestor's property, is produced, if it be shown that the omission of the name of an heir, especially if it be a child or a grandchild, is the result of an accident, and that the testator fully intended that he also should take under the will, such heir will be permitted to take the share of the estate to which he would have been entitled if the ancestor had died intestate. And in the ab- sence of direct proof of the testator's intention, the failure to mention the particular heir will raise the presumption that the omission was accidental.^ Immediately upon the death of the ancestor, the title to all his estates of inheri- tance vests in the heir or heirs, subject to the widow's dower and husband's tenancy by the curtesy, and the claims 1 2 Bla. Com. 208; 3 Washb. on Seal Prop. 6; Williams on Real Prop. 96. But in common parlance persons are recognized as possible heirs to a certain individual if they should survive him. And in view of the ex- istence of this possibility, the common law made use of the two expres- sions, heirs presumptive, and heirs apparent. An heir presumptive is one who would be the heir if the ancestor were to die at the contemplated time, but whose possibility of inheritance may be destroyed by the birth of some one more nearly related, as well as by his death before the an- cestor. An heir apparent was one who was sure to inherit, if the ances- tor died in his life-time. These terms are of no practical importance, as no rights of property are acquired by such parties which the law in any way recogaizes. Gardner v. Pace (Ky.), 11 S. W. Kep. 779. See Lock- wood V. Jessup, 9 Conn. 228. 2 Augustus V. Seabolt, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 161; Doe v. Lavins, 3 Ind. 441; Mclntire ». Cross, Id. 444; Denson v. Anthey, 21 Ala. 205; Wright v. Hicks, 12 Ga. 155; Haxtum v. Corse, 2 Barb. Ch. 506 ; Roosevelt «. Fulton, 7 Cow. 71. s Beckv. Metz, 25 Mo. 70; Gage v. Gage, 29 N. H. 533; Bancroft v. Ives, 3 Gray, 367; Shelby v. Shelby, 6 Dana, 60; Bradley v. Bradley, 24 Mo. 311. 622 CH. XIX. J TITLE Br DESCENT. § 664 of the ancestor's creditors. ^ And if lands have to be sold for any purpose, the proceeds of sale would descend as real estate, to the persons who would have inherited the lands. ^ He is entitled to the rents and profits of the estate until sold for the benefit of the creditors, even though the State is insolvent.* The heir need not ofi'er proof that his ancestor died intestate. Intestacy is presumed until a will is produced,* § 664. licx loci rei sitae. — The descent of real property is governed by the law of the place where the land is situated, the lex loci rei sites. The law of the domicile, lex domicilii, does not apply to real property. And that law of de- scent governs, which was in force at the decease of the an- cestor.* The law of descent varies according to the civil polity of each State, or, as Blackstone has it, it is " the creature of civil polity and/wns positivi." In every State of the American Union there is a statute regulating the descent of real property, and for any specials question aris- ing under the law of descent reference must be had to the 1 Willis V. Watson, 5 111. 64; Hays v. Jackson, 6 Mass. 149; Wilson v. Wilson, 13Barb.252; Shanks ?). Lucas, 4 Blackf. 476 ; Chubbii. Johnson, 11 Texas, 469 ; Vansycle v. Bichardson, 13111. 171 ; Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260; Copplngerv. Elce,33Cal. 408; Cowell v. Weston, 20 Johns. 414; Far- rell V. Enright, 12 Cal. 459; Marvin v. Shilling, 12 Mich. 356; Watkins v. HopkinSj 16 Pet. 25; Hillhouse v. Chester, 3 Day, 166. See contra, Tel- fair V. Eoe, 2 Cranch, 407 ; Albriton v. Bird, R. M. Charlt. 93. 2 Wells V. Seeley, 47 Hun, 109; Thompson's Estate, 6Mackey, 536; In re McCabe, 15 K. I. 330; 5 At). 79. s Gibsons. Farley, 16 Mass. 280; Boynton v. Peterborough, etc., E. E. Co., 4 Gush 467; Lobdell v. Hayes, 12 Gray, 238; Newcomb v. Stebbins, 9 Mete. 540; Green v. Massie, 13 111. 363; Allen v. Van Houton, 19 N. J. L. 47. Contra, Branch Bk. v. Fry, 22 Ala. 790. * Lyon V. Kain, 36 111. 368; Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260; Stephen- son V. Doe, 8 Blackf. 508. = Story on Confl., sect. 484; Potter v. Titcomb, 22 Me. 300; Smith v. Kellcy, 23 Miss. 167; Miller v. Miller, 10 Mete. 398; Marshall ». King, 24 Miss. 85; McGaughey v. Henry, 12 B. Mon. 383; Jones v. Marable, 6 Humph. 116; Price v. Tally, 10 Ala. 946; Eslava v. Farmer, 7 Ala. 543; Emmert v. Hays, 88 111. 11; Brewer v. Cox (Md. 1890), 18 Atl. 864. 623 § 665 TITLE BY DESCENT. [PAET IIX. statute of the State in which the land lies. But these statutes have many pointsin common, and are controlled by certain general principles which may be collated and presented in a work of this character. But for the minor details of the law, the inquirer must look to the State statutes, an excel- lent compendium of which may be found in the third volume of Mr. Washburn's Treatise on the Law of Eeal Property, pp. 21, et seq. § 665. Consanguinity and aflSnity. — Only those per- sons can claim as heirs of a deceased intestate who are in some way related to him. Relationship is of two kinds, con- sanguinity and affinity. Consaugujnity is that relationship which arises from a community of blood, and exists between persons who are descended from a common ancestor. This common ancestor is called the slirps, or root. Consan- guinity is again divided into lineal and collateral. Lineal consanguinity exists between persons who descend one from the other in the direct or single line of descent. Father, grandfather, etc., in the ascending series, and son, grand- son, etc., in the descending series, are related by Imeal consanguinity. Collateral consanguinity is where the rela- tionship is traced through different lines of descent up to the common ancestor. Thus, brothers, cousins, nephews, and uncles, etc., are related by collateral consanguinity, respectively, through the common father and grandfather.^ Affinity is the relationship created between parties by mar- riage, either of themselves, or of their respective relatives. Thus, husband and wife, and their respective fathers and mothers-in-law, and the like, are related by affinity. At common law only kindred by consanguinity could inherit from the deceased. And this rule was so strictly observed that even the husband or wife could not lay claim to the property of each other as heir. It would be escheated to 3 Washb on Real Prop. 9, 10; 2 Bla. Com. 202, 206. 624 CH. XrX.J TITLE BY DESCENT. § 666 the State instead of vesting in such relations.^ But at the present day, in a large number of the American States, husband and wife are made capable by statute of inheriting from each other. In some States they inherit equally with the children and the descendants of deceased children, while in others they inherit only in the absence of lineal descend- ants, and in some they are even postponed to collateral heirs.^ § 666, How lineal heirs take. — According to the com- mon law, the real estate descended to the eldest son, to the exclusion of the other sons and daughters ; and if there be no sons, then the daughters inherited in equal shares. This was known as the law of primogeniture.^ And even where according to local custom, as was the case with lands held by tenure of gavelkind, the law of primogeniture did not prevail, the sons would inherit equally to the exclusion of the daughters and their descendauts.* But neither of these English rules has ever been in force in this country, and the universal rule is that the lineal descendants in the de- scending series inherit equally, no distinction being made between males and females.* If the lineal descendants are 1 2 Bla. Com. 246. See Esty v. Clark, 101 Mass. 86; 3 Am. Eep. 320; Lord u. Bourne, 63 Me. 368; 18 Am. Eep. 234; Cleaver v. Cleaver, 39 Wis. 96; 20 Am. Kep. 30. 2 See Shaw v. Breeze, 12 Ind. 392; Nicholas v. Parczell, 21 Iowa, 265; Brown v. Belmarde, 3 Kan. 41 ; Hammon v. Steer, 2 Gill & J. 14. Statu- tory rules of this character are to be found in Alabama, Arkansas, Cali- fornia, Dakota, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mich- igan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Bhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin. 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 21, note. » 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 7; 1 Spence Bq. Jnr. 176, 176; 2 Bla. Com. 214, 215. * 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 7; 2 Bla. Com. 234; 2 Bla. Com. 84. " 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 8, 9, 12; Walker's Am. Law, 353; 4 Kent's Com. 378. In respect to the equality of inheritance by lineal heirs, the American law bears a close resemblance to the Roman law of descent. Coop. Just. 543. 40 625 § 667 TITLE BY DESCENT. [PAKT IIIv all in the same degree removed from the intestate ancestor, they will inherit equally, and are said to take^ej- capita. But if they are removed in different degrees, or where they consist of a son, or daughter, and the children of a deceased son or daughter, the children would inherit only that share of the deceased's estate to which their father or mother would have been entitled, if he or she had survived the deceased. Thus, in the given case, the estate would be divided into two equal parts, the surviving son 'or daughter taking the one part, while the other part would be divided among the children of the deceased child. This is called inheritance per stirpes, or by representation. At common law all lineal descendants took per stirpes, but the rule in this country is generally limited to the case of descendants of unequal degrees of removal from the ancestor.* § 667. Lineal consanguinity in the ascending series. — It was a canon of the common law that the inheritance could never fall to persons related to the deceased in the ascend- ing series. Thus, parents, grandparents, etc., of the de- ceased could not inherit.^ If, therefore, there were no lineal descendants, i. e., issue, the property would have de- scended to the collateral kindred to the exclusion of the lineal relations in the ascending liue.^ But this rule has now generally been changed by statute, and the lineal heirs in the ascending series will take in preference to collateral kindred.* 1 Chase Bla. Com. 389, n, 6; Walker's Am. Law, 354; 4 Kent's Com. 379, 391, 408; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 12, 13. See Skinner v. Fulton, 39 111. 484; Quincy v. Higgins, 14 Me. 809; Stewart v. Collier, 3 Ear. & J. 289; Parker v. Nims, 2 N. H. 460; Den v. Smith, 2 N. J. L; 7. ' 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 10: 2 Bla. Com. 208, 209. ' 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 11 ; 2 Bla. Com. 209; Taylor v. Bray, 32 N. J. L. 182. * Williams on Real Prop. 105, 106; Morris v. Ward, 36 N. Y. 587; 2 Bla. Com. 220; Kelsey ». Hardy, 20 N. H. 479; 4 Kent's Com. 395 n; De- laney v. Walker, 9 Port. 497; Fowler v. Trewhitt, 10 Ala. 632; Hays v. Thomas, 1 111. 136; Noland v. Johnson, 5 J. J. Marsh. 351; Smallmaun b. 626 CH. XIX.] TITLE BY DESCENT. § 669 § 668. Collateral lieirs. — But if there be no lineal de- scendants, and no lineal heirs in the ascending line, or no statute premitting such heirs to inherit, the estate descends to the collateral kindred in the nearest degree of relation- ship to the deceased.^ And at common law the doctrine of inheritance •per stirpes, or by representation, as above ex- plained, was applied to collateral kindred ad infinitum; but the doctrine in the United States has generally been limited in its application to the descendants of brothers and sisters, while in the case of all other collateral kindred the inherit- ance is divided per capita."^ § 669. Computation of collateral relationship. — There are two modes of computing the degree of collateral rela- tionship; one according to the canon and common law, and the other according to the civil or Roman law. By the first rule the relationship is ascertained by counting the number of degrees or generations accruing between the common ancestor and the most remote descendant. According to this mode of computation, first cousins are related in the second degree ; so also are nephews and uncles. The civil Powell, 18 Or. 367; 23 Pac. 249; Power ». Daugherty, 83 Ky. 187. The rule is established by statute in Alabama, Avfcansas, Califomia, Connecti- cut, Dakota, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Min- nesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 21, note. But see Morse w. Hayden, 82 Me. 227; 19 Atl. 443. 1 2 Bla. Com. 220; 3 Washb. on eal Prop. 11 ; Williams on Real Prop. 106. 2 Quinby v. Higgins, 14 Me. 309; Levering v. Heighee, 2 Md. Ch. 81; EUicott ». EUicott, Id. 468; Jackson v. Thurman, 6 Johns. 322; Parker w. Nims, 2N. H.460; Skinner v. Fulton, 39 III. 484. Tliis limitation is established by statute in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Michigan, Minnesota, Mary- land, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont. See Swazey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135; Fletcher v. Severs, 10 N. Y. S. 6. In Pennsylvania the rule Is more extended, but not unlimited. 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 21, note. 627 § 67Q TITLK BY DESCENT. [PAKT UI. rule is to count the number of degrees or generations be- tween the deceased and the common ancestor, and down again to the descendant, whose relationship with the deceased is in question. Thus, by this mode, brothers would be related in the second degree, cousins in the fourth, and nephew and uncle in the third.^ In the American States the civil mode of computation is generally adopted by the courts, while iu some of the States it is by statute made the rule of computation.''' § 670. Ancestral property This term, when used in the law of descent, signifies the property which the intestate himself acquires by descent.^ Where the property is ac- quired by purchase by the intestate, since the common-law preference of males over females does not prevail here, all the collateral kindred of equal degree would inherit alike, whether they are paternal or maternal relatives. But ac- cording to the common law, no one could be heir to ances- tral property, unless he is likewise the heir of the last purchaser.* But in the United States it would seem that no such distinction is made between property acquired by purchase and by descent, unless expressly established by statute. In Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New York, statutes provide that ancestral prop- erty descends to kindred of the blood of the ancestral pur- chaser in preference to other kindred, but the latter inherit, if there be no heirs of the ancestral purchaser's blood. ^ 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 10; 2 Bla. Com. 206, 207. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 10; McDowell v. Adams, 45 Pa. St. 430; Walker's Am. Law, 358; Doe u. Gilbert, 2 Miss. 32; Smallman v. Powell, 18 Or. 367; 23 Pac. 249. Regulated by statute in Maine, Massachnetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Wisconsin. 3 "Washb. on Real Prop. 21, note. 3 Walker's Am. Law. 354. « 2 Bla. Com. 220; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 11; Williams on Real Prop. lOOj 101. * a Washb. on Real Prop. 21, note; Case v. Wildridge, 4 Ind. 51 j Ramsey u. Ramsey, 7 Ind. 607; Kelaey «. Hardy, 20 N. H. 479; Fowler v. 628 .' Georgia, 6 Pet. 544 ; Commonwealth v. Eoxburj', 9 Gray, 478. ' Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheat. 543 ; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet 548. * 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 165, 166; 1 Story on Const. 215; 1 Kent's Com. 259 ; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 50. ^ Under the laws of Congress, however, the actual settler upon public lands acquires by such act of occupation an equitable title in the nature of a right to the legal title, upon payment of the minimum price fixed bylaw. This right is called pre-emption, and further reference will be made to it in treating of title by public grant or patent. See post, sect. 747. 63C CH. XX. J TITLE BY OCCUPANCY. § G83 § 683. Estates per auter vie. — It T^^ill be remembered, in treating of these estates, it was stated that upon the death of the tenant per auter vie, during the life of the cestui que vie, the common law gave the estate to the first occupant in the case of an ordinary estate per auter vie, and he was called the general occupant. But where the estate was lim- ited to the tenant and his heirs during the life of another, his heirs took the estate by so-called sperAal occupancy to the exclusion of the general occupant.^ But this common- law doctrine has now been abolished by statute in England, and in most, if not all, of the United States. The estate is either given the quality of an estate of inheritance, and de- scends to the heirs of the tenant ^er auter vie, or is made a chattel real, and vests in his personal representatives.^ 1 See ante, sect. 61 ; 2 Bla. Com. 258, 259, 260. 2 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 50, 61 ; Chase Bla. Com. 414, a. 1. See ante, sect. 61. 637 SECTION n. TITLE BT ACCEETIOK. Section 685. Definition. 686. Alluvion. 687. Filum Aquce. § 685. Definition. — It is a rule in the law of real prop- erty that whenever other species of propei-ty become at- tached to the land already in one's possession, it becomes a part of the land and the property of its owner, and the title thereto is generally acquired by the very act of attachment. Quidquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. It has been shown that the rule applies to houses and other structures erected upon the land by strangers without the consent of the owner of the land.^ But at present we are only concerned with the doctrine so far as it applies to the additions of foreign soil through the co-operation of natui'al causes, which are known under the term alluvion. The mode of acquiring a right of property in such cases is called title by accretion. It is more properly an incident to real property than a mode of acqui- sition of lands. But inasmuch as new property is thus acquired, the means or manner of acquisition may fitly be called a title. ^ § 686. Alluvion. — This is the soil and various other things, such as marine and water plants, sea-weeds, etc., which are washed up on the shore of a stream by the action of the water. It is a notable and common fact that the current of a stream is constantly changing by the washing 1 See ante, sect. 2. 2 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 55, 59 ; Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 69 ; Saulet v. Shepherd, 4 Wall. 505; Municipality v. Orleans Cotton Press, 18 La. \12, 638 ,CH. XX. ] TITLE BY ACCRETION. § 686 away of the soil on one side of the stream and the transport- ation of the particles to the other side, or by their deposit on the same side below. All such accretions become a part of the land upon which they are cast, and the property of the owner of the soil.^ The accretions, however, become subject to all the incumbrances which have been imposed upon the original land.^ But the title to such accretions does not rest upon the mere fact of attachment to the soil, although such attachment is a necessary element. It rests rather upon the fact that the former owner is unable to identify his property. Alluvion is the gradual forma- tion of soil by the deposit of particles and atoms of soil, which, from the very nature of the case, the former owner cannot identify in the new shape which they have assumed. But if by some sudden avulsion a distinct and tangible part of the soil of one man's land is detached and deposited upon another's premises, the latter acquires no title thereto by the mere act of deposit. The former owner can still identify it, and prove his property. But if he should per- mit such soil to remain upon the land sufficiently long to become permanently attached, his right of property will be lost, because its removal after such delay would proba- bly injure the land.^ So, also, will a tract of land which has been submerged on the sea-shore be reclaimabie, if by the gradual operation of the water, the land should be brought 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 65; Emans v. TurnbuU, 2 Johns. 322; An- thony V. Gifford, 2 Allen, 550; St. Louis Public Schools v. Risley, 40 Mo. 356; New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662; Jones v. Soulard, 24 How. 41; Krant v. Crawford, 18 Iowa, 519; Barrett v. New Orleans, 13 La. An. 105; Ingraham v. Wilkinson, 4 Pick. 273; Giraud v. Hughes, 1 Gill & J. 249; Steers v. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 51 ; Buras v. O'Brien (La. 1890), 7 So. 632; East Omaha Land Co. v. Jeffries, tO Fed. 386; s. c. 134 U. S. 178; Prior w. Comstock (E. I. 1890), 19 Atl. 1079. 2 Campbell v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 84 Mo. 352. s 3 "Washb. on Real Prop. 59; Aug. Wat. Cour., sect. 60; Inst. L. II. Tit. 1, sect. 21; Hawkins o. Barney, 5 Pet. 467; Woodbury ». Short, 17 Vt. 387; Dikes v. Miller, 24 Tex. 424; Trustees, etc., v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. 544; Halsey v. McCormick, 18 N. Y. 147. 639 § 687 TITLE BY ACCRETION. fPAET HI. above the surface again. The proprietorship of the original owner is restored, if the boundaries of the submerged land can be re-established.^ § 687. Filum aquae. — Where two tracts of land are divided by a navigable stream, the general rule is that the boundary line is the low water mark on the adjoining shore, and the soil or bed of the stream is the property of the State.^ But if the stream is not navigable, the boundary line is the center of the current of the stream, commonly called the aium aqucB, and the owners of the shore have a right of property in the bed of the stream up to this filum aqucB.^ If, therefore, an island rises in the current of a non-navi- gable stream, under the doctrine of accretion, it would be- come the property of him on whose soil it is formed. If the island is formed in the middle of the stream, the pro- prietors of the opposite shores would acquire a title in severalty to that part of the island which lies on their re- spective sides of the filum aquce.* And if the stream dis- appear in consequence of gradual accretions, the boundary line will be the line of contact at which the stream finally disappears.^ Where the title to the bed of the stream is in one person, and the shore belongs to another, the boundary line is low-water mark; the alluvion formed on the shore belongs to the owner of the shore, but the alluvion formed in the stream belongs to the owner of the bed.^ But if the 1 Mulry V. Norton, 100 N.T. 424. ^ See post, sect. 835, for definition of a navigable stream. 3 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 55, 56. B"or a more extended discussion of this entire subject, see post, sects. 833-835. * 3 Kent's Com. 428; 3 Waslib. on Real Prop. 56, 57, 58; Walk. Am. Law, 329; Chase's Bla. Com. 416 n ; Ingrabam «. Wilkinson, 4 Pick. 268 Deerfleld v. Arms, 17 Pick. 41; Trustees, etc., v. Dickinson, 9 Cu8li.844 Adams v. Frothingham, 3 Mass. 352; Woodbury v. Short, 17 Vt. 387 Halsey v. McCormick, 18 N. Y. 147; Primm v. Walker, 88 Mo. 99; King V. yarborough, 3 B. &C. 91. ' Bnse V. Russell, 86 Mo. 209. 6 Linthicum v. Coan, 64 Md. 439. 640 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ACCRETION. § 687 stream is navigable, since the right of property in the bed of the stream is vested in the State, an island forming in the current of the stream belongs to the State, and the owners of the shore are only entitled to whatever alluvion is deposited on their shore above low water mark.^ So also if, by some sudden change in the current of the navi- gable river, what was once the bed is left uncovered, the property in the soil remains in the State. The owner of the shore does not acquire the title thereto, as he does to gradual and ordinary accretions, resulting from usual and natural changes in the current.^ ^ 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 58: Chase's Bla. Com. 416 n; Attorney-Gen- eral V. Chambers, 4 De G. M. & G. 206-218 ; Scratton v. Brown, 4 B. & C. 496; KingiJ. Yarborough, 1 Gow. & C. 178; s. c. 3 B. & G. 91. 2 Emans v. TurnbuU, 2 Johns. 322; Halsey v. McCormick, 18 N. Y. 147. See Trustees, etc., v. Dickinson, 9 Cash. 644. 41 641 SECTION m. TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. fiBCTloir 692. Effect of naked possession. 693. Seisin and disseisin. 694. Disseisin and dispossession distinguished. 695. Actual and constructive possession. 696. Actual or constructive possession — Continued. 697. "What acts constitute actual possession — Visible or notoiious. 698. Possession must he distinct and exclusive. 699. Possession — Hostile and adverse. 700. Adverse possession, when entry was lawful. 701. Disseisor's power to alien. 702. Betterments. 703. Title by iidverse possession — How defeated. 704. Title by adverse possession — How made absolute. § 692. Effect of naked possession. — It is an undis- puted rule of law that naked possession, i.e., possession without even a claim of title, vests a sufficient right of prop- erty in the person who has such possession, as to permit him to hold the land against all the woi-ld except the true owner .^ But he does not in strict technical language, by the mere fact of possession, acquire a title to the land, and certainly not against the true owner. Such possession may be as licensee, bailee or tenant of the real owner, or in some other way subordinate to the latter ; and under such circumstances his possession is the possession of the owner. In order that his possession may vest in him a title to the land, it must be adverse to, and independent of, the real owner. What is adverse possession will appear in the following paragraphs. ' 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 114 ; 2 Sharsw. Bla. Com. 196 n. 642 CH. XX. J TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 693" § 693. Seisin and disseisin. — Seisin, as has been ex- plained in a preceding chapter,' is that possession which ac- companies, and which is an incident of, freehold estates. Seisin is of two kinds, seisin in fact, which is equivalent to actual possession, and seisin in law or deed, being that seisin or right to seisin, which one acquires by the delivery and acceptance of a deed, or which is retained by the owner, when he parts with his possession to the tenant of a lease- hold or other subordinate estate, or in any other case where he has not the actual possession.^ In this connection we are not concerned with the distinctions between freehold and leasehold estates in respect to the appropriate use of the term seisin. On the contrary, in respect to the matter under consideration, the terms seisin and possession may be treated as synonymous, meaning that possession which ac- companies, and is held under, a claim of title.' There cannot, however, be more than one seisin, and where, there- fore, two persons are in possession, he has the seisin who can show a good title.* When one is in possession of the land, and his possession is subordinate to the claims of the real owner, although the latter has not the seisin. in fact, he still has the seisin in law, for the possession of the former is subordinate and supports the seisin in law. The tenant is for that purpose a quasi-bai\ee of the owner. But, if the one in possession holds the land in opposition to the claims of the owner, and under the assertion of a superior title, then the real owner is deprived of his seisin ; for the seisin in law can only exist, apart from the seisin in fact, when the actual possession is held by another subject to the 1 See ante, sect. 24. 2 Co. Lit. 153; 2 Prest. Abst. 282; lluffiu v. Overby, 105 N. C. 78. See ante, sect. 25. ' 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 117 ; Slater v. Eawson, 6 Mete. 439 ; Smith ». Burtis, 6 Johns. 216. ♦ 2 Prest. Abst. 286, 290, 4 Kent's Com. 482 ; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213 ; Codman v. Winslow, 10 Mass. 146 ; Brimmer v. Long Wharf, 5 Picli. 131 ; Stevens t). Hollistor, 18 Vt. 294; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. 216; Whittingtou .. Wright, 9 Ga. 23. ^^^ § 693 TITLE BY ADVEHSE POSSESSION. [PAET III,. superior claims of the owner. The real owner is then said to be disseised ; the act which deprives him of the seisin is a disseisin, and the actor is a disseisor. Disseisin vests in the disseisor a title to the land, and leaves in the disseisee only a right of entry, which is practically but a chose in action. Disseisin is sj^nonymous with adverse possession.^ So completely does disseisin divest the owner of his estate, that at common law he had nothing which he could convey ; nor could he maintain an action for trespass upon the land, or for other injuries thereto. The disseisor could alone maintain such actions. Says Mr. Preston: "Disseisin is the privation of seisin. It takes the seisin or estate from one man and places it in another. It is an ouster of the rightful owner of his seisin. It is the commencement of a new title, producing that change by which the estate is taken from the rightful owner and is placed in the wrong- doer. Immediately after a disseisin, the person, by whom the disseisin is committed; has the seisin or estate, and th& person on whom the injury is committed has merely the right or title of entry." Again: "As soon as a disseisin is committed, the title consists of two divisions; first, the title under the estate or seisin, and, secondly, the title under the former o wnershi p . " ^ And since the disseisor claims the land independent of all others, his estate cannot be less than an absolute and unqualified fee.^ • "Disseisin and ouster mean very much the same thing as adverse pos- session," say the court in Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 151. See Slater v. Eawson, 6 Mete. 439 ; Cornell v. Jackson, 3 Cush. 608 ; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. 216 ; Holley V. Hawley, 39 Vt. 531 ; Ang. on Lim. 410 ; Com. Dig. Seisin, A. 1, A. 2. 2 2 Prest. Abst. 284. See also, 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 202-295 ; Eiiwle Cov. (3d ed.) 23, 24; Parker v. Prop, of Locks, etc., 3 Mete. 98; Bradstreet o.. Huntington, 5 Pet. 402 ; 2 Smith Ld. Cas. 529, 530, 531. ' Co. Lit. 271 a ; 2 Prest. Abst. 293 ; Wheeler v. Bates, 21 N. H. 460 ; McCall V. Neely, 8 Watts, 71. Query : If one enters into possession under the claim of a long term of years, or an estate for life, or an estate tail, -will not this quali- fication of the claim of title under which he enters limit the estate which, he would acquire bydisseisin or adverse possession?' 644 CH. XX. J TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 694 § 694. Disseisin and. dispossession distinguished. — It is not every dispossession which constitutes a disseisin. In the first place, a dispossession may be effected under a com- plete and lawful title ; a disseisin is always a wrongful dispossession, i.e., it is never supported by a good title. ^ Nor is even every wrongful dispossession a disseisin. In order that a wrongful dispossession may constitute a dis- seisin, the possession thus acquired must be actual or con- structive, visible or notorious, distinct and exclusive, hostile or adverse.'^ It is always a question for the jury whether a possession has all the elements necessary to make it a case of disseisin.^ 1 Slater v. Eawson, 6 Mete. 439; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. 216. 2 i Kent's Com. 488 ; 2 Smith Ld. Cas. 529, 560, 561 ; Melvin v. Proprs. of Locks, etc., 5Metc. 15; Smith^.Burtis, 5 JohDS.218; Calhoun i;. Cook, 9 Pa. St. 226; Cook'B. Babcock, 11 Cush. 210; Thomas v. Marshflejd, 13 Pick. 250; Little v. Downing, 37 H. N. 367; Grant v. Powler, 39 N. H. 101; Daswell v. De La Lanza, 20 How. 32 ; Bradstreet v. Huntington, 5 Pet. 439; Ewingi;. Burnett, 11 Pet. 41; Hawk v. Senseman, 6 Serg. & R. 21; Jackson v. Wheat, 18 Johns. 44; Armstrong v. Ristean, 5 Md. 256; Clarke V. McClure, 10 Gratt. 305 ; Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 152 ; Gordon v. Sizer, 39 Miss. 820; Wiggins v. HoUey, 11 lad. 2; Wrights. Keithler, 7 Iowa, 92; Robinson v. Lake, 14 Iowa, 424; Snoddy ». Kreutch, Head, 304; Tarney V. Chamberlain, 15 111. 271; Flaherty «. McCormick, 113 111. 538; Wash- burn V. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361 ; Dothard v. Denson, 75 Ala. 541 ; Davis v. Bowmar, 55 Miss. 671; Ringo u. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469; Bracken v. Jones, 63 Tex. 184; linger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586; Hawks v. Senseman, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 21; Partch v. Spooner, 57 Vt. 583; Cook v. Babcock, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 209; Taylor v. Burnside, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 165; Creekmur v. Creek- mur, 75 Va. 430 ; Core v. Paupel, 24 W. Va. 238 ; Dietrick v. Noel, 42 Ohio St. 18; s. c. 51 Am. Eep. 788. 3 Poignard v. Smith, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 172; Gross v. Welwood, 90 N. T. 638; Madison Am. Church v. Oliver- St. Church, 73 N. Y. 82; Trim «. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 599; s. c. 13 Am. Rep. 623; Jackson v. Joy, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 102; Jackson v. Stephens, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 496; Jackson v. Wheat, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 40; Den v. Sinnickson, 9 N. J. L. 149; Hopkins v. Rob- inson, 3 Watts (Pa.), 205; Bell v. Hurtley, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 132; Wallace V. Duffieid, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 527; Mushawer v. Patten, 10 S. & B. (Pa.) 334; Kinsell v. Daggett, 11 Me. 309; Schwartz v. Kuhn, 10 Me. 274; Atherton v. Johnson, 1 N. H. 34; Webb v. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465; Hall 645 § 695 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PART III § 695. Actual or constructive possession. — Possession may be actual or eoastructive. Thus, where one receives a deed of conveyance, by the very delivery of the deed, he is considered as being in constructive possession of the land, although he has not acquired the actual possession. So, also, does the heir or devisee acquire constructive pos- session by force of the descent cast or of the devise. Such a grantee, heir or devisee, acquires the seisin in law, and the constructive possession, raised by implication of law, is but the consequence of the transfer of this seisin. Seisin in law and constructive possession may for all practical pur- poses be considered synonymous. ^ But where there is an actual adverse possession by one, there can be no construc- tive possession acquired by another. " Two persons cannot be in adverse constructive possession of the same land at the same time."' But in order that a disseisin maybe V. Dewey, 10 Vt. 593; Gayetty v. Bethune, 14 Mass. 59; CummiDnfs v. Wyman, 10 Mass. 464; Boogher v. Neece, 75 Mo. 384; Washbiirn v. Cut- ter, 17 Minu. 361 ; McPherson v. JTeatherston, 37 Wis. 632 ; Shackelford v. Bailey, 35 111. 387 ; Woodward v. Blanchard, 16 111. 424 ; Wiggins v Holley, 11 Ind. 2, McCluny v. Ross, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 116; compare Saterfleld v. Kandall, 44 Ga. 676; Overfleld u. Christie, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 172; Read «. Goodyear, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 350; Hatch v. Smith, 4 Pa. St. 109; Workman V. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495; Hoopes v. Garver, 15 Pa. St. 517; Baker w. Swan, 32 Md. 355; Boiling v. Petersburg, 3 Rand. (Va.) 536; Rogers v. Madden, 2 Bailey (S. Car.), 321; Harrington c.WUkins, 2 McC. (S. Car.) 289; Dubois v. Marshall, 3 Daua, (Ky.) 336; Bracken v. Martin, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 55 ; Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s. c. 54 Am. Dec. 351 ; Her v Routh, 8 Miss. 276 ; Grafton v. Grafton, 16 Miss. 77 ; Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 490; HoUiday v. Cronwell, 37 Tex. 437; McNair v. Punt, 5 Mo. 300; Macklot V. Dubrenil, 9 Mo. 473; s. c. 43 Am. Dec. 550. 1 Co. Lit. 153; 2 Prest. Abst. 282; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213; Green u. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 160; Wells v. Prince, 4 Mass. 04; Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass. 344; Hodges ». Eddy, 38 Vt. 344; Caldwell v. Fulton, 44 Pa. St. 475; Effinger i;. Lewis, 32 Pa. St. 367; Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill & J. 443; Breckinridge v. Ormsby, J.J. Marsh. 244. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 118; Hodges v. Eddy, 38 Vt. 344; Farrar v. Heinrich, 86 Mo. 521; Garrett v. Ramsey, 26 W. Va. 345; Cook v. Mc- Kinney (Cal. 1890), 11 Pac. 799; Echoles v. Hubbard (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 817; Jones v. Gaddis (Miss. 1S90), 7 So. 489. 646 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ADVEESE POSSESSION. § 695 effected, there must be an actual occupation of the lau. Denson, 75 Ala. 482; Bell v. Denson, 56 Ala. 444; Hawkins'^. Hudson, 45 Ala. 482; Burks V. Mitchell, 78 Ala. 61; Hall v. Gay, 68 Ga. 442; Hammond v. Crosby, 68 Ga. 767; Anderson v. Dodd, 65 Ga. 402; Whittington v. Wright, 9 Ga. 23; Creekmur v. Creekmur, 75 Va. 431; Kincheloe v. Tracewell, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 587; Peterson v. McCullough, 50 Ind. 35; Gore v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Haywood 17. Thomas, 17 Neb. 237; Wilson ». McEwan, 7 Oregon, «7; Ferguson v. Peden, 33 Ark. 150; Brown ». Leete, 6 Sawy. (TJ. S.) 332. Compare Wilson v. McEwan, 7 Oregon, 87; Bracken v. Jones, 63 Texas, 184; Cantagrelc. Van Lupin, 58 Tex. 670; Kimball v. Stormer, 65 Cal. 116; Kimball ». Lohmas, 31 Cal. 151; Peterson v. McCullough, 50 Ind. 85; Bristol v. Carroll County, 98 111. 84; Botsch, 90 111. 577; Cole- man ». Billings, 89 111. 183; Weber v. Anderson, 73 111. 439; Booth v. Small, 25 Iowa, 177; Hamilton v. Wright, 30 Iowa, 480; Huntington v. Allen, 44 Miss. 654; Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737; Bryan v. At water, 5 Day (Conn.), 181; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 136; Tracy v. Norwich, etc., E. Co., 39 Conn. 382; French v. Peace, 8 Conn. 439; s. c. 21 Am. Dec. 680; Jewett V. Hussey, 70 Me. 433; Abbott v. Abbott, 61 Me. 584; Lincoln v. Edgecomb, 51 Me. 345; Hitchings v. Morrison, 72 Me. 334; Otis v. Moul- ton, 20 Me. 203; Hodges v. Eddy, 38 Vt. 327; Stevens v. Hollister, 18 Vt. 294; Paine v. Entchens, 49 Vt. .314; Spaulding v. Warren, 25 Vt. 316; Burrell v. Burrell, 11 Mass. 297; Melvin v. Proprietors, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 6; s. c. 38 Am. Dec. 384; Proprietors v. Springer, 4 Mass. 416; s. c. 3 Am. Dec. 227; Robinson v. Phillips, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 429; s. c, 56 N. Y. 634; Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 170; Baldwin v. Brown, 16 N. Y. 359; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Meade v. Lefflngwell, 83 Pa. St. 187; Jones v. Por- ter, 3 Pa. St. 134; Brown v. McKinney, 9 Whart. (Pa.) 567; Boynton v. Hodgdon, 59 N. H. 247; Wells v. Jackson Mfg. Co., 48 N. H. 491; Ecfleld V. Day, 7 N. H. 467; Hale v. Gidden, 10 N. H. 401; Smith v. Hosmer, 7N. H. 436; s. o. 28 Am. Dec. 364. '648 «H. XX.] TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 696 or will, which purports to convey a title, the actual entry will place him in constructive possession of the whole tract of land described in the instrument.^ And this, too, where there is no doubt as to the invalidity of the deed, whether such invalidity arises from a defective execution, or a de- fective title or from a total want of title in the grantor.^ 1 Munro V. Merchant, 28 N. Y. 9; Wrigtit v. Sadler, 20 N. Y. 320; Ege V. Medar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Culler v. Motzer, 13 S. & E. (Pa.) 356; s. c. 15 Am. Dec. 604; Parker ». Wallis, 60 Md. 15; s. c. 45 Am. Kep. 703; C'reek- mur V. Creekmur, 75 Va. 431; Adams v. Alkire, 20 W. Va. 480; Core v. Paupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Johnson v. Parker, 79 N. Car. 475; Stanton v. Mul- llns, 92 N. Car. 624; Congdon v. Morgan, 14 S. Car. 587; Grimes v. Rag- land, 28 Ga. 123; Veali;. Robinson, 70 Ga. 809; McCarney v. Iligdon, 50 Ga. 629; Wiley v. Warmoch, 30 Ga. 83; Childers v. Calloway, 76 Ala. 130; Hymes v. Bnrnstein, 72 Ala. 546 ; Burks v. Mitchell, 78 Ala. 61 ; Wilson v. Williams, 52 Miss. 487; Peck, v. Houston, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 227; Hunnicutt V. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333; Pike v. Evans, 94 U. S. 6; EUicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 412; Clymert). Dawkins, 3 How. (U. S.) 674; Whitehead v. Foley, 28 Tex. 285 ; Cantagrel v. Von Lupin, 58 Texas, 570 ; Evitts v. Roth, 61 Tex. 81; De Graw v. Taylor, 37 Mo. 310; Lynde v. William^, 68 Mo. 360; Long v. Higginbotham, 56 Mo. 240; Schultz v. Lindell, 39 Mo. 310; Davis V. Perley, 30 Cal. 630; Tremaine v. Weatherby, 58 Iowa, 615; Tea- bout v. Daniels, 38 Iowa, 158; Calvin ». McCune, 39 Iowa, 502; Barger V. Hobbs, 67 111. 592; Goewey v. Urig, 18 111. 238; Fairman v. Beal, 14 111. 244; McEvoy v. Loyd, 13 Wis. 142; Pepper v. O'Dowd, 39 Wis. 538; Furlongw.Garrett, 44 Wis. Ill; Bell ». Longworth, 6 Ind.273; Hum- phries V. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. 395; Smith v. McKay, 30 Ohio St. 409; Gardner v. Gooch, 48 Me. 487; Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9; s. c. 37 Am. Dec. 190; Jakway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 316; Swift v. Gage, 26 Vt. 224; Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 52. 2 2 Smith's Ld. Cas. 663; Brackett, Petitioner, 53 Me. 228; Swift v. Gage, 26 Vt. 224; Spaulding v. Warren, 25 Vt. 316; Farrar v. Fessenden, 39 N. H. 279; Hodg v. Wallace, 28 N. H. 547; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213 ; Ellicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412 ; Gardner v. Gooch, 48 Me. 492 ; Jackson V. Newton, 18 Johns. 355; Green v. Lighter, 8 Cranch, 250; Kennebeck Purchase v. Springer, 4 Mass. 416; Ament v. Wolf, 33 Pa. St. 331; Eifert V. Read, 1 Mott & McC. 364 ; Anderson v. Darby, 1 Mott & McC. 369 ; Rbyall v. Lisle, 15 Ga. 545; Hoy u. Swan, 5 Md. 537; Fugate v. Pina, 49 Mo. 441; Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 468; Fairman v. Beal, 14 111. 244; Hardisty v. Glenn, 32 111. 64; Brooks v. Bruyn, 35 111. 394; Jakeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 323; Russell v. Irwin, 38 Ala. 48; Prescott v. Nevers, 4 Mason, 326; Dillingham v. Brown, 38 Ala. 311; EufBa v. Overby, 105 N. C. 78; 11 S. E. 184; Kenrick v. Latham, (Fla. 1890), 6 So. 871; McMillan V, Gambill, 106 N. 0. 359; 11 S. E. 273; Stumpf v. Osterhage, 111 111. 649 § 696 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PAET III Sheriff deeds, and other involuntary conveyances, will serve as color of title. ^ But a mere quit-claim deed, releasing all one's interest in the land, will not be sufficient color of title to give the disseisor constructive possession of the part not in actual possession. Only such deeds are generally color of title, as the term is here understood and employed, which 82; Advent v. Arrington, 105 N. C. 377; 10 S. E. 991; Stanley v. Shool- bred, 25 S. C. 181; Hecock v. Van D.usen (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 343; Harbison?). School Dist., 89 Mo. 184; 1 S. W. 30; Weeks i). Martin (N. Y. 1890), 10 N. Y. S. 656. But see Cooler v. Dearborn, 115 111. 509 ; Hargis V. Kansas City, etc., K. R. Co., 100 Mo. 210; 13 S. "W. 530; Smythe o_ Henry, 41 Fed. 705; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Cheney v. Ringold, 2 H. & J. (Md.) 87; Baker v. Swan, 32 Md. 355; Senior v. South, 10 Ired. (S. Car.) 237;Bynum!;. Thompson, 3 Ired. (N. Car.; 578; Cline u. Catron, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 378; Creekmur u. Creekraur, 75 Va. 430; Core ». Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Stevens v. Hollister, 18 Vt. 294; s. „. 46 Am. Dec. 154; Ralph V. Bagley, 11 Vt. 521; Hubbard v. Austin, II Vt. 129; Waldron v. Tuttle, 4N. H. 371; Sparhawku. Bullard, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 95; Poignardc. Smith, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 272; Jackson v. OUz, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 440; Simp- son u. Downing, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 316; Jackson v. Frost; 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 346; Jackson u. Vermilyea, 6 Cow. (N. T.) 677; LaFrombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow- (N. Y.) 589; s. c. 18 Am. Dec. 463: Craig v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 176; Munro v. Merchant, 28 N. Y. 9; Saxtou v. Hunt, 20 N. J. L. 487; Waggoner v. Hastiags, 5 Pa: St. 300; Nearhoff v. Addleman, 31 Pa. St. 279; Allen v. Grove, 18 Pa. St. 377; Holliugshsad v. Naumon, 45 Pa. St. 140; Mylar v. Hughes, 60 Mo. 105; Ware v. Johnson, 55 Mo. 600; Chap- man ti. Templeton, 53 Mo. 463; Thompsons. Cragg, 24 Texas, 582; Brooks V. Bruyn, 35 111. 394; Coleman v. Billings, 89 III. 183; McEvoy v. Lloyd, 31 Wis. 143; Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis. 527; s. u. 70 Am. Dec. 473; Packard u. Moss, 8 Pac. Repr. (Cal.) 818; Kile v. Tubbs, 23 Cal. 431; Berual v. Gleim, 33 Cal. 676; Gordon v. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 232; Beverly i' Burke, 9 Ga. 440; s. c. 54 Am. Dec. 351; Field v. Boynton, 33 Ga. 239; Janio V. Patterson, 62 Ga. 527; Veal v. Robinson, 70 Ga. 309; Welborn v. Anderson, 37 Miss. 155; Chiles v. Conley, 9 Dana (Kv.), 385; Alston v. Collins, 2 Speers (S. Car.), 450; Eibert v. Reid, 1 N. & McC. (S. Car.) 374; Bank v. Symers, 2 Strob. (S. Car.) 24; Johnson v. McMillen, I Strob. (S. Car.) 143; Golson v. Hook, 4 Strob. (S. Car.) 23. 1 Kendrick v. Latham (Fla. 1890), 6 So. 871; Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. V. Brooks, 106 N. C. 107; II S. E. 456; Davis v. Burroughs (1890), 8 N. Y. S. 379; Goodman v. Nichols (Kan. 1890), 23 Pac. 957; Seerauller v. Thornton, 77 Tex. 156; 13 S. W. 846; Miller v. Pence (111. 1890), 23 N. E. 1030; Bakewell v. McKee (Mo. ]S90), 14 S. W. 119; Kile v. Fleming, 78 Ga. 1 ; Karn v. Haisley, 22 Fla. 317. 650 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 696 operate as a primary conveyance.^ But a deed, which is in form a quit-claim, may operate as a primary conveyance, where the possession is transferred with it.^ Where the dis- seisor is one who denies the validity of a sale of his own land under execution, he holds adverse possession under color of the original title conveyed to him, so as to give him con- structive possession of the whole tract.' In order that the rightful owner may be divested of the whole tract described in the deed, the partial occupation mu§t be of land included in the description of the deed which is to serve as color of title,* and the actual possession of a part must be of such a character as to give rise to a reasonable presumption that the owner knows that the entry was made under color of title. If this presumption be not reasonable under the circum- stances of the case, the disseisin will not extend beyond the actual occupation. The description must indicate clearly the metes and bounds of the land. Any obscurity in the description will destroy the claim of constructive posses- sion.^ So, also, if the title was only void as to a part of the land conveyed, the occupation of that part to which the grantor had title will not give the grantee constructive pos- 1 Woods V. Banks, 14 N. H. Ill; Wright c. Tichenor, 104 Ind. 185. 2 Minot V. Brooks, 16 N. H. 376 ; Swift v. Mulkey, 14 Or. 59 ; 12 Pac. 76. See generally Pillow t!. Roberts, 13 How. 472; Jackson v. Alston, 12 Johns. 454; French v. Rollins, 21 Me. 372; Moss v. Scott, 2 Dana, 276; Welborn V. Anderson, 37 Miss. 162; Charles v. Saffold, 13 Texas, 94; Wofford v. Mcliinna, 23 Texas, 46; Hicks v. Coleman, 25 Cal. 131 ; Kimball v. Loh- mas, 31 Cal. 154; Smith b. Shattnck, 12 Oreg. 362 (tax deed). In Colorado it is said that there may be constructive adverse possession, although the disseisor does not hold possession under some written in- strument of conveyance. Lebanon Mining Co. v. Rogers, 8 Col. 34. ' Gaines ». Saunders, 87 Mo. 557. < Jenkins v. Trager, 40 Fed. 726; Stanley v. Shoolbred, 25 S. C. 181; Casey v. Dunn, 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 381; 8 N. Y. S. 305; Davis •«. Stroud, 104 N. C. 484; 10 S. E. 666; Weeks v. Martin (1890), 10 N. Y. S. 656; Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. 241 ; Aiken v. Ela, 62 N. H. 400. ^ Price V. Jackson, 91 N. C. 11; Etowah, etc.. Mining Co. i;. Parker, 73 Ga. 61; Davis v. Strowd, 104 N. C. 484; 10 S. C. 666. But see Holbrook 0. Forsythe, 112 III. 306. 651 ^ 697 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PAKT III. session of the other part to which he has no title, so as to disseise the real owner. ^ And it would seem reasonable that the term color of title should apply only to deeds auU other instruments of con- Vf.yanee, which have been recorded.^ So, also, if the deed conveys two separate and distinct parcels of land, entry and actual occupation of one tract will not give constructive possession of the other.' § 697. "What acts constitute actual possession — ^Visible or notorious. — No particular act or series of acts are necessary to be done on the land, in order that the pos- session may be actual. Any visible or notorious acts, which clearly evidence the intention to claim ownership and possession, will be sufficient to establish the claim of adverse possession.* A clandestine use of the premises, of 1 Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9. See Little v. Mequirer, 2 Me. 176; Jackson v. Woodruff, 1 Cow. 286 ; Jackson v. Richards, 6 Cow. 617; Sharp ■u. Brandon, 15 Wend. 599; Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388; White w. Burn- ley, 20 How. 235; Cluggageu. Duncan, 1 Serg. & R. Ill; Smiths. Ingram 7 Ired. 175; Osborne v. Ballew, 12 Ired. 373; Seigle v. Louderbaugh, 5 Pa. St. i90; Barber v. Schaffer, 76 Ga. 285: Garrett v. Ramsey, 26 W. Va. 345; Staton v. MuUis, 92 N. C. 623; Coal Creek Mining Co. u. Heck, 15 Lea, 497; Morris v. McClary, 43 Minn. 346. 2 Hodges V. Eddy, 38 Vt. 345; Van Sickle v. Catlett, 75 Texas, 404; 13 S. "W. 31. But see contra, Hunter v. Kelly, 92 N. C. 283; Brown v. Brown, 106 N. C. 451; 11 S. E. 647; Bellows v. Jewell, 60 N. H. 420; Minot 11. Brooks, 16 N. H. 374; Chastain v. Phillips, 11 Ired. (N. Car.) 225; Hardin «. Barrett, 6 Jones (N. Car.), 159; Know v. Hinsou, 8 Jones (N. Car.), 347; Davis v. Higgins, 91 N. Car. 382; Eawson ». Fox, 65 111. 200; Dickinson v. Bruden, 30 111. 279; Lea v. Polk Co. Copf^er Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 493. 3 Grimes v. Ragland, 28 Ga. 123; Barber ». Shaffer, 76 Ga. 285. * Ellicott V. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412; Ewing v. Burnett, 11 Pet. 41 ; Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9; La Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 604; Blood v. Wood, 1 Mete. 528; Faught w. Hoi way, 50 Me. 24; Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 604; Royal v. Lisle, 15 Ga. 545; Langworthy v. Myers, 4 Iowa, 18; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. 224; Ewing u. Burnett, 11 Pet. (U. S.), 41; Tiedeman on Real Prop. 697; Faught v. Holway, 50 Me. 24; Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9; s. c. 37 Am. Deo. 190; Blood v. Wood, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 528; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 224; see 17 Pick. 14; 652 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 697 SO secret a character that the owner is not likely to know of it, will not constitute a disseisin. The occupation must be so notorious and open, that the owner may be presumed to have notice of it and of its extent.^ There are some acts, so notorious intheir character, that they raise a conclu- sive presumption of notice to the owner of the adverse claim. Such are the maintenance of fences and other substantial inclosures, and the erection of buildings.^ But in the case of s. c. 28 Am. Dec. 271; La Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 589; s. c. 18 Am. Dec. 463; Longsyortliy v. Myers, 4 Iowa, 18; Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 504; s. c. 72 Am. Dec. 137; Royall u. Lisle, 15 Ga. 645; s. c. 60 Am. Dec; 712; Ellicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 412. 1 2 Smith Ld. Cas. 563; Cook v. Babcock, 11 Gush. 210; Pray v. Pierce, 7 Mass. 383; Thomas u. Marshfleid, 13 Pick. 250; Atherton v. Johnson,. 2 N. H. 34; School Dist. ». Lynch, 33 Conn. 330; Doe «. Campbell 10, Johns. 477; Doolittle v. Tice, 41 Barb. 181; Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 191; Benje v. Creagh, 21 Ala. 151; Brown v. Cockerell, 38 Ala. 47; Alex- ander B. Polk, 39 Miss. 755; Price v. Brown, 101 N. Y. 669; Mauldin v. Cox, 67 Cal. 387; Wait v. Gove (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. 1068; Watkins v. Lynch, 71 Cal. 21; 11 Pac. 808; Barker v. Deignan, 25 S. C. 252; Wilson ■0. Williams, 52 Miss. 488; Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737; Samuel v. Barrowscale, 104 Mass. 207; Virgin ii. Land, 32 Ga. 672; Boyall v. Lisle, 16 Ga. 546; s. c. 60 Am. Dec. 712; Harbert ^. Haurick, 16 Ala. 681; Key V. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356; Musick a. Barney, 49 Mo. 458; Scruggs o. Scruggs, 43 Mo. 142; Pulgate ii. Pierce, 19 Mo. 441 ; Moore v. Thompson, 69 N. Car. 120; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 686; s. c. 49 Am. Eep. 100; Miller v. Myles, 46 Cal. 539; Thompson v. Pioche, 44 Cal. 508; Soule v. Barlow, 49 Vt. 329; Wing b. Hall,47Vt. 182; Proprietors «. Call,lMass. 483 ; Pray v. Pierce, 7 Mass. 381 ; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 59 ; Cook v. Babcock, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 210; Samuels. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207; Clark v. Gilbert, Clark V. Gilbert, 39 Conn. 97; School Dist. v. Lynch, 33 Conn. 334; Trustees v. Kirk, 84 N. Y. 215; s. c. 38 Am. Bep. 605; Culver v. Rhodes, 87 N. Y. 354; Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527; Abell v. Harris, 11 G. & J. (Md.) 371; Turpin v. Saunders, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 27; Moore v. Thompson, 69 N. Car. 121; "Virgin v. Lard, 32 Ga. 672; Dixon v. Cook, 47 Miss. 220; Wilson V. Williams, 52 Miss. 488; Herbert v. Haurick, 16 AI^. 581; Nat. M. Co. V. Powers, 3 Mont. 344; Wilson u. Henry, 35 Wis. 241; Lynde v. Williams, 68 Mo. 370; Crispin ■&. Hanaavan, 50 Mo. 636; Scruggs v. Scruggs, 43 Mo. 142; Kay v. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356; Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 458 i Fulgate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 447 ; Eingo v. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469 ; Portis V. Hill, 3 Texas, 278 ; Campau v. Dubois, 39 Mich. 274. 2 Poignard v. Smith, 6 Pick. 172 ; Cutter v. Cambridge, 6 Allen, 20 ; Ben- nett «). Clemence, 6 Allen, 18; Bates «. Noreross, 14 Pick. 224; Jacksoa 653 § 697 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PAET III. the erection of buildings, without otiier accompanying acts of ownership, the disseisin would only extend to the land cov- ered by the buildings, together with the necessary right of ingress and egress. ^ Merely surveying the land, and caus- ing a line to be run around it, and lopping or slashing trees to indicate the course of the line, will not be sufficient. V. Wasford, 7 Wend. 62; Erwin v. Olmstead, 7 Cow. 229; Lane u. Gould, 10 Barb. 254; Stedman v. Smith, 8 E. & Bl. 1; Price v. Brown, 101 N. T. 669 ; Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737 ; Holllster v. Young, 42 Vt. ; Johnson o. Gorham, 38 Conn. 522; French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439; s. c. 21 Am. Dec. 680; Smith's. Roberts, 62 Ala. 83; Overfleld c. Christy, 7 S. &K. (Pa.) 173; Paine v. Skinner, 8 Ohio, 159; Allen v. Allen, 58 Wis. 205; Sedg. & W. Trial of Title to Land, sect. 758 ; Angell on Lim., sects. 890, 391, 392, and cases cited in the notes; Clancey v. Houdlette, 39 Me. 451 ; West ». Lanier, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 762; Bell v. Denson, 56 Ala. 444; Leeper». Baker, 68 Mo. 400. See Bell v. Denson, 66 Ala. 448: Leeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. 405; Turner v. Hall, 60 Mo. 275. See Pord v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 505; Martin v. Judd, 81 111. 488 ; Smith v. Jackson, 76 111. 254 ; Clement v. Perry, 34 Iowa, 567; Hunton w. Nichols, 55 Tex. 217; Readu. Allen, 63 Tex. 154; Mooney v. Coolidge, 30 Ark. 655 ; Door v. School Dist., 40 Ark. 243 ; Leeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. 407; Draper v. Shoot, 25 Mo. 107; s. c. 69 Am. Dec. 462; McMuUin V. Erwin, 58 Ga. 427; Humphries v. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. 403; Taylor v. Burnsides, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 166; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Schuyl- kill Co. o. McCreary, 58 Pa. St. 304; Jackson v. Warford, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 62; Erwin ti. Olmstead, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 229 ; Finlay w. Cook, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Bowen v. Guild, 130 Mass. 121; Poignard u. Smith, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 172; Cutter w. Cambridge, 6 Allen (Mass.) 20; Bennett v. Clem- ence, 6 Allen (Mass.), 18; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 224. See 17 Pick. 14; s. c. 28 Am. Dec. 271; Goodwin v. Sawyer, 33 Me. 541; Brumagin v. Bradshaw, 39 Cal. 24; Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 41; Gerham v. Erdman, 105 Pa. St. 371; Waltemeyer v. Baaghman, 63 Md. 200; Torey 1). Bigelow, 66 Iowa, 381. See Clement v. Perry, 34 Iowa, 564; Thompson «. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 70; Pike v. Robertson, 79 Mo. 615: Kerr v. Hitt, 76 111. 51 ; Clement ». Perry, 34 Iowa, 567; Coleman ». Bill- inss, 89 111. 183; Sloan v. Martin, 33 Tex. 417; Elliott v. Dycke, 78 Ala. 1.50; Watts D. Owens, 62 Wis. 612; Eastern R. v. Allen, 135 Mass. 13. Conl'pare Clarke v. Wagner, 74 N. Car. 791 ; Morrell v. Ingle, 23 Kan. 32; Ellicotti). Pearl, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 441; Angell on Lim., sect. 400; Real Property Trials (Malone), sects. 277-278; Trial of Titles to Land (Serg. & Wait.), sect. 707; Watson v. Mancil, 76 Ala. 600. See McCreary V. Everding, 44 Cal. 246. Compare Pullen v. Hopkins, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 741. 1 Poignard u. Smith, 6 Pick. 172 ; Bennett v. Clemence, 6 Allen, 18 ; Erwin v. Olmsted, 7 Edw. 229; Stedman ». Smith, 8 E. & Bla. 1. 654 CH. XX. J TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 697 The inclosLire must, in all ordinary cases, be substantial. ^ But there are cases where an enclosure is jaot necessary. Notice of possession may then be presumed from other acts of ownership, as where taxes are paid on unoccupied land by one who claims it under color of title. ^ So, also, where the property is of such a character, and is so circumstanced, 1 Kennebec Purchase v. Springer, 4 Mass. 416; Coburn v. Hollis, 3 Mete. 125; Slater v. Jepherson, 6 Gush. 129; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. 224; Parker v. Parker, 1 Allen, 245; Smith v. Hosmer, 7 N. H. 436; Hale V. Glidden, 10 N. H. 397; Stevens v. Taft, 51 Gray, 35 ; Stevens v. HoUis- ter, 18 Vt. 294; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. 230; Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. 254; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. 218; Den v. Hunt, Spenc. 487; O'Hara v. Richardson, 46 Pa. St. 391 ; Slico v. Derrick, 2 Rich. 627 ; Smith V. Mitchel, 1 A. K. Marsh. 207; Hutton». Schumaker, 21 Cal. 453; Borelc. Rollins, 30 Cal. 415; McLean v. Smith, 106 N. C. 172; 11 S. E. 184; Carley V. Parton, 75 Tex. 98 ; 12 S. W. 950 ; Barker v. Deignan, 25 S. C. 252 ; Smith V. Hosmer, 7 N. H. 436; s. c. 28 Am. Dec. 354; Hale v. Gidden, 10 N. H. 397; Stevens ». HoUister, 18 Vt. 294; s. c. 46 Am. Dec. 154; Kennebec Purchase v. Springer, 4 Mass. 416 ; s. c. 3 Am. Dec. 227 ; Coburn v. Hollis, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 125; Slater v. Jepherson, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 129; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 224. See 17 Pick. 14; s. c. Am. Dec. 271; Parker v. Parker, 1 Allen (Mass.) 245; Stevens v. Taft, 11 Gray (Mass.) 35; Jackson u. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 230; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 197; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 218; Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 254; O'Hara ». Richardson, 46 Pa. St. 391; Slice v. Derrick, 2 Rich. (S. Car.) 627; Smith v. Mitchel, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 207; Button v. Schumaker, 21 Cal. 453; Borel v. Rollins, 30 Cal. 408; Baker i). Van Volk- enburg, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 319. See, Teed v. Halstead, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 216; Trustees v. Kirk, 84 N. Y. 215; s. c. 38 Am. Rep. 505. See St. Louis V. Gormail, 29 Mo. 593; Brumagin v. Bradshaw, 39 Cal. 24; Pope v. Hau- mer, 8 Hun (N. Y.) 265; 74 N. Y. 24; Morrison v. Chapin, 97 Mass. 72; Kerr v. Hitt, 75 111. 51; Hale v. Glidden, 10 N. H. 397; Jackson v. Schoon- maker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 229; Coburn v. Hollis, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 125; Parker v. Parker, 1 Allen (Mass.) 245; Slater v. Jepherson, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 129; Doolittle i>. Tice, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 181; Soule v. Barlow, 48 Vt. 132; Walsh v. Hill, 41 Cal. 571; Smith's L. C. 717, et seq. ■^ Hoi brook u. Gouverneur, 114 111. 623; Cooter v. Dearborn, 115 111. 509; Ruffln v. Overby, 105 N. C. 78; 11 S. B. 251; Stockton v. Geissler, 43 Kan. 612; 23 Pac. 619; McNoble v. Justiniano, 70 Cal. 395; 11 Pac. 742; Snowden v. Rush, 76 Tex. 197; 13 S. W. 189; Wren v. Parker, 57 Conn. 529; 18 Atl. 790; Perry v. Barton, 111 III. 138; Stumpf v. Osterhage, 111 111. 827. In some of the States, the payment of taxes is a requisite to the claim of adverse possession. McNoble v. Justiniano, 70 Cal. 395; 11 Pae. 742; Snowden v. Rush, 76 Texas, 197; Juck v. Fewell, 42 Fed. 517. 655 § 698 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PAET III. that there can be neither actual permanent occupation nor residence, o^ account of its incapacity to receive any permanent improvement, these acts will not be necessary. The disseisin may be manifested by any other public acts of ownership which were possible with property of that kind.^^ Very often the Statutes of Limitations in the different States state expressly what acts will constitute a visible or notorious possession, and what will not. Wherever there are such provisions, they will supersede the presumptive conclusions of law explained and presented in this para- graph.^ § 698. Possession must be distinct and exclusive. — The possession must also be distinct and exclusive, i. e., the owner must be actually ousted of possession. A joint possession, even though adverse to each other, will not be a disseisin. Where two are in possession, the seisin follows the title, and there can be no disseisin, unless the rightful owner is altogether deprived of possession.' If thewrong- 1 Ewing V. Burnett, II Pet. 41; Blood v. Wood, 1 Mete. 528; Bailey o. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9 ; Thacker v. Guardenier, 7 Mete. 484 ; Carbrey ». Willis, 7 Allen, 370 ; La Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 604 ; Millett v. Fowle, 8 Gush. 150; Faught v. Holway, 50 Me. 24; Den «. Hunt, Spenc. 487; Eoyall V. Lisle, 15 Ga. 645 ; Brett v. Farr, 66 Iowa, 684 (cutting timber) ; Costello V. Edson, 44 Minn. 135; 46 N. W. 299 (cutting away underbrush and grubbing) ; Stockton v. Geissler, 43 Kan. 612; 23 Pac. 619 (advertis- ing and offering for sale); Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 490; s. c. 72 Am. Dec. 137; Moss v. Scott, 2 Dana (Ky.), 275; Eoyall ». Lisle, 15 Ga. 645; s. c. 60 Am. Dee. 712; Dorr ^. School Dist., 40 Ark. 237; Drapers. Shoot 25 Mo. 197; s. c. 69 Am. Dec. 462; Sleeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. 400; Mer- chants' Bank v. Calvin, 60 Mo. 559; Coleman v. Billings, 89 111. 183; Clement v. Perry, 34 Iowa, 567 ; Brumagin v. Bradshaw, 39 Cal. 24 ; Rob- inson V. Sweet, 3 Me. 316; Ewing v. Burnett, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 41; EUicott V. Pearl, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 412. 2 Price V. Jackson, 91 N. C. 11. » Hawk V. Senseman, 6 Serg. & E. 21 ; Calhoun v. Cook, 9 Pa. St. 226 ; Cahill V. Palmer, 45 N. Y. 484; Melvin v. Proprs., etc., 6 Mete. 15; Arm- Strong V. Eisteau, 6 Md. 256; Turney v. Chamberlain, 15 111. 271; Peter- son V. McCuUough, 50 Ind. 35; Crispen v. Hannavan, 50 Mo. 536 ; Gillespie V. Jones, 26 Texas, 343; Booth v. Small, 26 Iowa, 177; Thompson o. 656 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 698 doer disturbs the real owner by his entry and joint posses- sion, the latter may elect to consider himself disseised, and by abandoning possession may bring his action of ejectment. But disseisin by election is not sufficient to create such an adverse possession as will ripen into a good title. In order that the disturbance of possession may be treated by the Pioche, 44 Cal. 508 ; Slater v. Rawson, 6 Mete. 439 ; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. 216; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213; Stevens v Hollister, 18 Vt. 294; Whlttington v. Wright, 9 Ga. 23; Hodgkin v. McVeigh (Va. 1890), 10 S. E. 1065; Gaftord v. Strouse (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 248; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 14 Or. 77; 12 Pac. 186; McQueen u. Fletcher, 77 Ga. 444; Pepper v. O'Dowd, 39 Wis. 538; Furlong v. Garrett, 44 Wis. Ill; Washburne v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361; Carroll v. Gillon, 33 Ga. 539; Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 193; Virgin v. Land, 32 Ga. 572; Whitting- ton ». Wright, 9 Ga. 23; Royall v. Lisle, 15 Ga. 545; s. c. 60 Am. Dec. 712; Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737; Wilson v. Williams, 52 Miss. 488; Dixon V. Cook, 47 Miss. 220; Benie v. Creagh, 21 Ala. 151; Brown v. CockereU 33 Ala. 47; Kingo v. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469; Satterwhite «. Kosser, 61 Tex. 166; Gillespie v. Jones, 26 Tex. 343; Ward v. Drouhett, 44 Tex. 370; Bracken v. Jones, 63 Tex. 184; Thompson v. Pioche, 44 Cal. 508; linger V. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586; 49 Am. Rep. 100; Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall, (tr. S.) 120; Stevens v. Leach, 19 Pa. St. 265; Bartholomew v. Edwards, 1 Houst. (Del.) 17; Malloy v. Bowden, 86 N. Car. 251; Tamm V. Kellogg, 49 Mo. 118; Kellogg v. Mullen, 39 Mo. 174; Key V. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356; Ekey v. Inge, 87 Mo. 493; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 447; Wall v. Shindler, 47 Mo. 282; Bowman v. Lee, 48 Mo. 335; Pike v. Robertson, 79 Mo. 615; Beatty v. Mason, 30 Md. 409; Armstrong v. Rlsteau, 5 Md. 256; s. c. 59 Am. Dec. 115; Creekmur v. Creekmur, 75 Va. 430; Turpin o. Saunders, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 27; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Yelverton v. Steele, 40 Mich. 538; Humphries v. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. 395; Peterson v. McCuUough, 50 Ind. 35; Horbach V. Miller, 4 Neb. 31 ; Turney v. Chamberlain, 15 111. 271 ; Booth v. Small, 25 Iowa, 177; De Long v. Mulcher, 47 Iowa, 445; Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis. 527; s. c. 70 Am. Dec. 473; Atherton v. Johnson, 2N. H. 34; Stevens V. Hollister, 18 Vt. 294; s. c. 46 Am. Dec. 154; Soule v. Barlow, 49 Vt. 329; Russell v. Maloney, 39 Vt. 583; Proprietors o. Call, 1 Mass. 483; Pray v. Price, 7 Mass. 381; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 59; Cook v. Babcock, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 210; Thomas v. Mansfield, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 250; Samuel v. Barrowscale, 104 Mass. 207; French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439; s. c. 21 Am. Dec. 680; School Dist. u. Lynch, 33 Conn. 330; Clark v. Gilbert, 39 Conn. 97; Tracy v. Norwich, etc., E. Co., 39 Conn. 382; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 197; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 218; Doe v. Campbell, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 477; Cahill o. Palmer, 45 N. Y. 484; Saxton v. Hunt, 20 N. J. L. 487. 42 657 § 690 TITLE BY ADVEKSE POSSESSION. [PART III. owner as a disseisin, he must abandon the possession which he has. If he does not elect to abandon the premises to the intruder, the intrusion of the wrong-doer does not work a disseisin. 1 But the wrong-doer need not be in exclusive possession of the entire premises. His exclusive possession of a part, if he only claims title to that part, will work a disseisin as to that part as effectually as if the owner had been driven out of possession of the whole tract of land.2 § 699. Possession — Hostile and adverse. — Under the early common law, it was required that the disseisor should be recognized by the lord of the manor, and his other ten- ants, as one of the peers of the baron's court in order that a complete disseisin may be effected. But this rule has long since become obsolete in England, and never did exist in this country.^ And instead of this complicated process, it is now only I'equired that the possession should be hostile and adverse to the rightful owner.* That is, it must be held under a claim of title which is adverse to the disseisee's title, and the intention must be to resist the title of the latter.^ If this intention to claim a hostile and adverse title 1 Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 60; Doe v. Hull, 2 D. & E. 38; Proprs. v. McFarland, 12 Mass. 327; Munro v. Ward, 6 Allen, 150; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 312; Smith v. Burtis, 6 Johns. 215. 2 Kellogg V. Mullen, 39 Mo. 174; Tamm v. Kellogg, 49 Mo. 118; Soule ». Barlow, 49 Vt. 329; Russell v. Maloney, 39 Vt. 583; Bartholomew o. Edwards, IHoust. 17; Den v. Hunt, 20 N. J. L. 487; Allen v. Peters, 77 Texas, 599; Coombs v. Parsons, 82 Me. 326; 19 Atl. 826. 3 Co. Lit. 266 b, Butler's note, 217; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 126; 2 Prest. Abst. 284. ■• Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189; Coburn v. HoUis, 3 Mete. 126; Slater v. Eawson, 6 Mete. 439; Lund v. Parker, 3 N. H. 49. * Bradstreet ». Huntington, 5 Pet. 439; Ewing v. Burnet, llPet. 41; Smith V. Burtis, 6 Johns. 218; Russell t;. Davis, 38 Conn. 562; Beatty v- Mason, 30 Md. 409; Clark v. McOlure, 10 Gratt. 305; Carroll o. Gilllon, 33 Ga. 539; Snoddy v. Kreutch, 3 Head, 304; Gordon v. Sizer, 39 Miss. 820; Wiggins v. Holly, 11 lad. 2; Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 458; McGee e. Morgan, 1 A. K. Marsh. 62; Jackson v. Birney, 48 111. 203; Grube v. Wells, 34 Iowa, 150; Hyne v. Osborn, 62 Mich. 235; 28 N. W. 821; Bath 658 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 699 is not established, the dispossession is only a trespass, and, however long continued, will not make a disseisin.^ On the other hand, the intention to claim an adverse title to the true owner, and an entry under a defective claim of title, will not prevent such a one from showing that he did have the true title by another conveyance.^ But there need not V. Valdez, 70 Cal. 350; II Pac. 725; Smith v. City of Osage (Iowa 1890), 45 N. W. 404; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Hudson v. Patney, 14 W. Va. 561; Beatty v. Mason, 30 Md. 409; O'Daniel v. Bakers' Union, 4 Houst. (Del.) 488; Snoddy v. Kreutch, 3 Head (Tena.), 804; McGee v. Morgan, I A. K. Marsli (Ky.), 62; Herbert v. Hauricli, 16 Ala. 681; Potts V. Coieman, 67 Ala. 221; Carroll v. Gilllon, 33 Ga. 539; Cordon v. Sizer, 39 Miss. 805; Magee b. Magee, 37 Miss. 152; Ringo v. "Woodruff, 43 Arli. 469; Musicl£ v. Barney, 49 Mo. 458; Wall v. Sliindler, 47 Mo. 282; Sat- terwhite v. Eosser, 61 Tex. 166; Craclcen v. Jones, 63 Tex. 184; Wiggins V. Holly, II Ind. 2; Jaclsson v. Berner, 48 111. 203; DeLong . West, 63 Mo. 93; Hoax?;. Betteen, 68 Mo. 84; Mayer v. Rafferty, 1 Head (Tenn.), 60; Brown v. Cockerel!, 33 Ala. .38. 2 Carpenter v. Monks (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 477; Hughes v. Picker- ing, 14 Pa. St. 297. 661 § 700 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PART III. possession sufficiently visible and notorious as to raise the • presumption of notice to the owner of such adverse hold- ing, will be ample evidence of the adverse claim of title, and actual notice to the owner or an express claim or affirmation of such claim of title is not required to establish its existence. ^ But such a possession never raises a conclusive presumption of an adverse claim. It is only prima facie proof of it, and may be re- butted by the proof of other facts, which show that the holding was not intended to be adverse to the rightful owner. This is a question for the jury.^ And where the character of the possession, i. e., whether subordinate or adverse, is doubtful, the presumption of law is that it is subordinate and not adverse to the lawful owner. ^ The fact that the disseisor accepts a deed of conveyance to the land which he previously had in adverse possession does not necessarily destroy the adverse character of his possession.* And where property held subordinately descends upon the, ten- ant's death, and is occupied by his widow, the holding by her is presumed, in the absence of any proof to the con- trary, to continue to be subordinate to the rightful owner.^ § 700. Adverse possession, when entry was lawful. — It is a legal maxim that when once the seisin is proved to be in one, it will be presumed to continue in that person * Liddon v. Hodnett, 22 Fla. 442. ' Thompson v. Kauffelt, 110 Pa. St. 209 (1 Atl. 867) ; Thompson v. Phlla., etc., Coals Iron Co. (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl.. 346; Holbrooke. Bowman, 62 N. H. 313. 3 Smith v. Burtls, 6 Johns. 218; Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 163; Stevens i;. Taft, 11 Gray, 36; Smith v. Hosmer, 7 N. H. 436; Pipher o. Lodge, 16 Serg. & E. 229; Pierson «. Turner, 2 Ind. 123; Alexander w. Polk, 39 Miss. 755; Greer v. Tripp (Cal. 1890), 12 Pac; 301; McLean v. Smith, lOB N. C. 272; 11 S. E. 184; Spencer v. O'Neill, 100 Mo. 49; 12 S. W. 1054; Boothe v. Best. 75 Texas, 568; 12 S. W. 1000. < Garvin v. Garvin, 31 S. C. 581 j. 19 S. E. 507; Sanders ». Logue, 88 Tenn. 355; 12 S. W. 722. » Drury v. Saunders, 77 Texas, 278. 662 CH. XX. J TITLE BY AKVEKSE POSSESSION. § 700 until the presumption is overthrown by the proof of facts inconsistent there with. ^ If, therefore, the entry is made with the consent of the owner, and subservient to his chum of title, the law will presume that the continued possession is subordinate to the superior title of the owner. ^ So it has beun hekl where one enters under a bond for a deed with- out paying the consideration, or with the intent to purchase, and not to claim adverse title to the owner, he cannot claim title by adverse possession.^ The possession of a 1 Long V. Mast, 11 Pa. St. 189; Babcock v. titter, 1 Abb. App. !i7; Stepheus v. McCormick, 5 Bush, 181. 2 UaiOQ Pac. By. Co. v. Kindred, 43 Kaa. 134; 23 Pac. 112; Curtis ». LaGrande Water Co. (Or. 1890), 23 Pac. 808: " Knox V. Hook, 12 Mass. 329; Brown v. King, 5 Mete. 173; Vrooman •B. Sli>plierd, 14 Barb. 441; Den v. Kip, 29 N. J. L. 351; Ripley ». Yale, 18 Vt. 220; Stamper o. Griffln, 12 Ga. 45C; Ormond u. Martin, 37 Ala. 604; McClannahan v. Barrow, 27 Miss. 664; Coogler v. Rogers (Fla. 1890), 7 So. 391; Anderson v. McCormick, 18 Or. 301; 22 Pac. 1062;. ■ Mhoon V. Cain, 77 Texas, 316; 14 S. W. 24; Stamper v. Griffin, 12 Ga. 457; Jackson v. Foster, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 490; Knox v. Hook, 12 Mass. 329; Brown v. King, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 173; Catlion v. Decker, 38 Conn. 262; Adams v. Fullam, 43 Vt. 592; 47 Vt. 558; Re Public Parks Depart., 73 N. Y. 560; Den v. Kip, 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 351; Harris v. Richey, 56 Pa. St. 395; McCracken v. Roberts, 19 Pa. St. 3'.t0; Woods v. Dill, U Ohio, 455; Dunlap v. Dougherty, 20 II. 397; Rigor v. Frje, 62 111. 507; Clouse C.Elliott, 71 Ind. 302; Blackwell v. Ryan, 21 S. Car. 112; Gilleson ». Railroad Co., 7 S. Car. 173; Furlong v. Garrett, 44 Wis. Ill; Coldeleugh D.Johnson, 34 Ark. 312; Turner v. Thomas, 13 Bush (Ky.), 518; Higgin- boiham v. Fishback, 1 A. K. Marsh (Ky.), 506; Gasson v. Donaldson, IS B. Mon. (Ky.) 230; Kilburn v. Ritchie, 2 Cal. 145; Farrish v. Coon, 40 Cal. 33; Ostermanu. Baldwin, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 116; Hermans v. Schmaltz, 7 Fed. Rep. 566; s. u. 10 Biss. (U. S.) 323. See Adams v. Fullam, 47 Vt. 558; Walker v. Crawford, 70 Ala. 567; Potts !). Coleman, 67 Ala. 221; Beard u. Ryan, 78 Ala. 37; Taylor t). Dagger, 66 Ala. 445; Ormond o. Martin, 37 Ala. 598; McQueen u. Ivey, 36 Ala. 308 ; Dothard u. Denson, 72 Ala. 541; Moring v. Abies, 62 Miss. 263; Benson v. Stewart, 30 Miss. 49; McClahahan u. Barrow, 27 Miss. 664; Gladney w. Barton, 51 Miss. 216; Adair v. Adair, 78 Mo. 630; Adams v. Cowherd, 30 Mo. 458; Strick- land «. Summerville, 55 Mo. 165; Bstes ». Long, 61 Mo. 605;Pullen». Canfleld, 67 Mo. 50; Doe v. Jefferson, 5 Del. 477; Clark v. McClure, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 305; Nowlin ». Reynolds, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 137; Hudson v. Putney, 14 W. Va. 661; Core ». Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Williams v. Cash, 27 Ga. 607. 663 § 700 TITLE Br ADVERSE .POSSESSION. [PART III. devisee is not presumed to be adverse to the creditors of the deceased.! ^he same rule is held to apply to possession under a void judicial sale.^ But if the purchase money has been paid, the possession is presumed to be adverse.* Such also is the rule in regard to the possession of the joint estate by one of several tenants in common.* 1 Eoberts v. Smith, 21 S. C. 445. 2 Hall V. Hall, 27 W. Va. 468. 3 Brown v. King, 5 Mete. 173; Pace v. Payne, 73 Ga. 670; Bush ». Adams, 22 Fla. 177; Harris v. King, 16 Ark. 122; Core v. Paupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Ridgeway v. Holliday, 59 Mo. 444; Newton v. Mayo, 62 Ga. 11; Nowlin V. Reynolds, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 137; Taylor v. Dugger, 66 Ala. 444; Moring v. Abies, 62 Miss. 263; Niles ». Davis, 60 Miss. 750; Brown v. King, 5 Mate. (^Mass.) 173; Bryan v. Atwater, 5 Day (Conn.), 181; Cat- lino V. Decker, 38 Conn. 262; Potts v. Coleman, 67 Ala. 221; Tillman v. Spann, 68 Ala. 102; Taylor v. Dugger, 66 Ala. 445. Compare Core ». Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238. * McClung V. Ros<, 5 Wheat. 124; Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert, 4 How. 295; Bennett «. Bullock, 35 Penn. 364; Peters i). Jones, 35 Iowa, 512; Challefoux v. Ducharme, 8 Wis. 287; Owen v. Morton, 24 Cal. 376; Alex- ander u. Kennedy, 19 Texas, 488; Coogler v. Rogers (Fla. 1890), 7 So. 391. Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 84 Mo. 352; Campau o. Gampau, 44 Mich. 31; Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 15 Ala. 371; Neely V. Neely, 79 N. Car. 478; Linker o. Benson, 67 N. Car. 150; Fonlke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527; Manchester v. Doddridge, 3 Ind. 360; Stevens v. Wait, 112 HI. 644; Ball d. Palmer, 81 HI. 370; Winter b. Haines, £4 IE. 585; Busch v. Huston, 75 111. 344; Young v. Heffner, 36 Ohio St. 232; Knowles v. Brown, 28 N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 409; Burns v Byrne, 45 Iowa, 285; Challefoux v. Ducharme, 8 Wis. 287; Abernathie v. Mining Co., 16 Nev. 260; Bath u. Valdez, 11 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 724; Tullyc. Tully, 9 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 841 ; tJnger«. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586 ; Colman v. Clements, 23 Cal. 245; Holley u. Hawley, 39 Vt. 534; Bellis v. Bellis, 122 Mass. 414; Hall v. Stevens, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 418; Catlino v. Decker, 38 Conn. 362; Jackson V. Smith, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 406; Kathan v. Rockwell, 16 Hun (N. Y.), 90; Millard v. McMullin, 68 N. Y. 352; Woollsey v. Morss, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 273; Culver v. Rhodes, 86 N. Y. 348; Clymer v. Dawkins, 3 How. (U. S.) 674; MeClung v. Ross, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 116; Union, etc., M. Co. •». Taylor, 100 U. S. 37; Caperton v. Gregory, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 605; Terrill ■D. Murray, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 104; Lodge v. Patterson, 3 Watts. (Pa.) 74; Long V. Mast, 11 Pa. St. 189; Bennett v. Bullock, 35 Pa. St. 364; Dike- man V. Parrish, 6 Pa. St. 225; s. o-. 47 Am. Dec. '466; Peck v. Ward, 18 Pa. St. 606; Covey v. Porter, 22 W. Va. 121; Boggs v. Meredith, 16 W. Va. 1; Rust v. Rust, 17 W. Va. 901; Van Bibber v. Frazier, 17 Md. 436; Roberts v. Smith, 21 S. Car. 455; Teal v. Terrell, 58 Texas, 257; Peeler 664 •CH. XX.] TITLE BT ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 700 Such, also is the case with the possession of the cestui que trust and trustee under the trust/ and the possession of a guardiau, and of the mortgagor and mortgagee.^ They are all subordinate to the holder of the paramount paper title. So, also, where one has held possession subor- dinate to the claims of another to some superior right in or title to the land, the widow, heir or devisee of the V. Guilkey, 27 Texas, 355; Squires v. Clark, 17 Kan. 84; 'Warflelcl v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 272; 38 Mo. 661; Lapeyre v. Paul, 47 Mo. 690; Mc- Quiddy ». Ware, 67 Mo. 74. See ante, sect. 251 . 1 Perry on Trusts, sects. 863, 864; Janes n. Throckmorton, 57 Cal. 368; Hearst v. Pujol, 44 Cal. 236; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333; Elmendort v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 152; Hill u. Bailey, 8 Mo. App. 85; s. c. 76 Mo. 454; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 129; Chick V. EoUiDS, 44 Me. 104; Roberts u. Littlefleld, 48 Me. 61; Thomp- son V. Thompson, 1 Jooes (N. Car.), 434; Taylor v. Dawson, 3 Jones' Eq. (N. Car.) 86; Hamilton v. Taylor, 1 Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 444; Shelby v. Shelby, Cooke (Tenn.) 179; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 686; Marr v. Gilliam, 1 Clowd. (Tenn.) 489; McCammon v. Pettit, 3 Sneed. (Tenn.) 242; Milner «;. Hyland, 77 Ind. 458; Lewis v. Hawkins, 2S Wall. (U. S.) 119; Sey- mour V. Treer, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 202; Prevost v. Gratz, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 481; Norris'sApp. 71 Pa. St. 106; Janes v. Throckmorton, 67 Cal. 368; Catlion v. Decker, 38 Conn. 362; Whiteside v. Jackson, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 418; Decouche v. Savetier, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 190; ». u. 8 Am. Dec. 478; Kane u. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 125; s. c. 11 Am. Dec. 417; Weaver v. Leiman, 52 Md, 708; Gordon v. Small, 53 Md. 650; Butler V. Lawson, 27 Mo. 227; Carter o. Feland, 17 Mo. 383; Good- •win V. Goodwin, 69 .Mo.. 617; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 78 Ala. 546; Williams v. First Pres. Soc, 1 Ohio St. 478; Miller v. Bing- ham, 1 Ired. Eq. (N. Car.) 423; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 58; Edwards o. University, 1 D. & B. Eq. (N. Car.) 423; s. c. 36 Am. Dec. 68; Edwards v. University, 1 D. & B. Eq. (N. Car.) 325; ». c. 30 Am. Dec. 170; Smith u. King, 16 East, 283; Gaylord v. Eespass, 92 N. C. 653; Saunders v. Farmer, 62 N. H. 572. That is, the cestui que trust may dis- seise his trustee and divest him of his legal estate, if the intention to disseise is manifest, although his possession is usually presumed to be .subject to the trust. Whiting «. Whiting, 4 Gray, 241. It has been held that in no case will the possession of the trustee be deemed to beadverse to the cestui que trust. He cannot disseise the cestui que trust. Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert, 4 How. 295; Decouche v. Savetier, 3 Johns. Ch. 216. But see contra, Schlessinger v. Mallard, 70 Cal. 326; 11 Pac. 728; Hall o. Ditto (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. 941. But a disseisin of the trustee will work a disseisin of the cestui que trust. See ante sect. 451. 2 See ante, sect. 326. 665 § 700 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. [PART III, person having such possession would presumptively receive such possession in subordination to the superior right or title in the other person.^ And where one holds over after the termination of a lawful estate he is tenant at suffer- ance, and does not by such holding over disseise the rever- sioner. ^ The continued possession of the defendant, in au ejectment or equitable action for quieting of title, after decree or judgment has been given for the plaintiff, is pre- sumed to be subordinate to the right of the plaintiff as determined by the court.* But these legal presumptions in the different cases mentioned are all disputable presump- tions; and although it has been held that adverse posses- sion cannot be acquired by one co-tenant against the others, yet now it is the universal rule that in any of the above mentioned cases of lawful entry the lawful and subor- dinate holding may be changed to a hostile and adverse 1 Oury V. Saunders, 77 Texas, 278; 138 S. W. 1030; Dean v. Tucker, 58 Miss, 487; Leonard v. Hart, 2 Atl. Eep. (N. J.) 136; Wilkerson «. Thompson, 82 Mo. 317; El well v. Hinckley, 138 Mass. 225; Silva v. Wirapenny, 186 Mass. 253; Creekmur v. Creekmur, 75 "Va. 431 ; Whipple u. Whipple, 109 111. 418; Allen v. Allen, 58 Wis. 202; Eddy v. St. Mars, 53 Vt. 462; s. c. 38 Am. Rep. 692; Roebke v. Andrews, 26 Wis. 311; Woodward «. McReynolds, 2 Pin. (Wis.) 268; Bartlett o. Secor, 56 Wis. 520; Plimpton v. Converse, 44 Vt. 158; Morrill v. Titcomb, 8 Allen (Mass.), 100; Sherman v. Kaue, 86 N. Y. 57^ Babcock v. Utter, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 397; Kalhan v. Rockwell, 16 Hun (N. Y.), 90; Chance w. Branch, 68 Texas, 490; Pease v. Lawson, 33 Mo. 35; Davis v. Bowmar, 55 Miss. 671; Rothschild u. Hatch, 54 Miss. 554; Adams «. Guice, 30 Miss. 396; Hays V. Morrison, 30 Ga. 971; Cooper v. McBride, 4 Houst. (Del.) 461; Kincheloe v. Tracewell, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 587; Newlin v. Reynolds, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 137; Thomas v. Jones, 28 Gratt. (Va) 383; Hudson v. Put- ney, 1* W. Va. 561 ; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238 ; Dean v. Brown, 23 Md. 11; Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332; Collins v. Johnson, 57 Ala. 304; Davenport v. Ledring, 52 Iowa, 365; Grube v. Wells, 34 Iowa, 148; Calvin o. McCune, 39 Iowa, 602; Law v. Smith, 4 Ind. 56; Smith o. Stevens, 82 111. 554; Perkins v. Nugent, 45 Mich. 156; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 328. Compare Heiskell v. Cobb, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 638; Eord V. Holmes, 61 Ga. 419. 2 See ante, sect. 226. 3 Woolworth V. Root, 40 Fed. 723. But see Bath v. Valdez, 70 Cal. 360; 11 Pac. 724. 666 CH. XX.] TITLE BY ADVEESE POSSESSION. § 701 possession by a distinct and unequivocal disavowal of the owner's superior title, and actual notice to him of such dis- claimer. In all these cases the disavowal or disclaimer must be accompanied and established by visible and notorious acts, inconsistent with the ownership of the supposed dis- seisee, such as a refusal to recognize the claim to the profits, or a share therein. ^ § 701. Disseisor's power to alien It is generally ac- cepted, that mere naked possession will be sufiicient to enable the one in possession to make a deed of conveyance with or without covenants of warranty, and the grantee would thereby acquire a good title which can only be defeated by the true owner. So much the more certain is it that, where such possession amounts to a disseisin, and the intruder has therefore gained a title even against the real owner, the disseisor has sufficient seisin to convey the estate.^ In fact, according to the common law, he alone had the power to make a conveyance. The disseisee had nothing but a chose in action, which was not assignable.^ The estate also de- scends to the disseisor's heirs, and at common law the de- scent cast in such a case vested in the heir so complete a title that the right of entry was taken away, and the estate could only be defeated by an action for recovery of the possession.* * Lafavour v. Homaii, 3 Allen, 355; Roberts u. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319; HoUey o. Hawley, 39 Vt. 534; Jackson v. Moore, 13 Johns, 516; Ripley V. Bates, 110 Mass. 162; Kinsman v. Loomis, 11 Ohio, 476; Mailing?;. Leak, 16 C. B. 652; Watson v. Sutro (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. 172; Mitchell V. Campbell (Greg. 1890), 24 Pac. 455, vendee in possession; Wool worth V. Root, 40 Fed. 723. See ante, sects. 226, 251, 326. 2 Currier?). Gale, 9 Allen, 523; Slateru.Rawson, 6 Mete. 439; Hubbard w. Little, 9 Cush. 475; Overfleld v. Christie, 7 Serg. & R. 173. See Christy v. Alford, 17 How. 601; Haynes v. Boardman, 119 Mass. 414; Alexander V. Stewarts, 50 Vt. 87; Schrack v. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 38; Kruse v. Wilson, 29 111. 233. 3 SeeposJ, sect. 795. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 150; Co. Lit. 238 a; Smiths. Burtis, 6 Johns. 217. 667 §. 703 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSIOTI. [PART IH. § 702. Betterments. — At common law if a bona fide holder of a defeasible title made improvements, while he was in possession of the land, he could not claim compen- sation for them from the rightful owner. The improve- ments became a part of the realty, since they were attached without the consent of the lawful owner. Nor could a bona, fide disseisor claim the right to remove them.i But where the real owner in his ejectment suit asked for judgment for mesne profits, the bona fide disseisor could off-set the same by his claim for his improvements.^ Statutes, how- ever, have been passed in some of the States enabling the disseisor to bring an original action for improvements.^ § 703. Title by adverse possession — How defeated. — The title which is acquired by adverse possession or by dis- seisin is not an absolute title. It may be defeated by the rightful owner. Disseisin leaves in the owner only a chose in action, for the vindication of which are provided two principal remedies. One is the right of entry without the aid of the courts, and the other is the recovery of the pos- session by the judgment of the court. A mere re-entry upon the land by the disseisee or by his authorzied agent, with the intention to recover the seisin, is sufficient to regain the seisin, even though the disseisor is not actually ex- pelled, since the joint-possession by them destroys the element of the exclusiveness, necessary to disseisin. And although a casual entry without an intention to regain 1 Powell V. M. & B. Mfg. Co., 3 Mason, 369; 2 Kent's Com. 334-388; West V. Stewart, 7 Pa. St. 122; ante, sect. 2. 2 Murray t!. Goavemeur, 2 Johns. 438; Jackson v. Loomis, 4 Cow. 168. Green D. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 181; Beverley?). Burk, 6 Ga. 440; Matthews V. Davis, 6 Humph. 324; Worthington v. Young, 8 Ohio, 401; Burrows u. Pierce, 6 La. An. 303. 3 3 Pars, on Con. 221 ; Cooley on Torts, 433 ; 2 Kent's Com. 836. See Bright V. Boyd, 1 Story, 494; Bailey v. Hastings, 15 N. H. 525; Martin v. Atkinson, 7 Ga. 228 ; Herring v. Pollard, 4 Humph. 862; Lamar v. Mimter, 13 Ala. 31 ; Fisher v. Edington, 12 Lea, 189. 6R8 CH; XX. J TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. § 704 the seisin, is not sufficient for this purpose, it is not neces- sary for the disseisee to make any express declaration of his intention to the disseisor.^ So also does an aban- donment of the possession by the disseisor revest the seisin in the rightful owner. ^ Of course the seisin so gained may be again lost by an ouster, and such an ouster is a re- disseisin.^ The exact form of action, where the aid of court is called into requisition, depends upon the local laws of practice. The usual remedy is the common law action of ejectment. § 704. Title by adverse possession — How made abso- lute. — Inasmuch as disseisin leaves only a chose in action in the disseisee, and the disseisor acquires thereby a title good and perfect against all the world except the true owner ; if, for any reason, the law takes away the right of action, the title will become absolute in the disseisor. The remedies for the recovery of real property may be barred by one of two causes, first, by the lapse of time under the Statute of Limitations, and secondly, by estoppel. These will constitute the subjects of the two following sections. ' PeaTjody v. Hewett, 62 Me. 46; Brlckett v. Spolford, 14 Gray, 514; Burrows v. Gallup, 32 Con. 499 ; O'HaTa v. Richardson, 46 Pa. St. 390. 2 Melvin v. Proprs., etc., S Mete. 15; Sawyer ». Kendall, 10 Cash. 241; Potts v. Gilbert, 3 Wash. C. Ct. 475; Cleveland v. Jones, 3 Strobh. 479 n. Unless there are two joint disseisors, when the abandonment by one would only make the other disseisor sole seised. Alien v. Holton, 20 Pids:. 458. 3 a Washb. onKeal Prop. 130. 669 SECTION rv. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Section 713. What the statute enacts. 714. Adverse possession — Contluuous and uninterrupted. 715. Against whom the statute runs. 716. How and when statute operates. 717. Effect of the statute. § 713. Wliat the statute enacts. — In general, every Statute of Limitations enacts that no action for the recov- ery of real property can be maintained, and no such right of entry, if any exists, can be exercised, unless instituted within the period of time limited by the statute, after the risht has accrued. The first statute for the limitation of a real actions was passed in 32 Hen. VIII. ch. 2, and a more general one in 21 Jac. I.^ But tlie limitation of actions is governed by the lex fori ^ and as each State in the Ameri- can Union has its own Statute of Limitations, varying widely in detail, the limits of this book will only permit of a discussion of the general effect of such statutes, referring the student to the different statutes for the details. The statute, 21 Jac. I., placed the limitation of actions for the recovery of real property at twenty years from the time the right of action accrued, and this period has been more or less adopted in this country, although in a number of States the period has been reduced to ten years, while iu others a different period has been established.^ '- Ang. on Lim. 1-6. ^ Ang. on Lim. 65. s In Montana, it is three years. Dunphy v. Sullivan, 117 U. S. 346. See generally Detweiler v. Schultheis, 122 Ind. 155; 23 N. E. 709; Lon- vall V. Gridley, 70 Cal. 507; 11 Pac. 777; Charles v. Morrow, 99 Mo. 638; 12 S. "W. 903; Norris v. Moody, 84 Cal. 143; 24 Pac. 37. 670 CH. XX. J STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. § 714 § 714. Adverse possession — Continuous and uninter- rupted. — But in all of the States the person who claims the benefit of the statute, together with his privies, must have held adverse possession for the entire period of limit- ation. That is, there must not only have been an actual and complete disseisin, as explained in the preceding sec- tion, but such disseisin must be continued and uninterrupted during the statutory period. Any discontinuance or aban- donment of the possession will prevent the statute from operating.^ Any yielding of possession to the claim of the 1 Doswell V. DeLa Lanza, 20 How. 32; Thomas v. Marshfield, 13 Pick. 350; School District v. Lynch, 33 Conn. 380; Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 101; Peabody v. Hewett, 52 Me. 46; Pederick ». Searle, 5 Serg. & R. 240; Den e. Mulford, 1 Hay w. 320; Winslow ». VPinslow, 52 Ind. 8; Bow- man V. Lee, 48 Mo. 335; McNamee v. Moreland, 26 Iowa, 96; San Fran- cisco V. Fulde, 37 Cal.349; McAninchti. Smith, 19 Mo. App. 240; Stewart V. Duffy, 116 111. 47; Andrews i). Mulford, 1 Hayw. (N. Car.) 320; Parku. Cochran, I Hayw. (N. Car.) 180; Taylor v. Burnside, 1 Gratt. fVa.) 165; Creekmur v. Creekmur, 75 Va. 430 ; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238 ; Ring- gold V. Mallott, 1 H. & J. (Md.) 316; Hall u.Gittings, 2 H. & J. (Md.) 112; Bell V. Denison, 56 Ala. 444; Beard v. Ryan, 78 Ala. 37; Riggs v. Fuller, 54 Ala. 141; Laramore v. Minish, 43 Ga. 282; Joiner t;. Borders, 32 Ga. 239; Morrison v. Hayes, 19 Ga. 294; Tegarden v. Carpenter, 36 Miss. 404; Nixon V. Porter, 37 Miss. 401; Wickliffe v. Ensor, 9 B. Mod. (Ky.) 253; Morse v. Williams, 62 Me. 445; Soule v. Barlow, 49 Vt. 329; Melvin». Proprietors, 5 Mete. (Mass) 5; s. c. 28 Am. Dec. 384; Smith v. Chapin, 31 Conn. 531; Jackson v. Shoemaker, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 230; Bliss v. Johnson, 94 N. Y. 235; Wheeler ■«. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377; Johnston u. Irwin, 3 S & R. (Pa.) 291 ; Moore v. CoUishaw, 10 Pa. St. 224 ; Rogers v. Benlow, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 303; Hoeyu. Furman, 1 Pa. St. 296; Groft u. Weakland, 34 Pa. St. 308; Christy v. Alford, 17 How. (U. S.) 601; Arm- strong!). Morrell, 14 Wall. (U. S.') 120; Read v. Allen, 63 Texas, 154; Mc- Mullin V. Erwin 58, Ga. 427; Bracken i/. Jones, 63 Texas, 184; Satterwhite V. Rosser, 61 Texas 166 ; Bank v. Hedges, 38 Texas, 61 ; Horback v. Miller, 4 Neb. 31 ; Messer v. Reglnninter, 32 Iowa, 312 ; Sparrow v. Hovey, 44 Mich. 65; Yelverton v. Steele, 40 Mich. 538; Cent. Pac. R. Co. v. Shackelford, 65Cal. 261; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal.586; s. c.77 Am. Rep. 100; San Fran- cisco V. Fulde, 37 Cal. 333; Steeple v. Downing, 60 Ind. 748; Thompson V. McLaughlin, 66 111. 407; Harrison v. Cachelin, 35 Mo. 49; Wall «. Shindler, 47 Mo. 282; Lynde v. Williams, 68 Mo. 325; Bowman v. Lee, 48 Mo. 335; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 441; Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33; Sharp V. Johnson, 22 Ark. 79; Ringo v. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469; Williams 671 § 714 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. [PAKT III. owner, or abandonment of actual possession, although with no intention to give up his claim of adverse possession ; or, if at any time during the statutory period the rightful owner could not find an actual occupant against whom to bring his action of ejectment ; ^ any of these acts or incidents will constitute such a discontinuance of the disseisin or adverse possession as will prevent the operation of the statute.^ There must, however, -be a succcessful interruption of the adverse possession. An ineffectual protest against the ad- verse use or possession will not break its continuity.^ And so, likewise, is there no interruption of the adverse pos- session ' where there have been only occasional acts of trespass with no apparent intention to assert and exercise V. Wallace, 78 N. Car. 354; Malloy v. Brnden, 86 N. Car. 251; Kuffin v. Overly, 105 N. C. 78; 11 S. E. 251; Wren B.Parker, 67 Ctonn. 529; 18 Atl. 790; Warren v. Fredericks, 76 Tex. 647; 13 S. W. 643; Morris w. Mc- Clary, 43 Minn. 346 ; 46 N. W. 238 ; LoulsviUe & M. E. K. Co. v Philyan, 88 Ala. 264; 6 So. 837; Garlington v. Copeland (S. C. 1890), 10 S. E. 616; Deans v. Wilcoxon (Ela. 1890), 7 So. 163; Hicklin b. McClear, 18 Greg. 126; 22 Pac. 1057. 1 But it must be something inore than mere temporary unoccupatlon of the building. Stettnische v. Lamb, 18 Neb. 619; Stettnische c. Lamb, 26 N. W. Kep. (Neb.) 374; Hughs v. Pickering, 14 Pa. St. 297; Hndgins V. Crow, 32 Ga. 367; Pugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 441; Crispin v. Hannavan, 50 Mo. 636; De la Vega v. Butler, 47 Tex. 629; Harper v. Tapley, 35 Miss. 506; Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135; 46 N. W. 299; Thompson «. Kauffelt, 110 Pa. St. 209; 1 Atl. 267. 2 Pederick B. Seaxle, 6 Serg. & R. 240; Den b. Mxilford, Hayw. 330; Webb B. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465; San Francisco .,. Fulde, 37 Cal. 349; Euffln V. Overly, 105 N. C. 78; 11 S. B. 251; Doe b. Thompson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 371; Thompson b. Burhans, 79 N. Y. 99; Bliss v. Johnson, 94 N. y. 235; Sherman b. Kane, 86 N. Y. 56; Casey b. Inloes, 1 Gill (Md.), 430; s. c. 39 Am. Dec. 658; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; Steeple v. Down- ing, 60 Ind. 478 ; Mclntlre v. Brown, 28 Ind. 347; Crispin v. Hannavan, 50 Mo. 536; Malloy B. Brnden, 86 N. Car. 251; Holdfast v. Shepard, 6 Ired. (N. Car.) 364; Hill B. Saunders, 6 Rich. (S. Car.) 62; Joiner o. Borders, 32 Ga. 239; Virgin v. Land, 32 Ga. 572; Armstrong v. Merrill, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 120; Susquehanna, etc., R. Co. o. Quick, 68 Pa. 189. See inter- ruption of possession, post, p. 271. Griffith b. Schwenderman, 27 Mo. 412. 8 Jordan b. Lang, 22 S. C. 159. 672 CH. XX. ] STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. § 714 the right of possession,^ or where there is merely a tempo- rary non-user, without any pressure from the disseisee.^ So, also, where the disseisor has held possession without color of title for some time and then took a deed from one whom he supposed to be the owner, there is no discontinuance or change of his original adverse possession, and he can claim against the real owner a continuous adverse possession for the entire time of his possession before and after receiving the deed of conveyance.^ But it need not be a continuous adverse possession in the one person. The title by disseisin may be assigned, and it descends to the disseisor's heirs. If, therefore, two or three disseisors hold the land successively and in privity with each other, whether by purchase or by descent, and their several periods of holding make up the requisite statutory period, the owner will be just as effectually barred as if the land had been held by one person during the en- tire time.* If, however, the first disseisor held posses- 1 Duren v. Sinclair, 22 S. C. 861 ; Bell ». Denson, 56 Ala. 444. See Doe V. Bslava, 11 Ala. 1038; Raynor v. Lee, 20 Mich. 384. Compare Walley v. Small, 29 Iowa, 288; Hoffman v. White (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 816. 2 Hesperia Land, etc., Co. v. Bogers, 83 Cal. 10; 23 Pac. 196; Jones v. Gaddis (Miss. '90), 7 So. 489. 3 Sanders v. Logue, 88 Tenn. 355; 12 S. W. 722; Brown v. Brown, 106 N. C. 451; 11 S. E. 647; Jones. ■». Gaddis (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 489. * Melvin v. Proprietors, etc., 5 Mete. 15; Sawyers. Kendall, 10 Cash. 241; Alexander v. Pendleton, 8 Cranch. 462; Doe v. Campbell, 10 Johns. 477; Jackson v. Leonard, 9 Cow. 653; Leonard v. Leonard, 7 Allen, 227; Doe V. Barnard, 13 Q. B. 945; Armstrongs. Eisteau,5 Md. 256; Shrackc. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 38 ; Christy v. Alford, 17 How 601 ; Simpson v. Downing, 23 Wend. 316; Doe v. Brown, 4 Ind. 143; Chilton v. Wilson, 9 Humph. 399; Johnson v. Nash, 15 Texas, 419; Outcalt v. Ludlow, 32 N. J. 239 ; Clock ». Gilbert, 39 Conn. 94 ; Coogler v. Rogers (Fla. 1890), 7 So. 391; FaloonB. Sinshauser, 130111. 647, 649; 22N.E. 835; Rlggs ». Girard, (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 1031. But the possession of the tenants of dower or curtesy cannot be tacked on to the possession of the husband or wife, re- spectively in order to make up the statutory period of adverse possession. Doe V. Wing, 6 C. & P. 638, and cases cited supra. See, generally, in support of the text, Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Oyler, 82 Ind. 394; Hammond v. Crosby, 68 Ga. 767; Baker v. Hale, 6 Baxt. 43 673 § 714 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. [PAET III. sion without color of title and his deed of conveyance purported to convey a larger tract of land than what he had had in his actual possession, he conveyed to his grantee a title by adverse possession to only that part of the land of which he had actual possession. And the grantee's adverse constructive possession of the remainder of the land covered by the description in the deed, began with his entry in possession of the land under color of title.^ This rule has been sustained and applied where the successive holders, although claiming under each other, have not ac- quired title by any deed or instrument in writing, but merely by parol contract.^ But there must be privity of . estate between the successive disseisors, in order that their several holdings may be tacked together to produce a con- tinuity of adverse possession.^ And it has been held that (Tenn. 46; Bryan v. East St. Louis, 12 111. App. 390; Kllbourne v. Lockman, 8 Iowa, 380; Brant v. Ogden, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 156; Jack- son ». Thomas, 16 Johns. (N. X.) 293; "Ward o. Bartholomew, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 410; Wade v. Lindsey, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 408; Melvin v. Proprie- tors, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 5; s. c. 28 Am. Dec. 384; Overfield u. Christie, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 173 ; McCoy v. Trustees, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 254 ; Mercer v. Wat- son, 1 Watts (Pa.), 330; Parker v. Southwick, 6 Watts (Pa.), 377; Hunt V. Devling, 8 Watts (Pa.), 403; Moore v. Small, 9 Pa. St. 194; ScheetzB. Fitzwater, 6 Pa. St. 156; Schrank v. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 36; Winslowc Wewell, 19 Vt. 164; Day v. Wilder, 47 Vt. 684; Satterwhlte ». Rosser,61 Texas, 166; Brownson «. Scanlan, 59 Texas, 222; Wheeler©. Moody, 9 Texas, 372; Shaw«.Nicolay, 30Mo. 99; St. Louis ■». Gorman, 29 Mo. 593;s. u. 77 Am. Dec. 586;Chouquette v. Berada, 28 Mo. 331;Furlong«. Garrett, 44 Wis. Ill; McNeely v. Langdan, 22 Ohio St. 32; McEntlre v. Brown, 28 Ind. 347; Doe v. Brown, 4 Ind.143; Adams v. Tiernan, 6 Dana (Ky.), 394; Hanson v. Johnson, 62 Md. 25; s c. 50 Am. Eep. 199; Chilton v. Wilson, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 399; Hays v. Morrison, 30 Ga. 971; Benson ». Stewart, 80 Miss. 49 ; Riggs v. Fuller, 54 Ala. 141 ; San Francisco v. Fulde, 37 Cal. 849; Shuffleton v. Nelson, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 540; Lea ». Polk County, 21 How. (U. S.)493; Doswell». De la Lanza, 20 How. (TJ. S.) 29. ' Barks v. Mitchell, 78 Ala. 161. 2 Smith V. Chapin, 31 Conn. 530; Mimms».Ewing, 15 Lea, 667; Brown V. Brown, 106 N. C. 451; 11 S. E. 647; Faloon v. Simshauser, 130X11. 649; 22 N. E. 835; Kendrick v. Latham (Fla. 1890), 6 So. 871. 8 Austin V. Rutland E. R., 45 Vt. 215: San Francisco v. Fulde, 37 Cal. 349; Shuflleton v. Nelson, 2 Sawyer, 540; Simpson v. Downing, 23 Wend. 674 CH. XX. J STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. § 715 an involuntary sale, as by a sheriff in execution of a judg- ment, would not create the necessary privity.^ But in some of the States the entire doctrine is repudiated, and a continuous holding by one person or his heirs for his stat- utory period is required to raise a bar to the action by the owner for the recovery of his land.^ § 715. Against whom the statute runs. — The statute runs against the rightful owner, and all other persons stand- ing in privity with him. But the statute only bars the ac- tions when the statutory period has elapsed after the time when the right of action accrued. The statute, therefore, does not begin to run against a person until he has a right to bring the action .^ Where the tenant of a particular estate is disseised and is barred by the statute, since the rever- sioner is not entitled to possession until the termination of the particular estate, the statute will not affect his right of action during the continuance of the particular estate. The disseisor acquires an absolute title only to the tenant's estate ; the reversioner is only disseised from the time when 316; Shrack v. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 38; Christy v. Alvord, 17 How. 601; Locke V. Whitney, 63 N. H. 597; Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Philyaw, 88 Ala. 264; 6 So. 37; Sawyer u. Kendall, 10 Gush. (Mass.) 241; Fugate ?;. Pierce, 49 Mo. 441 ; Crispin v. Hannavan, 60 Mo. 536 ; Cahill v. Palmer, 44 N. Y. 478. And see Fanning v. Wilcox, 3 Day, 258; McCoy v. Dickinson College, 5 Serg. & R. 254. 1 Kendrick«.- Latham, (Fla. 1890), 6 So. 871. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 147; King v. Smith, Eice, 10. This theory has lately been confirmed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Ellen V. Ellen, 16 S. C. 132; Condon v. Morgan, 14 S. Car. 687. ' See EadclifEe v. Scruggs, 96; Skinner v. Williams, 85 Mo. 489; Mason V. Crowder, 86 Mo. 261; Wallace v. Presb. Church, HI Pa. St. 164; Wilhoit v. Tubbs, 83 Cal. 279; 23 Pac. 386; Miller i). Texas, etc., Ey. Co., 132 U. S. 662; Smith v. Exchange Bank, 110 Pa. St. 508; 1 Atl. 160; Tennessee, etc., E. E. Co. v. Mabry, 85 Tenn. 47; 1 S. W. 511; Strabala v. Lewis (Iowa, 1890), 46 N. W. 881; Miller v. Foster, 76 Texas, 479; 13 S. W. 529; Chase v. Cartwrlght ("Ark. 1890), 14 S. W. 90. 675 § 715 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. [PART III. the tenant's estate is at an end, and the reversioner has a right to recover the possession.^ But the heir is disseised immediately, and the statute runs against him at once, where the widow undertakes to convey lands in fee, which had not been assigned to her as dower.'' And so, likewise, at com- mon law, the disseisin of the mortgagor is an immediate disseisin of the mortgagee, and vice versa,^ the reason being that at common law both mortgagor and mortgagee, or either of them, can bring the necessary possessory action for the recovery of the land from the possession of the disseisor. But where the mortgagee's right to the possession before default is taken away, his right of action does not accrue until default in payment, and hence in case of disseisin of the mortgagor before default, the Statute of Limitations would not begin to run against the mortgagee, until there has been a default.* In addition to this restriction upon the operation of the statute, the statutes generally contain a saving clause, pre- venting the statute from running against certain persons who are under disabilities. Although there maybe a difi"erent rule prevailing in one or two of the States, in order that. the dis- ability, such as coverture or infancy, etc., may prevent the operation of the statute, it must have existed at the time that the statute began to run. If it arises subsequently it can have no effect ; a succession of disabilities is not per- mitted to prevent the operation of the statute beyond the 1 Devyr v. Schaefer, 55 N. Y. 451 ; Jackson v. Schoonmaker,4 Johns. 390; Miller v. Ewing, 6 Gush. 34; Baymond v. Holden, 2 Gush. 269; Gernet v. Lynn, 81 Pa. St. 94; Pinckney v. Barrage, 80 N. J. L. 21; Salmons v. Davis, 29 Mo. 176; Moseley v. Hankinson, 25 S. C. 619; Miller v. Foster, 7G Texas, 479; 13 S. W. 529; Dupon v. Walden, 84 Ga. 690: 11 S. E. 451. 2 Smith ». Shaw, 150 Mass. 297; 22 N. E. 924. 3 Poignard v. Smith, 8 Pick. 272; Dadmun v. Lamson, 9 Allen, 85. * See Schieffersteln v. Allison, 24 111. App. 294; s. c. 123 111. 623; 15 N.iE. 275; Kreitz v. Hamilton, 28 111. App. 666; Houston v. Workman, 28 111. App. 626. 676 CH. XX.] STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. § 716 time of suspension from the first disability .^ It will not stay the operation of the statute. And this rule governs whether the disability arises subsequently through the acts of the parties, as in the case of the subsequent marriage of R.feinesole,^ or it occurs through the force of natural causes, such as subsequent insanity, or where the disseisee dies, and bis title descends to an infant heir.^ It is usual, however, in the case of descent to infant heirs, to provide that the time of limitation shall be prolonged, so that the actions will not be barred until the lapse of a stated period after arrival at majority. It is also the general rule, in the absence of an express statutory provision, that the Statute of Limitations will not run against the State or United States. Nullwm. tempus occurrit regi.^ § 716. How and when statute operates. — The statute not only protects the title acquired by adverse possession, when it is assailed by plaintiff in an action of ejectment, but it may also be relied upon to vindicate his right to pos- session, where he has been ousted and he is forced to his action to recover possession. The statute not only bars the action, but it takes away the disseisee's former right to regain seisin by an entry. Any entry, therefore, which i Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 1 How. 37; Cotterell v. Dutton, 4 Taunt. 820; Edso v. Mansell, 10 Allen, 557; Gage v. Smith, 27 Conn. 74; Tracy V. Atherton, 36 Vt. 503 ; Riemer v. Stnber, 20 Pa. St. 458 ; Little v. Downing, 37 N. H. 355 ; Peters ». Jones, 35 Iowa, 512 ; McLane v. Moore, 6 Jones L. 520; Ilaynes u. Jones, 2 Head, 372; Clart's Exrs. v. Trail, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 40; Miller v. Texas, etc., E. R. Co., 132 U. S. 662. 2 Thorpe v. Raymond, 16 How. 247; Carrier v. Gale, 3 Allen, 328; Hall V. Ditto (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. 941. s AUis V. Moore, 2 Allen, 306; Fleming v. Grlswold, 3 Hill, 85; Becker V. Van Valkenburg, 29 Barb. 324; Lincoln v. Purcell, 2 Head, 143; Bur- detteu. May, 100 Mo. 13; 12 S. W. 1056. ^ Llndsey v. Miller, 2 Pet. 660; Burgess v. Gray, 16 How. 48; Oak- smith V. Johnston, 92 TJ. S. 343; People ». Van Rensselaer, 9 Barb. 189; Kingman v. Sparrow, 12 Barb. 201; Ward v. Bartholomew, 6 Pick. 409; Vickery v. Benson, 26 Ga. 590; Gardiner v. Miller, 47 Cal. 570. 677 § 717 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. [PART III. he may make after the lapse of the period of limitation, is a disseisin and does not re-invest him with the lawful seisin. The statute, therefore, may be set up by a plaintiff in ejectment in support of his title, even against one who has a clear paper title. ^ And it has also been held, where ejectment is brought by disseisee, and the disseisor with possession for the statutory period suffers judgment by de- fault, he may set up the statute in a subsequent action of ejectment, in which he is plaintiff.^ § 717. Effect of the statute. — All the earlier authori- ties held that the only effect of the Statute of Limitations was to bar the remedy, and that it did not affect the sub- stantive right, whether the action was to recover real prop- erty or was only a personal chose in action.^ And this would appear to be the reasonable construction of the stat- utes. They in express terms bar the actions. But of lute years some of the courts have gone further and held that the statute affected also the right or title of the disseisee.^ Mr. Washburn says that " the operation of the statute takes away the title of the real owner, and transfers it, not in form, indeed, but in legal effect to the adverse occupant." ^ The statute may have the effect of destroying the title of the owner altogether and for all purposes, but it cannot be 1 Aug. on Lim., sects. 380, 381 ; Hughes v. Graves, 39 Vt. 365; Phillips V. Kent, 23 N. J. L. Ip5; Parker v. Metzger, 12 Oreg. 407. 2 Jackson v. Diffendorff, 3 Johns. 269. 3 Aug. on Lira., sects. 1, 7; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 146; Davenport V. Tyrrel, 1 W. Bl. 975; McElmoyne v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Townsend v. Jamison, 29 How. 497; Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. 36. * School District u. Benson, 31 Me. 384. See Steel v. Johnson, 4 Allen, 426; Schall v. Williams Valley R. E., 45 Pa. St. 191; Pederick v. Searle, 5 Serg. & R. 240; Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 262; Armstrong v. Risteau, 5 Md. 256; Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 504; Grant v. Fowler, 39 N. H. 103; Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 273. See 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 163, 164; Bliss on Code Pleading, sect. 366. ^ 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 164. 678 CH. XX.] STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. § 717 said to transfer it to the disseisor. His title is acquired by- adverse possession, and it is only made perfect by render- ing the rightful owner powerless to defeat it, either by entry or by ejectment. The only real value of this distinction lies in the settlement of a question arising under the subject of title by abandonment.* 1 See post, sect. 740. 679 SECTION V. ESTOPPEL. Section 724. Definition. 725. Estoppels in pais. 726. Is fraud necessary to estoppel in pais. 727. Estoppel in deed. 728. Estoppel in deed — Continued. 729. Effect of estoppel upon the title. 730. Effect of estoppel — Continued. 731. Estoppel binding upon whom. § 724. Definition. — A title by adverse possession may also be perfected by estoppel. Estoppel is an admission or representation which is held by law to be conclusive upon the party making it, because its disproof would result in injury to him who relied upon its truth. The subject has a general reference to all branches of the law. In its refer- ence to titles to real property they may be divided into estoppels in pais and estoppels by deed.^ § 725. Estoppels in pais. — An estoppel inpais'ia arep- resentation, either by act or by word, or even in some cases by silence, made by one party to another for the purpose of influencing the latter in reference to the title or bound- ary line of the property about to be purchased by the lat- ter.^ One is estopped from asserting title to land, which 1 SWashb. on Real Prop. 70; 1 Prest. Abst. 421; Welland Canal v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480; Hanrahan v. O'Reilly, 102 Mass. 204; Sinclair u. Jackson, 8 Cow. 586 ; Douglass 9. Scott, 6 Ohio, 199 ; Waters' Appeal, 35 Pa. St. 523; Co. Lit. 362 a. 2 Ham V. Ham, 14 Me. 351; Attorney-Generel v. Merrimack Co., 14 Gray, 686; Hicks v. Cram, 17 Vt. 449; Barker v. Bell, 37 Ala. 359; Ruth- erford V. Taylor, 38 Mo. 316; Bangan v. Mann, 69 HI. 492; McWlUiams v. Morgan, 61 111. 89; Veal v. Robinson, 76 Ga. 838; Coogler v. Rogers CFla. 1890), 7 So. 391 ; Moose v. Trimmier (S. C. 1890), 11 S* E. 648, 552; 680 CH. XX. ] ESTOPPEL. § 726 he has permitted to be sold in his presence to a bona fide purchaser without disclosing his claim to the land.^ The representation, in order to constitute an estoppel, must refer to facts not equally within the knowledge and reach of both parties. If the purchaser, who relies upon the representa- tion, had other convenient means of ascertaining the truth of the case, there will be no estoppel.^ The party seeking to establish the estoppel must show that he actually relied upon the representation, and was thereby deceived.^ It is further required that the representation must have been made with the intention to influence the conduct of the party misled, or it was so made that the latter might reasonably have been expected to rely upon it.* § 726. Is fraud necessary to estoppel in pais ? — It has been a disputed question how far the element of fraud is necessary to constitute a false representation a ground for Jennings v. Harrison (S. C. 1890), 11 S. E. 695; Graber v. Baker, 20 Nev. 453; 23 Pac. 858; Geary v. Porter, 17 Oreg. 465. 1 Gray v. Crockett, 35 Kan. 686; 12 Pac. 129; Sumner v. Seaton (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 884; Bunting v. Gilmore (Tnd. 1890), 24 N. E. 583; Short V. Carrier, 150 Mass. 372; 23 N. E. 106; Noble v. 111. Cent. K. B. Co., Ill 111. 437 ; Bobb v. Bobb, 99 Mo. 578 ; 12 S. W. 898. But see, Tilot- son V. Mitchell, 111 111. 518. 2 Odlin V. Grove, 41 N. H. 477; Hill v. Epley, 31 Pa. St. 334; McCune v. McMichael, 29 Ga. 312; Fletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind. 469; Ormsby v. Ihmsen, 34 Pa. St. 472; Jewett v. Miller, 10 N. Y.'406; Gray v. Bartlett, 29 Pick. 103; Ferris v. Carver, 10 Oal. 589; Mora v. Murphy, 83 Cal. 12; 83 Pac. 63; Stuart v. Lowry, 42 Minn. 473; 44 N. "W. 532; Western N. Y., etc., E. E. Co. 1'. Eichards (Pa. J890), 19 Atl. 931. 3 Brown ?;. Bowen, 30 N. Y. 641; Malloney v. Heron, 49 N. Y. Ill; HanrahauB. O'Eeilly, 102 Mass. 201; Anderson ». Coburn, 27 Wis. 566; Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 21 Cal. 583; Carpentier w. Thurston, 24 Cal. 283; Jones V. Merchants Nat. Bank, 55 Hun, 290 ; 8 N. Y. ^ . 382. * Turner v. Coffin, 12 Allen, 401; Andrews v. Lyon, U Allen, 350; Plumb V. Cattaraugus Ins. Co., 18 N, Y. 392; Brown v. Bowen, 30 N. Y. 541 ; Rusfeell V. Maloney, 39 Vt. 584 ; Calhoun v. Richardson, 30 Conn. 210; Patterson v. Lytle, 11 Pa. St. 53 ; Maple v. Kussart, 53 Pa. St. 352 ; How- ard u. Hudson, 2 Ell. & B. 1; Ford u. Fellows, 34Mo.App. 630; Blanchard V. Evans, 5 N. Y. Super. Ct. 543. 681 § 726 ESTOPPEL. [part III. raising an estoppel. A large number of cases hold that, if there are present a false representation, an intention to in- fluence, and a reliance upon that representation, an estoppel arises against the party making the false representation, notwithstanding he did so through an honest mistake as to the facts of the case, provided the circumstances of the case impute to the party making the misrepresentation a knowl- edge of the truth. 1 -While it is maintained by other courts that the representalion must have been made by one who either knew it to be false, or had no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.^ This dispute arises only where the representation concerns the title to the land generally. When the representation refers to the boundary line between two estates, the courts seemed to have generally agreed upon the following rule : Where the true line was a matter of uncertainty and dispute, and it could not, after a diligent search, be ascertained, if the parties agree upon a line, which shall constitute the boundary line, both will there- after be estopped from denying that the line agreed upon was the true line, although the dispute arose from an honest mistake of one or both of the parties.-^ But if the repre- sentation was made under an honest mistake of the facts in 1 Bigelow V. Foss, 59 Me. 162; Beaupland v. McKeen, 28 Pa. St. 124; Maple V. Kussart, 53 Pa. St. 352; Morris Canal v. Lewis, 12 N. J. Eq. 332; Jewett». Miller, ION. Y. 406; Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595; An- drews V. Lyon, U Allen, 349; Blackwood v. Jones, 4 Jones Eq. 56; Mc- Cune V. McMichael, 29 Ga. 312; Barnes v. McKay, 7 Ind. 301; Snodgrass V. Ricketts, 13 Cal. 362; Ford v. Eellows, 34 Mo. App. 630. 2 Davidson?). Young, 38 111. 152; Boggs v. Merced Co., 14 Cal. 367; Gliriden v. Struppler, 52 Pa. St. 405; Copeland v. Copeland, 28 Jle. 539; Whitakeru. Williams, 20 Conn. 104; Henshaw v. Blssell, 18 Wall. 271. 3 Adams v. Eocfewell, 16 Wend. 285; Dibble v. Rogers, 13 Wend. 536; Jackson v. Ogden, 7 Johns. 238; Orr v. Hadley, 36 N. H, 575; Terry v. Chandler, 16 N. Y. 355; Lindsay «. Springer, 4 Har. 547; Che\vt7. Morton, 10 Watts, 321 ; Knowles v. Toothaker, 68 Me. 174; Russell u. Maloney, 39 Vt. 580; Houston v. Sneed, 15 Texas, 307; Joyce v. Williams, 26 Mich. 332: Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 279; Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 624; Reed v. Farr, 35 N. Y. 117. 682 CH. XX.] ESTOPPEL. , § 727 • a case, -Where there was no actual uucertainty as to the true line, the party making the representation would not there- after be precluded from setting up the true line.^ But if the party making the representation as to boundary knew it to be false and the other relied upon such representa- tion, an estoppel would arise. ^ These questions, however, involve the discussion of a great many principles of equity, and upon the application of which the courts are not altogether agreed. The foregoing enunciationof the leading principles is as much as can be attempted in an elemen- tary treatise on real property. It is hardly necessary to state that, in order that an estoppel in pais may per- fect a title by adverse possession, the possession must have been acquired under an honest claim of title. For an honest reliance upon the false representation in respect to the title is necessary to raise the estoppel. In perfecting titles by adverse possession, estoppels are set up by the de- fendant in defending the title so acquired and perfected. But, if necessary, it may also be set up by the plaintiff in exercising the rights of ownership incident to the title. § 727. Estoppel by deed. — In its relation to the title of lands an estoppel by deed arises, where there is in the deed an express or implied representation that the grantor at the time of his conveyance-was possessed of the title which his "deed purports to convey. If there is such a representation, and it is false, whether he is committing a fraud or is acting •1 Proprietors, etc., v. Presoott, 7 Allen, iOi; Thayerc. Bacon, 3 Allen, 163; Baldwins. Brown, 16 N. Y. 359; Coon v. Smith, 29 N. Y. 392; Vos- burgh V. Teator, 32 N. Y. 561 ; Eussell v. Maloney, 39 Vt. 580. See Bur- diclc V. Heinley, 23 Iowa, 515. 2 Davenport v. Tarpin, 43 Cal. 598; Lemmon v. Hartrook, 80 Mo. 13; Kirchner v. Miller, 39 N. J. Eq. 355; Reed o. McCourt, 35 N. Y. 113; Eamsden v. Dyson, L. R. 1 H. L. 129; Hass v. Plantz, 66 Wis. 105; Ray- nor V. Tlmerson, 51 Barb. 517; Evans v. Miller, 58 Miss. 120; Pitcher v. Dove, 99 Ind. 175. 683 § 727 ESTOPPEL. [part III. under an honest mistake, he is estopped from denying that he has a title ; and consequently, if he should afterwards acquire the title, he could not by setting it up defeat his own grant. 1 And, as in the case of an estoppel in pais, the grantor is not estopped, unless the grantee took the deed in reliance upon the truth of the grantor's represen- tations as to his title. ^ But a grantor may disseise his grantee, and the title by adverse possession, so acquired, may ripen into a good title, which the grantor may assert. So also may he acquire a title subsequently in any othigr manner, and assert it against his grantee, provided it does not negative the validity of the title which he purported to convey.^ The representation need not be express; it may be implied. The common-law conveyance by feoffment was itself an implied representation that the feoffor had an absolute title to the estate, which was sufficient to bind any subsequently acquired title in his hands.* But in all other deeds, and particularly in deeds which take effect under the Statute of Uses, no estoppel can arise, unless the recitals or the covenants of the deed expressly- or impliedly represent that the grantor had a good title to the land which he at- tempts to convey. No estoppel can arise merely from the ' Smith V. Moodns Water Co., 35 Conn. 400; Clark v. Baker, 14 Cal. 629; Faillittle u. Gilbert, 2 T. K. 181; Jackson v. Murray, 12 Johns. 201; Pike V. Galvin, 29 Me. 183; Doe v. Dovvdall, S Houst. 380; IJfnn v. Cor- nell, Johns. 174; Reeder v. Craig, 3 McCord, 4U; French v. Spencer, 21 How. 228; Washabaugh v. Entricken, 34 Pa. St. 74; Ryan o. United States, 136TJ. S. 68; Straniordu.Broadwaj^Sav. & Loan Co., 122 Ind. 422; Coleman v. Bresnahan, 54 Hun, 619 ; 8 N. Y. S. 15S; Miller v. Texas, etc., E. R. Co., 132 U. S. 68. 2 Viele V. Van Steenburg, 31 Fed, 249; Ro uutree u. Lane (S.C. 1890), 10 S. E. 941 ; Mann v. City of Elgin, 24 111. App. 419; McCann v. Oregon Ey. & Nav. Co., 13 Or. 455; 11 Pao. 236. " Parkers. Proprietors, etc., 3 Mete. 102; Stearns u. Hendersass, 9 Cush. 502; Tilton v. Emery, 17 N.H.538; Smith v. Monies, 11 Texas, 24; Moore v. Littel, 41 N. Y. 97; Hope v. Stone, 10 Minn. 152; Garabaldi o. Shattuck, 70 Cal. 511; 11 Pac. 778. 4 3 Washb. on Real Prop, 94. 684 CH. XX. J ESTOPPEL. § 728 execution and delivery of such a deed, and the payment of a valuable consideration.^ § 728. Estoppel in deeds — Continued. — It seems, how- ever, in order that a recital may work an estoppel, it must refer specially to some particular fact. General recitals do not conclude the grantor from setting up an after-acquired title. ^ The covenants of warranty are held to raise an estoppel for the purpose of avoiding circuity of action. An entry by the grantor under his after-acquired title would be a breach of the covenants, and instead of putting the grantee to his Action on the covenants, the law estops the grantor from asserting the title in derogation of his own grant.' But it is not necessary that the covenant be a gen- eral covenant of warranty. A special warranty would ordi- narily be sufficient. It will operate as an estoppel to the extent of the liability thereby assumed by the grantor.* In order that a covenant may work an estoppel 1 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 116 ; White v. Patten, 24 Pick. 324 ; Wriglit V. Shaw, 5 Cush. 56; McCall^. Coover, 4 Watts & S. 151; Boot v. Crock, 7 Barr, 880; Jackson v. Wright, 14 Johns. 193; Somes v. Skinner, 3 Pick. 52; Dart v. Dart, 7 Conn. 250; Brown v. Jackson, 3 Wheat. 449; Jack- son V. Brinkerhoff, 8 Johns. 101; Kimball v. Blaisdell, 6 N. H. 535; 3ruce v. Luke, 9 Kan. 201; 12 Am. Kep. 491; Brennan v. Eggeman, 73 Mich. 658. " Huntington v. Havens, 5 Johns. Ch. 23 ; Shelley v. Wright, Willes, 9; Co. Lit. 352 b; Morgan v. Lamed, 10 Mete. 53; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 85; Stow v. Wyse, 7 Conn. 214; Scott v. Douglass, 7 Ohio, 229; Douglass »•.• Scott, 5 Ohio, 194; Hays v. Askew, 6 Jones L. 637; Harney V. Morton, 36 Miss. 411; Morton v. Saunders, 7 J. J. Marsh. 14; Hall v. Orvis, 35 Iowa, 366; Yancey u. Eadford (Va. 1890)', 10 S. E. 972; Pate V. French, 122 Ind. 10; 23 N. E. 673. 3 Somes V. Skinner, 3 Pick. 52; Oakes v. Marcey, 10 Pick. 195; Blanchard v. Ellis, 1 Gray, 195; Dart v. Dart, 7 Conn. 256; Cole v. Eay- mond, 9 Gray, 217; Jackson v. Bradford, 4 Wend. 619; Irvine u. Irvine, 9 Wall. 626; Micklea v. Townsend, 18 N. Y. 677; Jackson ii. Hubble, 1 Cow. 613; Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend. 189; Bogy v. Shoab, 13 Mo. 378; Gaffney v. Peeler, 21 S. C. 55; Kobinson v. Douthit, 64 Texas, 101; Miller v. Texas, etc., E. B. Co., 132 U. S. 662. * Trull V. Eastman, 3 Mete. 121; Blake v. Tucker, 12 Vt. 39; Kimball V. Blaisdell, 5 N. H. 535; Brundred v. Walker, 12 N. J. Eq. 140. 685 § 729 ESTOPPEL. [part III. it must be contained in a deed which is good -and valid in law as well as in equity. A defective deed cannot create an estoppel by covenant.^ But a conveyance in considera- ation of natural love and affection, is sufficient.^ So will no estoppel arise from a deed with covenant of warranty, where the deed passes an interest, upon which the warranty can operate, although the interest so passing is not com- mensurate with the intention of the parties.^ And if the deed conveys "all the right, title and interest" of the grantor, instead of an absolute estate, the grantor will not be estopped from setting up an after-acquired title, since he did not undertake to convey any greater interest or better title than he then had.* So, also, a quit-claim deed cannot raise an estoppel as to after-acquired titles. ° And where the deed is executed by two or more owners of an estate in common, the estoppel, whether it is based upon a recital or a covenant of warranty, or both, only operates upon the share of each grantor, and does not prevent one from setting up a title to the shares of the other, which he acquires subsequently.^ § 729. Effect of estoppel upon the title Where the estoppel arises «i pais there seems to be no doubt that it has only the effect of locking up the adverse title in the 1 Blanchardi). Brooks, 12 Pick. 47; Patterson v. Pease, 6 Ohio, 190; Kercheval J). Triplett, 1 A. K. Marsh. 493; Dougal ». Fryer, 3 Mo. 29; Raymond v. Holden, 2 Cush. 264. 2 Robinson v. Douthit, 64 Texas, 101. 3 Jackson ». HofEnian, 9 Cow. 271; Lewis v. Baird, 3 McLean, 56; 2 Prest. Abst. 216; 4 Kent's Com. 98. * Mills V. Ewing, 6 Cush. 34; Doane v. Wllcutt, 5 Gray, 328; Raymond V. Raymond, 10 Cash. 134; Jackson v. Peck, 4 Wend. BOO; Pike». Galvin, 29 Me. 183; Harrison v. Gray, 49 Me. 538; Wyun v. Harman, 5 Gratt. 157; Krusmanc. Loomis, 11 Ohio, 475; White v. Brocaw, 14 Ohio St. 344; Torrence v. Shredd, 112 111. 466. " Fay V. Wood (Mich.;, 82 N. W. Rep. 614; Frost v. Meth., etc., Mis- sionary Soc, 56 Mich. 62; People v. Miller (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 172. But see Clark v. Daniels (Mich. 1889), 43 N. W. 854. 6 Trull V. Eastman, 3 Mete. 121; Wright v. Shaw, 5 Cash. 66. 686 CH. XX.] ESTOPPEL. § 730 person against whom the estoppel operates, instead of creat- ing a title in, or transferring the true title to, the person for whose benefit it is brought into operation. It only pre- cludes the party from setting up his true title against him, who has been influenced by false representation. If one who has been deceived has actually received no title in any other way, the doctrine of estoppel will only help him in an action brought to recover the title to which he is entitled. If he has a title by adverse possession under a claim of title, the estoppel will perfect it by preventing his ouster under the paramount title by those who are affected by the estoppel. But a difficult question arises in this connection, where it is an estoppel by deed. Two different theories pre- vail, and are supported by eminent authority. According to one theory, the estoppel by deed simply precludes the grantor from setting up an after-acquired title in derogation of his own grant. The opposing theory is to the effect that the estoppel actually passes the after-acquired title to the grantee immediately upon its acquisition by the grantor. To use the expression commonly found in these authorities, it " inures " to the grantee. This latter theory is directly opposed to the general doctrine of estoppel, and is believed to be unfounded. § 730. Effect of estoppel — Continued. — A large array of authorities is cited by Mr. Kawle and Mr. Washburn,^ but as Mr Bigelow very correctly states, 1 Eawle, Gov. of Tit. (ith ed.), 404 ; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 190. The following are the leading cases cited by Mr. Washburn: Jackson v. Stev- ens, 13 Johns. 316; Brown v. McCormick, 6 Watts, 60; Jackson v. Mats- dorf, 11 Johns. 91; Somes u. Skinner, 3 Pick. 52; Terrett o. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43; Wark v. Willard, 13 N. H. 389; Comstock v. Smith, 13 Pick. 116; White V. Patten, 24 Pick. 324; Allen v. Parish, 3 Ohio, 107; Bond v. Swearingen, 1 Ohio, 190; Lawry v. Williams, 13 Me. 281; Jackson v. Wright, 14 Johns. 193; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 322; Good- son V. Beacham, 24 6a. 150; Kimball v. SchofE, 40 N. H. 190; Burton v. Reeds, 20 Ind. 93; McCusker v. McEvey, 9 R. I. 529; Plympton v. Con- verse, 42 Vt. 712; Doe v. Dowdall, 3 Houst. 369; Parker v. Marks, 82 Ala. 687 § 730 ESTOPPEL. [PAET III. in his article,^ and again in his work on Estoppel,^ these authorities refer to the subject only in general terms, and cannot be treated as final and conclusive. In fact, in some of the cases, the position is assumed by the reporter in the syllabus, without having anything in the decision of the court, or the facts of the case, to warrant it.3 According to Mr. Bigelow, the error has occurred through a failure to distinguish between the effect of the common law conveyances of feoffment, fine, recovery and lease, and that of the deeds which taije effect under the Statute of Uses. He admits that by these common-law conveyances the after-acquired interest passed by estoppel to the grantee, while he holds that a different conclusion must be reached in respect to deeds of bargain and sale, covenants to stand seised, and lease and release. In the leading cases of Somes w. Skinner,* all the authorities relied upon concerned estoppels arising in these common-law conveyances. But it seems to the present writer that the entire doctrine is fallacious, whether it refers to common- law conveyances, except a lease for a term of years, or to deeds under the Statute of Uses, and it arises from the false idea of the courts that the doctrine of inurement was necessary, in order to give the grantee sufficient title to defend against trespassers.^ At common law no convey- 548; Kaiser v. Earhart, 64 Miss. 492; Jacob v. Yale (La.), 1 So, Hep. 822; Cornish ?j. Frees, 74 Wis. 490. 1 9 Am. Law Rev. 252. 2 Big. on Estop. 285-339. 2 See particularly Jackson v. Stevens, 13 Johns. 316; Jackson v. Mats- dorf, 11 Johns. 91; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43. 4 3 Pick. 53. 6 Blanchard v. Ellis, 1 Gray, 195; Bean v. Welsh, 17 Ala. 770. A common law lease for a term of years is an executory contract, until the lessee has entered into possession. See ante, sect. 174. The lessee may therefore sue for possession at any time during his term, and may take advantage of any after-acquired title of his lessor. But the grant of a freehold operates eo instanti, and conveys the title upon the delivery of the deed, or not at all. 688 CH. XX.] ESTOPPEL. § 730 ance could be made by one of lands which were in the adverse possession of another".^ Where, therefore, there was a conveyance made of the lands — particularly if it was a common-law conveyance — the grantee or feoffee acquired at least a title by adverse possession, if his grantor was not lawfully seised. This title by adverse possession was good against all the world except the true owner. ^ And if his grantor acquired the paramount title he was estopped from enforcing it against his grantee. The dis- tinction between the two theories only acquired importance when the common -law rule, requiring the grantor to be seised, was abolished and the grantor was permitted to make a legal conveyance while he was disseised. The ques- tion then for the first time arose, whether the title, subse- : quently acquired by one who at the time of his grant had neither title nor possession, so far passed by estoppel to the ' grantee as to permit him to maintain an action of ejectment against one, who holds in adverse possession to both him and I his grantee. That a man acquires nothing by a deed from one, who has neither title nor possession, needs no authority.* The after-acquired title must inure or pass to the grantee, instead of being shut up in the hands of the grantor, in order that the grantee may maintain ejectment against a disseisor.* The better opinion is that no title passes by estoppel to the grantee. If he has acquired none by force of his grant, i. e., if he has not acquired a title by adverse possession he does not gain one by estoppel.* In some of 1 See post, sect. 795. 2 See ante, sects. 692, 693. 3 Tyl. on Adv. Pos. 542. * See Jackson v. Bradford, 4 Wend. 619; 3 Prest. Abst. 25; Wyvel's Case, Hob. 44; Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sr. 391; Somes v. Skinner, 3 Pick. 62, 80; Bivins v. Vinzant, 16 Ga. 521; Way v. Arnold, 18 Ga. 350; Jacocks V. Gilliam, 3 Murph. 47; s. c. 4 Hawks, 310, to the effect that such a grantee could not maintain an action of ejectment in his own name against the disseisor. 5 Gibson v. Chouteau, 39 Mo. 566; Valle o. Clemens, 18 Mo. 486; Bogy V, Shoab, 13 Mo. 379; Bush v. Marshall, 6 How. 288; Van Eensse- 44 689 § 731 ESTOPPEL. [PAKT III. the States to supply the deficiency, statutes have been enacted, which cause after-acquired titles to pass instanter from the grantor to the grantee.^ In the absence of the statute the title remains in the grantor, but he is precluded from setting it up. Neither is the grantee obliged to take advantage of the title subsequently acquired. He may bring his actions for the breach of the covenants if he has been evicted.^ It would seem that if the title actually inured to the grantee, his dispossession by his grantor, under the claim of a paramount title, could not be treated as a breach of the covenant of warranty. It would be a simple act of trespass. And in cases where by estoppel one acquires a right to the title of lands subsequently acquired, a court of equity will always grant a decree for further assurance, so as to protect the grantee's title against the acquisition of the paramount title by an innocent purchaser without notice of the estoppel. § 731. Estoppel binding upon whom. — An estoppel will not only bind the party who makes the false represen- tation, but also all those who are in privity with him, whether the privity is of estate, of contract, or by blood. A stranger can neither take advantage of an estoppel, nor be bound by it.' If, however, the grantor acquires and laer v. Kearney, 11 How. 322; Cocke v. Brogan, 5 Ack. 699; Frink w. Darst, 14 111. 308; Clark v. Baker, 14 Cal. 612; Buckingham v. Hann, 2 Olilo St. 551; Bivins v. Vinzant, 15 Ga. 521; Jackson v. Bradford, 4 Wend. 619; Wright v. Wrlg"ht, 1 Ves. Sr. 391. See Reeder o. Craig, 3 McCord, 411. 1 Bogy V. Shoab, 18 Mo. 379; Mo. Rev. Stat. (1879), sect. 3949; Frink V. Darst, 14 111. 308; Cocke v. Brogan, 5 Ark. 699; Clark ». Baker, 14 Cal. 612; Kline u. Ragland, 47 Ark. 111. 2 Blanchard v. Ellis, 1 Gray, 195; Tucker v. Clarke, 2 Sandf. Ch. 96; Bingham v. Weiderwax, 1 N. Y. 509; Burton v. Reed, 20 Ind. 87; Woods V. North, 6 Humph. 309; Noonan v. Isley, 21 Wis. 139. Contra, Kingo. Gelson, 32 111. 348; Reese v. Smith, 12 Mo. 344. 3 Wivel's Case, Hob. 45; Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sr. 391; Somes v. Skinner, 3 Pick. 52; Jacocks v. Gilliam, 3 Murph. 47; s. c. i Hawks, 310; Doe V. Dowdall, 3 Houst. 369; Bivins v. Vinzant, 15 Ga. 521; Way v. Ar- nold, 18 Ga. 350; Douglass v. Scott, 5 Ohio, 197; Maple v. Kussart, 53 690 CH. XX. ] ESTOPPEL. § 731 holds possession adversely to the grantee, the subsequently acquired title will accrue to the grantor and cannot be claimed by the grantee on the theory of estoppel.^ Nor can any one enforce an estoppel, except the person to whom the representation was made, or who was intended to be influ- enced, and those who stand in privity with him, and claim under him. But where the privies of the grantor, who is estopped, are subsequent purchasers for value, they are only estopped where they have a notice of the estoppel, whether that estoppel arises in pais or in deed.^ If the subsequent purchaser of an after-acquired title has received no notice of the prior deed, the estate in his hands is freed from the estoppel.^ But it is a doubtful question whether the registration of the prior deed, before the title had been acquired by the grantor and recorded, would properly be considered constructive notice of the estoppel. It is cer- tainly in violation of the spirit of the registration laws which only require the investigator to search the records for any incumbrance or conveyance which occurs between the time when the grantor acquired the title, and the time when he offers the title for conveyance.* But in order that Pa. St. 351; Coogler v. Rogers (Fla. 1890), 7 So. 391; Glover v. Thomas, 75 Texas, 506; 12 S. W. 684; Gruber v. Baker, 20Nev. 453; 23 Pac. 858; .Grand Tower, etc., Co. v. Gill, 111 111. 541; Consolidated, etc., Min. Co. V. Lebanon Min. Co., 9 Colo. 343; 12 Pac. 212; Staffordville Gravel Co. V. Newell (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 209; Smythe v. Henry, 41 Fed. 705; Cate V. French, 122 Ind. 10; 23 N. E. 673. 1 Garabaldi v Shattuck, 70 Cal. 511; 11 Pac. 778. 2 Carpenter v. Buller, 8 Mees. & W. 212; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 91 3 Duchess of Kingston's Case, 2 Smith's Ld. Cas. 720; Shaw v. Beebe, 35 Vt. 204; Jarvis v. Aikens, 25 Vt. 635; Great Falls Co. v. Worcester, 15 N. H. 452; Thistle v. Buford, 50 Mo. 278; Bivins v. Vinzant, 15 6a. 521 ; Rawle Cov. Tit. 427. < Calderi!. Chapman, 2 P. F. Smith, 359; McCusker v. McEvey, 10 R. I. 606; dissenting opinion of Judge Potter; Great Falls Co. v. Worces- ter, 15 N. H. 452; Bivins v. Vinzant, 15 Ga. 521; Gouchenour v. Mowry, 33 111. 331; Bright v. Buckman, 39 Fed. Rep. 243. But see Wilson v. Smith, 52 Hun, 171; Pike v. Calvin, 29 Me. 183; Wark ». Willard, 13 N. H. 389; Kimball v. Blaisdell, 5 Id. 533; Jarvis v. Aikens, 25 Vt. 685; 691 § 731 ESTOPPEL. [past III. one may be bound by an estoppel, he must have the capac- ity to make a valid deed. Infants and married women cannot be bound by estoppel.^ "White V. Patten, 24 Pick. 324; Somes v. Sliinaer, 3 Id. 52; TefEt v. Mun- son, 57 N. Y. 97; Doyle v. Peerless Pet. Co., 44 Barb. 239; Farmers L. & T. Co. V. Maltby, 8 Paige, 361. But see Wilson v. Smith, 52 Hun, 171. 1 Kaymond v. Holden, 2 Cush. 264 ; Concord Bk. v. Bellis, 10 Cush. 276; Todd v. Kerr, 42 Barb. 317; Lowell v. Daniels, 2 Gray, 161 ; Brown V. McCune, 5 Sandf. 224; Morrison v. Wilson, 13 Cal. 494; Lackman v. Wood, 25 Cal. 153; Williams v. Baker, 71 Pa. St. 482; Snoddyc. Leavitt, 105 Ind. 357; Hall v. Ditto (Ky. 1890), 12 S. W. 941. 692 SECTION VI. ABANDONMENT. ■Section 739. Effect of abandonment generally. 740. Abandonment of title by adverse possession. 741. Sorrander of deed. § 739. Effect of abandonment generally. — It has been supposed, that a title to real property may be lost by abandonment by the owner, and such would seem to have been the opinion of the United States Circuit Court of Ohio.^ Easements and other incorporeal hereditaments may be lost by abandonment, as has been explained.'' So also may all equitable and executory rights to or in the title." But wherever abandonment can take effect, it sim- ply destroys the title, and does not vest it in another. A bargain to give up an equitable claim may work an aban- donment, but the bargainee acquires no title by the bargain. But no legal title of a corporeal hereditament may be lost or destroyed by any act of abandonment, with a possible exception to be mentioned in the next section. A legal title, properly vested, can only be divested by abandonment, when the circumstances of the case are sufficient to raise an estoppel, or where the possession is acquired by one in con- sequence of the abandonment, and held by him under claim of title for the period of limitation. The title, although not lost by abandonment, would be barred by estoppel or - Hohnes ». Railroad, 8 Am. Law Eeg. 716. \ = See a«/te, sect. 605. •'' Picket V. Dowdall, 2 Wash. 197; Dikes v'. Miller, 24 Texas, 424; Barker V. Salmon, 12 Mete. 32 ; Sumner v. Stevens, 6 Meto. 337; Booker v. Stivender, 13 Bich. W^q. 83 ; ICink v. Ki^, .3'Fa. Si. 441. 693 § 740 ABANDONMENT. [PAUT III. by the Statute of Limitations. ^ The voluntary abandon- ment would not prevent the possession of another from becoming adverse to the real owner, though the abandon- ment was expressly made for his benefit and to him. But where the abandonment is not accompanied by the circum- stances of estoppel or limitation, no matter how formal the abandonment was, if it fall short of a legal deed of convey- ance, it has no effect whatsoever upon the legal title. The owner may afterwards re-enter and eject any one who may have entered into possession in reliance upon the abandon- ment. § 740. Abandonment of title by adverse possession. — There can be no doubt that, as long as the title by adverse possession is not made absolute by the operation of the Statute of Limitations, it may be lost or destroyed by aban- donment. It is an invariable requirement that the posses- sion must be continued and uninterrupted, in order that the title of the real owner may be barred by the statute.^ But where the statutory period has elapsed, and the title of the true owner is barred, it becomes a question of considerable doubt, whether a subsequent abandonment would destroy the title by adverse possession which has then become per- fected by the operation of the statute. The Supreme Courts of Georgia and Massachusetts have held that such an aban- donment would be taken as conclusive proof of the fact that the possession had not been adverse, and would remove the bar of the statute.' A contrary opinion has been reached ' Jackson -v. Bowen, 1 Caines, 358; Adams v. Rockwell, 16 Wend. 307; Tolman v. Sparhawk, 6 Mete. 476; Barker v. Salmon, 2 Mete. 32; Sumner v. Stevens, 6 Mete. 327; Gregg v. Blackmore, 10 Watts. 192; Allen V. Parish, 3 Ohio, 107; Garabaldi v. Shattuck, 70 Cal. 511; 11 Pac. 778. 2 See ante, sect. 714. ' Vickery v. Benson, 26 Ga. 589; Church v. Burghart, 8 Pick 327. 694 CH. XX. J ABANDONMENT. § 741 by the Supreme Court of Maine.^ The solution of the questiou depends upon the proper theory in regard to the effect of the Statute of Limitations. If the statute simply takes away the rightful owner's remedies for the recovery of seisin and possession, and leaves the barreu right or title still subsisting in him, then if he recovers the seisin by the consent of the disseisor, having then both the seisin and the lawful title, it would seem that the title by adverse posses- sion and limitation would be destroyed by the abandonment. But if the statute goes farther, and either transfers the lawful title of the real owner or destroys it completely, then the abandonment would hiave no more effect in this case than it would upon any other title. The possession acquired by the rightful owner in such a case would only give him a title by adverse possession, which can only be made absolute by estoppel or by limitation. But in any case a temporary recovery of possession by the original owner after the run- ning of the Statute of Limitations will not affect the dis- seisor's title, where there has been no voluntary surrender to the original owner. ^ i § 741. Surrender of deed. — It has, however, been held in a number of cases that if a deed is delivered up by the grantee, and destroyed, the title revests in the grantor, if the deed has not been recorded. And the ground upon which the courts rest this decision is that, having voluntarily destroyed this primary evidence of title, the grantee will not be permitted to introduce parol evidence to establish the contents of the deed.' But the mere cancellation and return 1 School District v. Benson, 31 Me. 381. 2 ralson V. Simshauser, 130 111. 649; 22 N. E. 835. 3 Commonwealth v. Dudley, 10 Mass. 403; Holbrook «. Tirrell, 9 Picli. 105; Lawrence v. Stratton, 6 Cush. 163; Howe v. Wilder, 11 Gray, 267; Patterson v. Yeaton, 47 Me. 314; Parker v. Kane, 22 How. 1; Dodge v. Dodge, 33 N. H. 487; Sawyer u.Peters,50 N. H. 143; Howard w. Huffman, 695 ^741 ABANDONMENT. [PAET UI. of the deed will not be sufficient to revest the title in the grantor.^ An effective abandonment would only result therefrom where the circumstances give rise to an estoppel, as where an innocent purchaser is induced to accept a deed from the grantor,^ or where all the muniments of title have been voluntarily destroyed and the grantee has to resort to parol evidence to prove his title. A recorded deed cannot, therefore, be surrendered in this way. A surrender can only be made to the grantor, and nothing short of cancella- tion or destruction of the deed would have the effect of passing the title back to him.^ It must, however, be un- derstood that the surrender of the deed and its destruction can only have the effect of passing back the title to the grantor, when the grantee is prohibited by the law from proving the contents of the deed by parol evidence. And whenever the law of evidence is changed, so that parol evidence or any other secondary evidence is admissible to prove the contents of a deed which have beeu voluntarily surrendered by the grantee, it will be found that no such surrender will revest the title in the grantor, and that the grantee may nevertheless assert the title to the land. And it must be remembered in any case that the voluntary sur- render will only have the effectof destroying the title, eo far as the grantee and his privies are concerned. His wife's 3 Heaxi, 56i; Blake v. Fash, 44 111. 305; Speer u.Speer, 7Ind. 178; Thomp- son V. Thompson, 9 Ind. 328; Blaney v. Hanks, 14 Iowa, 400; Baker v. Kane, 4 Wis. 12. 1 Lawrence v. Stratton, « Cash. MS ; Conway b. Deerfleid, 11 Mass. 332; Wilson v. Hill, 13 N. J. Eq. 143; Gilbert v. Bulkley, 5 Conn. 262; Holmes v. Trout, 7 Pet. 171; Hall v. McDuft, 24 Me. 312; Fonda v. Sage, 46 Barb. 122; Fawcett v. Kinney, 33 Ala. 264; Howard v. Huffman, 3 Head, 562; Kearsing v. Kilian, 18 Cal. 491. 2 1| Commonwealtb v. Dudley, 10 Mass. 403; Holbrook v. Tirrell, 9 Pick. 105; Trull v. Skinner, 17 Pick. 213; Patterson v. Yeaton, 47 Me. 514. « Howec. Wilder, llGray,267; Bank ». Eastman, 44 N. H. 778; Blarney V. Hanks, 14 Iowa, 400; Parker v. Kane, 4 Wis. 12; 22 How. 1. €^6 CH. XX.] ABANDONMENT. § 741 dower will not be affected in any manner by her husband's surrender of the deed to himself. For the purpose of asserting her claim of dower on the death of her husband, parol evidence is admissible to prove the contents of the surrendered deed.^ But. if the deed was not recorded, the dower right could not be enforced against subsequeut purchasers without notice.^ 1 Johnson v. Miller, 40 Ind. 376 ; 17 Am. Eep. 699. 2 Wheeler v. Smith, 62 Mich. 373. 697 CHAPTER XXI. TITLE BT GBANT. Section I. Title by public grant. II. Title by involuntary alienation. III. Title by private grant. SECTION I. TITLE BT PUBLIC GEAUT. Section 744. Public lands. 745. Forms of public grant. 746. The relative value of the patent and certificate of entry. 747. Pre-emption. § 744. Public lands. — As has been explained in a pre- ceding section, all lands not held as the private property of individuals are vested in the State or United States. In the original thirteen States all such lands belong to the State, while in all the others which were subsequently admitted into the Union, except Texas, the public lands, except those given by compromise to certain States, are the property of the United States.* These lands of the general government have been by official survey divided into townships and sec- tions, and the latter again sub-divided into fractions of a section, halves, quarters and eighths. And in making a grant or conveyance of these lands, reference is made to the township, section, and fraction of a section, as a sufficient description of the tract conveyed.^ The conveyance, by 1 3 "Washb. on Eeal Prop. 182-184; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 50; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 543 ; Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheat. 543. ' 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 185 ; Walk. Am. Law, 42, 43. 698 CH. XXI. j TITLE BY PUBLIC GEANT. § 744 which the title to public lands is transferred by the govern- ment to private individuals, is called a public grant. Al- though particular reference is made in this connection to the public lands held by the general government, the general principles here explained are equally applicable to lands be- longing to the State governments. In respect to the public lands of the United States, it must be understood that al- though the law of the State in which the land lies governs the rights of property in' it, when it is the property of a private individual,^ until a grant of such land has been made by the government, and even in construction of the validity of the grant, the law of the United States is paramount. Until conveyance by the government the lands are not sub- jected to State control.^ Another rule of construction may be mentioned here which has a general application to the subject under consideration. It is, that in questions of prop- erty rights arising between the State and individual the construction is always most favorable to the State, whereas a grant from one individual to another is construed most favorably to the grantee.' But it seems that where the grant by the State is for a valuable consideration this rule of construction does not apply, unless the ambiguity arising on the face of the grant is absolutely inexplicable.* Never- ' United States v. Crosby, 7 Cranch, 115; Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565; Darby v. Mayer, 10 Wheat. 465 ; Cutler *. Davenport, 1 Pick. 81 ; Calloway ». Doe, 1 Blackf. 372 ; Nims v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 8. * Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 558 ; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436 ; Wil- cox V. Jackson, 13 Pet. 516 ; Pratt ^v. Brown, 3 Wis. 603 ; Cannon v. White, 16 La. An. 89. In California it has been held that the United States hold the public lands in that State on the same terms and with the same incidents of ownership as any other private proprietor, except taxation ; and that they can only exercise their rights in the mines in subordination to the general laws on that subject of California. Boggs v. Merced Co., 14 Cal. 375. 3 Dubuque R. R. v. Litchfield, 23 How. 88 ; Mayor, etc., v. Ohio & f. E. R., 26 Pa. St. 855 ; Townsend v. Brown, 24 N. J. L. 80 ; Green's Estate, 4 Md. CK. 349; Hagan v. Campbell, 8 Port. 9. * Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 411 ; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 589 ; Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray, 492 ; Hyman v. Read, 1% Cal. 444. 699 § 745 TITLE BY PrrBXIC GEAUT. [PAET III. theless, if the State grants an estate upon condition, the breach of the condition will at once divest the title without the necessity of an entry .^ The State is not subject to estoppel under a covenant of warranty ; it is estopped only by the description contained in a valid grant.^ § 745. Perms of public grant. — The grant is not re- quired to assume any particular form. It may be made by special act of Congress, or by deed made in pursuance of some general act. But the public lands of the United States can only be disposed of by authority of Congress, expressed in a special or general act.* Congress has passed general laws providing for the sale of public lands. These laws provide for the establishment of land offices in the Western and other States where the general government still owns large tracts of land, and the would-be purchaser is required to make his negotiations with the registers and receivers of these offices. The purchaser enters upon the records of the office a full and complete description of the land he desires to purchase, and having paid the purchase-money, he re- ceives from the register a certificate of entry, as it is called, which entitles him to a patent, which is the formal deed of conveyance required by the general laws for the transfer of the legal title. The patent is signed by the President, or by one authorized to affix his signature, and sealed with the seal of the United States.* 1 Kennedy v. McCartaey, 4 Port. 141. ' Mayor, etc., v. Ohio & P. E. R., 26 Pa. St. 355 ; Elmendorf ». CannichMl, 3 Litt. 472 ; State ». Cnitchfield. 8 Head, 113. ' Lorrimer v. Lewis, 1 Morris (Iowa), 253 ; Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis. 603 ; Challefoux v. Ducharmej 8 Wis. 308; Foley b. Harrison, 5 La. An. 75; Freed- man •». Goodwin, 1 McAU. Ch. 142 ; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Oranch, 50 ; Chou- teau V. Eokhart, 2 How. 372 ; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet 662 ; Strotlier t>. Lucas, 12 Pet. 454. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 185 ; People v. Livingston, 8 Barb. 253; Doe r. Mcllvaine, 14 Ga. 252 ; Hulick v. Scovil, 9 111. 174. Once the patenthasbeen legally executed and delivered it cannot be revoked. Fletcher t). Peek, 6 Cranch, 87; Grignon o. Astor, 2 How. 319; Sargent o. Simpson, 8 Me. 148 ; Doe V. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 412 ; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl (Mich.) 546. 700 CH. XXI. ] TITLE BY PUBLIC GRANT. § 746 § 746. The relative value of the patent and certificate of entry. — According to some of the cases arising in the State courts, tile certificate of eutr^' vests an inchoate or imper- fect legal title in the vendee, which will enable him to main^ tain ejectment or trespass against a trespasser, and that the patent is merely the perfection of the imperfect legal title already acquired, by providing the strongest kind of evi- dence of the previous grant. ^ But the United States courts maintain that the purchaser only acquires an equitable title, which is not sufficient to support legal actions in defense of the land, but which is sufficient to vest in him an absolute right to the patent. Once a certificate of entry has been lawfully issued, the same land cannot be aubsequently sold.'' This distinction between a patent and a certifi- cate of entry is so well and generally recognized that where a patent has been issued to one person, and another is entitled to the patent by virtue of the pjcior entry and certificate, the patentee, nevertheless, holds the absolute legal title until the patent has been avoided by a direct pro- ceeding brought for that purpose by the government, or by the rightful owner in its name. The patent in collateral proceedings is conclusive evidence of title, and cannot then be questioned, unless it be void upon its face.' Nor can 1 Sims V. Irvine, 3 Ball. 4€6; Morton o. BlankensMp, 5 Mo. 346; Car- man V. Johnson, 29 Mo. 94; Jackson v. Wilcox, 2 111. 344; Forbes w. Hall, 34 111. 167; McDowell ». Morgan, 28 Dl. 532; Cavender ». Smith, 6 Iowa, 189; s. c. 8 Iowa, 349; Bullock v. Wilson, 2 Port. 436; Goodlet v. Smitli- son, 5 Port. 243; Jennings v. Whitaker, 4B. Mon. 60 ;Wateiman». Smith, 13 Cal. 419. See, also, Copley v. Kiddie,, 2 Wash. C. Ct. 354; Sweatt %, Corcoran, 37 Miss. 516; Dickinson v. Brown, 9 Smed. & M. 130. 2 Fenn v. Holme, 21 How. 481; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436; Lindsey v. Miller, 6 Pet. 666; Fletcher u. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; Mayor v. DeArmaa, 9 Pet. 223; Stockton i. WiUiams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 560; Waller V. Von Phul, 14 Mo. 84; Carman v. Johnson, 20 Mo. 108; Nelson v. Sims, 23 Miss. 383; Moyer v. McCullough, 1 Ind. 339; Astrom u. Hammond, 3 McLean. 107; Mix v. Smith, 7 Pa. St. 75; West e. Hughes, 1 Harr. & J. 6; Cavender v. Smith, 5 Iowa, 189. 3 Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436; Steiner v. Coxe, 4 Pa. St. 28; Grif- fith V. Deerielt, 17 Mo. 31; Hill v. Miller, 36 Mo. 182; Gallipots. Manlove, 701 § 746 TITLE BY PUBLIC GRANT. [PART III. the patent be attacked and avoided by one who claims superior right to the land by a prior entry, after the patentee has sold to a bona fide purchaser.^ But the courts all agree that the certificate of entry vests in the purchaser sufficient title, whether legal or equitable, so that it can be aliened or devised; and upon the death of the purchaser before the issue of the patent it descends to his heirs; and the purchaser's alienee, devisee and heirs, re- spectively, are entitled to the patent, in the place of the person to whom the certificate has been given. ^ But where the purchaser has died the patent must be made out in the name of the heirs. A patent issued in the name of a pur- chaser, in pursuance of a certificate of entry, but after the death of the purchaser, is void, and the heirs cannot take advantage of it.^ And where a purchaser has assigned his certificate, and takes out a patent in bis own name, he will hold the legal title thus acquired in trust for his assignee, and he can be required to make the proper conveyances.* But in such a case, there must be a correspondence of the de- 2 111. 156; Goodlet v. Smithson, 5 Port. 2i3; Stringers. Young, 3 Pet. 320; Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. 328; Curie v. Barrel!, 2 Sneed. 68; Willot V. Sandford, 19 How. 79; Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 Cal. 478. See Brush ». Ware, 15 Pet. 93; Sweatt v. Corcoran, 39 Miss. 516; Harris v. McKissack, 34 Miss. 464; Dickinson u. Brown, 9 Smed. & M. 130; Leblanc v. Lud- rique, 14 La. An. 772; Maxcy v. O'Connor, 23 Texas, 238. 1 Robbins v. Moore, 129 111. 30. 2 Gait V. Galloway, 4 Pet. 332; Brush v. Ware, 15 Pet. 93; Reeder v. Barr, 4 Ohio, 458; Adams v. Logan, 6 B. Mon. 175; Shanks v. Lucas, 4 Blackf. 47G; Goodlet v. Smithson, 5 Port. 243; Wright v. Swan, 6 Port. 84; Cavender v. Smith, 8 Iowa, 360; Forsythe v. Ballance, 6 McLean, 562. 2 Galloway v. Finley, 12 Pet. 264; Blankenpickler v. Anderson's Heirs, 16 Gratt. 59 ; Price v. Johnston, 1 Ohio St. 390 ; Wood v. Ferguson, 7 Ohio St. 288; Phillips v. Sherman, 36 Ala. 189. Contra, Schedda v. Saw- yer, 4 McLean, 181. See Thomas v. Wyatt, 25 Mo. 24 ; Thomas v. Boerner, 25 Mo. 27. But by the act of Congress of 1836, if the patent is issued to a deceased person, in Ignorance of his death, it will inure to the benefit of his heirs. Phillips v. Sherman, 36 Ala. 189 ; Stubblefleld v. Boggs, 2 Ohio St. 216. * Trimble v. Boothby, 14 Ohio, 109; Hay ward v. Ormsbee, 11 Wis. 3; Moore v. Maxwell, 18 Ark. 469; Hennen v. Wood, 16 La. An. 263. 702 CH. XXI. J TITLE BY PUBLIC GRANT. § 747 scriptions of the lands in the patent an in the convey- ance. ^ In all cases, in order to entitle one to a patent, the land must be clearly described in the certificate of entry, so as to enable an easy identification of the land. An inaccurate or obscure description would bar the right to a patent.* § 747. Pre-emption. — In order to encourage immigra- tion and the actual settlement upon public lands, the acts of Congress from an early day have provided that where one actually settles upon public lands, and makes entry upon the records of the land office of his claim, with accurate description of the land upon which he has settled, he ac- quires thereby the so-called "pre-emption" right, which entitles him to a patent to the land so occupied at the min- imum price fixed by law for the sale of public lands, and gives him a superior claim to a patent over all other persons who may acquire interests in the same land.^ One cannot claim the pre-emption right to more than one quarter sec- tion, or 160 acres.* But no one can claim pre-emption to lands which have been set apart as a reservation, or to lands which are situated within the limits of a town or city, or those on which persons have actually settled for the purpose of carrying on any business or trade, other than agriculture, or on which there are known salt or other mines.^ And in order to entitle one to pre-emption, he must make oath that he does not own 320 acres of land in any State or Territory, and that he has not abandoned a residence on his own land within the same State or Territory, in order to reside upon 1 Prentice v. Northern Pac. R. E. Co., 43 Fed. 270. 2 Lafayette v. Blanc, 11 How. 104; Ledoux v. Black, 18 How. 473. s 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 200; U. S. Rev. Stat., sects. 2256, 2257 United States v. Fitzgerald, 15 Pet. 407 ; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sand^. Oh. 78 McAfee v. Keirn, 7 Smed. & M. 780; Pettigrew v. Shirley, 9 Mo. 683 Brown v. Throckmorton, 11 111. 529. * U. S. Rev. Stat., sect. 2259. 5 U. S. Rev. Stat., sect. 2268. 703 § 747 TITLE BY PUBLIC GRANT. [PAET III. the public lands. ^ By the eutiy in the land office, and actual settlement upon the land, only an inchoate title is acquired. To perfect it, and obtain an absolute legal title, payment of the purchase-money must be made within thirty months after the entry. ^ This inchoate title de- scends to the heirs of the pre-emptor.' But it cannot be assigned so as to give the assignee a right to the pre-emp- tion, as against the government, or one claiming under a patent.* But where the pre-emptor has undertaken to convey before he has acquired the legal title, he will take the patent as trustee for the assignee, and the latter will acquire the benefit of it by instituting the proper pro- ceedings.^ In like manner, creditors cannot levy upon the pre-emption right. ^ Verj' often conflicting claims arise under the exercise of the pre-emption right, growing out of deficient locations and entries ; and it is provided by the acts of Congress that these disputes shall be settled by the land commissioners and registers. In the settlement of these dispntes, the commissioners act in a judicial capacity and their decisions are subject to appeal to the higher authorities, but otherwise they are final and con- clusive, unless tainted with frand.' ' U. S. Rev. Stat., sects. 2260, 2262. 2 U. S. Rev. Stat., sect. 2267. 3 Hunt V. Wickliff, 2 Pet. 201; Jotinson v. Collins, 12 Ala. 322. * v. S. Rev. Stat., sect. 2263; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch. 78; Lytle V. Arkansas, 9 How. 333; CTunninghain v. Ashley's Heirs, 14 How. 377; Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's Heirs, 18 How. 44; Myers v. Croft, 13 Wall. 291; Brown v. Throckmorton, 11 111. 529; Frisbie v. "Whitney, 9 Wall. 187; Hutchins v. Low, 15 Wall. 77; Phelps v. Kellogg, 15 HI. 131. * Camp V. Smith, 2 Minn. 155 ; Delaunay v. Burnett, 9 111. 454. <= Rodgers c. Rawlins, 8 Port. 326. > See Barnard's Heirs «. Ashley's Heirs, 18 How. 43; Garland «. Wyim, 20 How. 6 ; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How, 558 ; Tate v. Carney, 24 How. 357; O'Brien v. Perry, 1 Black. 132; Lindsey ■a. Hawes, 2 Blaclc 654; State v. Batchelder, 1 WaU. 109. 704 SECTION II. TITLE BY INTOLTINTAET AUENATION. Section 751. Title by involuntary alienation, what is? 752. Scope of legislative authority. 753. Eminent domain. 754. Persons under disahility. 755. Confirming defective titles. 756. Sales by administrators and executors. 757. Sales under execution. 758. Sales by decree of chancery. 759. Tax-titles. 760. Validity of tax-title. 761. Judicial rules for delinquent taxes. § 751. Title by involuntary alienation, what is? — . Under the head of title by involuntary alienation are included all the modes of transferring one man's title to lands to another, against his will or without his co-operation. Cir- cumstances often arise, when such alienation is necessary to attain the ends of Justice. The kinds of involuntary alienation are so numerous, and they are so largely regu- lated by varying local statutes that in so limited a work as the present it will be impossible to do more than give a .general outline and classification of these modes of convey- ance, and present the salient features of each. § 752. Scope of legislative authority. — Except the power, which the court of chancery possesses in certain cases, and which will be explained in the proper place, the power to effect an involuntary alienation rests upon legisla- tive enactment. As a general proposition, the Legislature cannot divest one of his vested rights against his will. It can enact laws for the control of property and of its dispo- 45 705 § 752 TITLE BY IXVOLUXTAllY' ALIENATION. [PART III. sition, but it cannot take the private property of one man and give it to another.^ But there are certain well-known exceptions to this general rule, where the interference of the Legislature is necessary to save and protect the substan- tial interests of individuals on account of their own inability to do so, or to promote the public good. In some of the State Constitutions there is a provision against the enactment of special laws operating upon particular individuals or upon their property. In those States, therefore, involun- tary alienation can only be effected by a general law, appU- cable to all persons under like circumstances. But in the absence of such a constitutional provision, the transfer of lands may be made by special act of the Legislature, as well as under a general law.^ But wherever such a transfer by special act of the Legislature would involve the assumption of judicial power, it would be generally held void, under the common constitutional provision which denies to the Legislature the exercise of such powers .^ The cases in which the Legislature may provide for involuntary alienation may be divided into the following six general classes : 1. In the exercise of the right of eminent domain. 2. In the case of persons under disability to protect their interests by sale and investment. 3. For confirming defective titles. 4. Sales by administrators and executors. 5. Sales under ex- ecution. 6. Sales to satisfy the claim of the State for taxes. 1 Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet, 658 ; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 494 ; Com- monwealth V. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 ; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 159 ; Matter of Albany Street, 11 Wend. 149 ; John and Cherry Street, 19 Wend. 676 ; Taylor V. Porter, 4 Hill, 147 ; Heyward v. Mayor, 7 N. Y. 324 ; Bowman v. Middle- ton, IBay, 252; Russell ti.Eumsey, 35 111. 374; Goodw. Zercher, 12 Ohio, 368; Deutzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 144. 2 Sohier v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 3 Cush. 483 ; Kibby v. Chitwood, 4 B. Mon 95 ; Edwards v. Pope, 4 111. 473. ' Rice V. Parkman, 16 Mass. 326 ; Jones v. Perry, 10 Yerg. 59 ; Lane v. Dor- EQan, 4 111. 238 ; Edwards v. Pope, 4 111. 473. 706 CII. XXI.] TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. § 753 § 753. Eminent domain. — As already explained in the second chapter, aU real property is held subject to the exer- cise of the right of eminent domain. Whenever it is nec- essary or beneficial to the public that certain lands shall be appropriated for public use, the State through the Legislature has the right to confiscate such land upon payment of a proper compensation therefor to the owner of the land.^ The State may exercise the right, or it may authorize a cor- poration of a public character, such as railroads, turnpike companies, etc., to exercise it. ^ But the corporation must be one in whose maintenance the public is interested, and from whose existence the public is to derive a benefit. The State cannot authorize a private individual or a strictly private corporation to take the lands of another with or without compensation.' ' Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 214; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 92 ; Clarke v. Kochester, 24 Barb. 481 ; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 143 ; Hey- ward V. Mayor, 7 N. Y. 324 ; Buffalo K. E. v. Brainard, 9 N. Y. 108 ; Carson V. Coleman, 11 N. J. Eq. 108; Moale v. Baltimore, 5 Md. 314; Commission- ers, etc., V. "Withers, 29 Miss. 21 ; Chicago v. Larned, 34 111. 276 ; People v. Salem, 20 Mich. 479; Moose v. Carson, 104 N. C. 431; 10 S. B. 689. 2 Cushman ». Smith, 34 Me. 247 ; Hooker v. N. H. & N. Co., 14 Conn. 146 ; Bloodgood V. Mohawk & H. R. R., 18 Wend. 9 ; Buffalo R. R. v. Brainard, 9 N. Y. 108; Matter of Townsend, 39 N. Y. 171 ; Burt v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 356 ; Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590 ; Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444; Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229. 8 Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 658 ; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 494 ; Com- monwealth V. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 ; Flagg v. Fiagg, 16 Gray, 180 ; Powers v. Bergen, 6 N. Y. 358 ; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 159 ; Heyward v. Mayor, 7 N. Y. 324 ; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 147 ; People v. Mayor, 4 N. Y. 422 ; Wild v. Deig, 43 Ind. 455 ; 13 Am. Eep. 404 ; Gillan v. Hutchinson, 16 Cal. 156. Since it is not imposed upon the State as a public duty to erect and maintain light- houses it cannot appropriate lands for such a purpose ; but the United States may do so, and the only power the State has is to cede jurisdiction to the United States over the land thus taken. Burt v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 360 ; People v. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471. In like manner the State may grant to the United States the authority to appropriate lands for the erec- tion of post-offices and other public buildings. Burt v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 108 Mass. 356; Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590; Eeddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444; Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229. 707 § 755 TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. [PAUT III. § 754. Persons under disability. — Where persons are under a legal disability whjch prevents them from making a valid sale of their property, and such sale and reinvest- ment of the proceeds of sale are necessary for the conserva- tion of their interests, the State, in the capacity of parens patri(x, has the power to authorize a sale by the guardians of such persons. This may be done by special act or by a general law.-^ The pi'operty of persons who are not under a disability cannot be sold by authority of the courts, on the ground that such a sale would be beneficial.^ In most of the States there are general laws authorizing the courts to empower the guardians of minors, lunatics, and other persons under disability, to make sale of the real property of such persons. Generally the sales are made under special orders of the court, and in making the conveyance the deed should contain recitals of all the prehminary proceed- ings, which are necessary to the effectual transfer of the title ; but these recitals are not absolutely necessary, pro- vided the deed shows on its face in what capacitv the grantor executes the deed.' § 755. Confirming defective titles. — Generally, when a title is defective through some informality in the execution of the conveyance, upon a proper case being made out, the court of equity will afford an ample remedy by decreeing a reforgiation of the instrument.* But cases do arise where, 1 Sohier v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 16 Mass. 326 ; s. c, 3 Cush. 483 ; Davidson V. Johonnot, 7 Mete. 895; Cochran v. Van Surlay, 20 Wend. 365; Estep v. Hutchman, 14 Serg. & K. 435 ; Doe v. Douglass, 8 Blackf. 10 ; Kibby v. Chit> wood, 4 B. Mon. 95 ; Shehan v. Barnett, 6 B. Mon. 594 ; Jones t>. Perry, 10 Yerg. 59. 2 Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 658; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 494; Sohier V. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 3 Cush. 483 ; Heyward v. Mayor, 7 N. T. 324 ; Ervine's Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 256 ; Palairit's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 479. 9 8 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 210, 211. * Adams v. Stevens, 49 Me. 362; Brown v. Lamphear, 35 "Vt. 260; Andrews V. Spurr, 8 Allen, 416; Metcalf v. Putnam, 9 Allen, 97; Conedy v. Marcy, IS 708 CH. XXI.] TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. § 756 through the absence or death of the parties, or through a want of knowledge as to who they are, it is impossible to obtain a reformation in chancery, and even in cases where the equitable remedy is only troublesome and inconvenient, and the defect is only an informality, which does not go to the essence of the conveyance, and which does not create any doubt as to the intention to make a valid conveyance, the power of the Legislature to interfere and cure the defect by special act has generally been sustained by the courts of those States, where special'acts are not inhibited by the Con- stitution. Thus the defective certificate of a wife's acknowl- edgment has been perfected by special act.^ § 756. Sales of administrators and executors. — Where one dies without having made provisions for such contin- gencies, it is often necessary that some one should be au- thorized to make a sale of the lands , for the purpose of making an effective administration, and to protect and satisfy the claims of those who are interested in the property. If the deceased leaves a will he very often, perhaps generally, em- jDowers the executor to make sale of the land. Where the executor has this testamentary power, his sales are presumed to be under this power, and there is no need of a resort to the statutory power.^ But these express testamentary powers are supplemented by statutes, which authorize courts of probate to order a sale of the decedent's lands by the Gray, 373 ; Preseott v. Hawkins, 16 N. H. 122 ; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 484; Keene's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 274; Mills v. Lockwood, 42 111. HI ; Gray v. Hornbeck, 31 Mo. 400. 1 Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627 ; s. c, 10 Pet. 294 ; "Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88; Kearney v. Taylor, 15 How. 494; Adams );. Palmer, 51 Me. 494; Sohier v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 3 Cash. 483 ; Chestnut v. Shane's Lessee, 16 Ohio, 699. See Florentine v. Barton, 2 Wall, 210 ; Bott v. Perley, 11 Mass. 169 ; Jones v. Perry, 10 Yerg. 59 ; Lane v. Dorman, 4 111. 238. But a defective tax-title cannot he made good hy legislative enactment. Conway v. Cahle, 87 111. 82. 2 Payne v. Payne, 18 Cal. 291 ; White v. Moses, 21 Cal. 44. 709 § 757 TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. [PART III. administrator or executor, whenever necessary to the full performance of his duties. Thus, if the personal property- is not sufficient to satisfy all the debts, the administrator or executor may, under order of the court, make a valid sale of the lands, and the proceeds of the sale will constitute in his hands a trust fund, out of which the claims of the cred- itors must be satisfied.^ A sale may be authorized by special act of the Legislature, as well as by order of the court under a general law.^ In all these cases the deeds of conveyance should contain recitals of the compliance with all the re- quirements of the statute as to the preliminary proceedings, although perhaps such recitals are not absolutely necessary to the validity of the conveyance, if the authority of the grantor to make the conveyance appears otherwise on the face of the deed.^ § 757. Sales under execution. — By the early common law lands were inalienable for any purpose, and they could not in consequence be sold to pay the debts of the owner. But as trade and commerce increased, it became necessary that the creditors should be provided with means for satis- fying their claims by compulsory process against the debtor's property. In compliance with the popular demand, the statutes merchant and statutes staple were passed, which created in the creditors an estate in the debtor's lands, whereby he was enabled to enter into possession and satisfy himself out of the rents and profits.'' These statutes have 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 209. » "Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627 ; Watkins v. Holman, IC Pet 59 ; Sohier t>. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1 ; Langdon v. Strong, 2 Vt. 234 ; Kibby v. Chit- wood, 4 B. Mon. 95 ; Shehan v. Barnett, 6 B. Mon. 594. = Campbell v. Knights, 26 Me. 224 ; Doolittle v. Helton, 28 Vt. 819 ; Kin^- bury V. Wild, 8 N. H. 30; Griswold o. Bigelow, 6 Conn. 258; Sheldon «. Wright, 6 N. Y. 497 ; Worthy !>. Johnson, 8 Ga. 236 ; Longworth ,;. Bank of United States, 6 Ohio, 536 ; Jarvis v. Eussick, 12 Mo. 63 ; Planters' Bk. v. Johnson, 7 Smed. & M. 449 ; Jones v. Taylor, 7 Texas, 240 ; White v. Moses, 21 Cal. 44. • 2 Bliu Com. 161, 1G2. 710 CH. XXI. J TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. § 757 been abolished in England, where they have been superseded by the writ of elegit, which bears such a close resemblance to the American statutes of execution that a separate dis- cussion of its principles will not be necessary. In all the American States there are statutes which provide that when a creditor obtains judgment against his debtor, he may cause a writ of execution to be issued against the property of the debtor, under which the sheriff is authorized to make sale of the real property, and to execute the proper deeds of conveyance. The interest which the creditor acquires in his debtor's lands under the execution is so far a vested interest, that he has been held entitled to the crops growing on the land, and to the fixtures attached thereto, and he may restrain the removal of either.^ And Mr. Washburn calls such interests estates hy execution.^ But they are of so ephemeral a character that it was not considered necessary to discuss them in an independent chapter. If these inter- ests can be called estates, they are a species of estate upon condition, which is defeated by the satisfaction of the judg- ment and made absolute by sheriff's sale. Where the property has been sold under execution to a stranger he acquires an absolutely indefeasible title, if all the require- ments of the statute have been complied with. And where the judgment, on which the execution was issued, has been reversed on appeal, his title remains unaffected by such reversal.^ Where the purchaser is a party to the judgment and the suit under it, a subsequent reversal would defeat his title, since he cannot be called a subsequent purchaser with- 1 Coolidge V. Melvin, 42 N. H. 537 ; Evans «. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 829 ; Pen- hallow V. Dwight, 7 Mass. 34 ; Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432 ; Heard v. Fair- banks, 5 Meto. Ill ; Whipple v. Foot, 2 Johns. 423 ; Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 297 ; Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Denio, 527. 2 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 29. ' Feger v. Keefer, 6 Watts, 297 ; Taylor v. Boyd, 3 Ohio, 337 ; Sray v. Brignordello, 1 Wall. 627; Parker v. Anderson, 5 B. Mon. 445. Contra, Delano v. Wilde, 11 Gray, 17. 711 § 758 TITLE BY IXVOLUNTAKr ALIENATION. [PAET HI. out notice. And in all cases of reversal of the judgment, where the purchaser acquires an indefeasible title, the debtor may have his action for damages against the Judgment cred- itor for the injury sustained by the sale of the premises.^ In order to further protect the creditor, it is provided by most of the State statutes that the Judgment, when properly docketed, creates a lien upon all the debtor's real property, which attaches to, and binds, the land into whosesoever hands it may come. The Judgment lien enables the creditor to sell the land under execution, although it has been con- veyed away by the debtor to a purchaser for value. But to make avalid conveyance in the case of a sale under execution, the requirements of the statute must all have been complied with, and usually, as in the case of sales by administrators and guardians, the deed should contain recitals of the pro- ceedings taken.* § 758. Sales by decree of chancery. — The cases are numerous in which the court of chancery has the power to decree a sale and conveyance, most of which have been already incidentally mentioned, such as the decree of sale in the foreclosure of a mortgage, in the enforcement of an equitable lien, or in making an involuntary partition of joint estates, and the like. Chancery has also the power to eub- 1 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 29 ; Stinson v. Boss, 51 Me. 557. ' Jackson v. Koberts, 11 "Wend. 425 ; "Weyand v. Tipton, 5 Serg. & R 332 ; Doe O.Bedford, 10 Ired. 198; Den ». Wheeler, 1 1 Ired. 288 ; Ware c. Bradford, 2 Ala. 676 ; Minor v. President of Natchez, 4 Smed. & M. 602 ; Dunn v. Meri- ■wether, 1 A. K. Marsh. 158. The return of the sheriflF of his proceedings in making the levy is conclusive evidence of the facts there stated in respect to the levy between the debtor and creditor and all other persons claiming under them. Bott v. Bumell, 11 Mass. 163 ; Whitaker v. Suroner, 7 Pick. 551. And the recitals of the deed cannot be contradicted as to the power or order of sale, under which the sale was made, by showing that it was made under some other power or order. Jackson v. Croy, 12 Johns. 427; Jackson v. Vander- heyden, 17 Johns. 167 ; Jackson v. Koberts, 11 "Wend. 425 ; Snyder v. Snyder, « Binn. 489. See Ware v. Bradford, 2 Ala. 676 ; Minor v. President of Natchat 4 Smed. & M. 602. 712 CH. XXI. J TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. § ''58 ject equitable estates to the claims of creditors by the insti- tution of a suit called the creditors' bill. But all these subjects belong more properly to a treatise on equity juris- prudence than to one on real property, and it is intended to make here only casual mention of them. In all these cases, originally, the court in its decree ordered the holder of the legal title or owner of the land to make the proper deeds of conveyance, upon pain of being punished for contempt of court. If the individual was obstinate, or beyond the ju- risdiction of the court, the court was powerless to effect a conveyance. A decree ordering a conveyance did not and could not pass the title .^ But now courts of equity gener- ally possess the power to authorize some officer of the court, usually the master, to execute the necessary deeds of con- veyance, and such deeds will be as effectual in passing an indefeasible title as the sheriff's deed under execution.* Like the sherifiE's deed, if an appeal has been taken from the decree, and during the pendency of the appeal the prop- erty has been sold and conveyed to a stranger, the title which he thereby acquires will not be affected by the sub- sequent reversal of the decree. But if the purchaser is a party to the suit, his title will fail, because he is not a pur- chaser without notice.^ Like other modes of involuntary alienation, the master's deed under an equitable decree of sale must show the proceedings taken and the authority for making the sale, although recitals of these matters do not seem to be absolutely necessary to the validity of the con- veyance.* ■ Byder t>. Innerarity, 4 Stew. & P. 14 ; Mummy v. Johnston, 3 A. K. Marsh. 220 ; Sheppard v. Comm'rs of Boss Co., 7 Ohio, 271. 2 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 219. ' Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350 ; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 641 ; Taylor v. Boyd, a Ohio, 337 ; Gott ». Powell, 41 Mo. 416 ; Mc Jilton o. Love, 13 HI. 496 ; Beynolds o. Harris, 14 Cal. 667. * Atkins V. Kinnan, 20 Wend. 241 ; Wood v. Mann, 3 Somn. 318 ; Hamil- ton V. Crosby, 32 Conn. 347 ; Tooley v. Kane, 1 Smed. & M. Ch. 518. 713 § 759 TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. [PAUT III. § 759. Tax-titles. — The power of taxation is an essential incident to government ; without it the maintenance of gov- ernment is impossible. Although the power of taxation generally cannot properly be considered of feudal origin, yet in its application to real property it assumes a decidedly feudal character. If the power to tax real property rested solely upon the obligations of citizenship, as most of the authorities seem to hold,^ then it could only be levied upon those proprietors of lands who were citizens. As a matter of fact, all lands situated within the jurisdiction of the government which levies the tax are taxed for their pro- portionate share. The levying of a tax upon land, and the enforcement of the levy, are proceedings in rem against the land, and not in personam against the proprietors.' But whatever may be the proper theory in respect to the char- acter and the authority of taxation, the government has not only the right to levy the taxes necessary for the support of the government, but also to provide means for enforcing the levy. In respect to the collection of taxes assessed against real property, with which alone we are here con- cerned, all the States have statutory provisions, authorizing certain officers of the government, after the lapse of the proper time, and by instituting the prescribed preliminary proceedings, such as listing and advertising the lands, to sell the lands, upon which the taxes have not been paid, to the highest bidder, usually at public sale, and to appropri- ate the proceeds of sale, or so much thereof as may be 1 Providence Bk. «. Billings, 4 Pet. 561 ; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 428 ; Opinions of Judges, 58 Me. 591 ; People v. Mayor, etc., 4 N. Y. 422 ; Clarke v. Kochester, 24 Barb. 482 ; Phila. Ass'n, etc., v. Wood, 39 Pa. St. 73 ; Moale 1). Baltimore, 5 Md. 314 ; Doe v. Deavors, 11 Ga. 79 ; Chicago v. Lamed, 34 HI. 279 ; Davison v. Kamsay Co., 18 Minn. 482. ' Cooley on Tax. 360. In some of the States, however, a distinction is made by statute between resident and non-resident lands, as they are called, imposing a personal liability upon the owners of the resident lands. Cooley on Tax. 278, 279. 714 CII. XXI.] TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. § 760 necessary to the payment of the taxes due and the expenses incurred in the sale. The requirements of the statutes, in order to make a valid sale of lands for unpaid taxes, are in some States very minute, and they vary in detail in every State. It will be impossible here to refer to the details of the statutes, or of the decisions upon them. A discussion of them would in itself constitute a volume of respectable size. The reader is therefore referred to the statutes of his own State and the decisions upon them for a careful study of the law upon tax-titles. So difficult is it to fulfil all the requirements of the law in respect to the tax-titles, that the investigator of titles always looks with suspicion upon a title which depends upon a tax-deed. And the Su- perior Court of New Hampshire is said to have declared " that a tax-collector's deed yva.&, prima facie, void." ^ § 760. Validity of a tax-title. — But notwithstanding the dubious estimation in which a tax-deed is held, if all the requirements of the law as to the preliminary proceedings have been complied with, the tax-deed conveys an absolute title, and the purchaser cannot be divested of it, although he may have paid for it a sum altogether disproportionate to the real value of the land.' How far it is necessary to observe all the minute requirements of the statute, in order to make a valid sale of delinquent lands, is not clearly set- tled by the courts. Although some of the decisions seem to go to the length of requiring a strict and literal compli- ance with all the provisions of the statute, yet the better opinion, which seems to be more in consonance with the general drift of authority, is that a substantial thou^ strict compliance with those provisions of the statute which are intended for the protection of the delinquent proprietor, is all that is necessary; and that a failure to follow the statu- 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 225. » Harding v. Tibbils, 15 Wis. 232 ; Wofford v. McKinna, 23 Texas, 43. 71i> § 7()0 TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. [PAKT III. tory provisions, which are intended for the benefit of the State, and which does not affect the interests of the pro- prietor, will not vitiate the purchaser's title, as against the former owner.^ In all proceedings at common law, based upon the forfeiture for the failure to perform some public duty in which the title to property is made to pass from the delinquent, the burden of proving that all the provisions of the law of forfeiture had been strictly complied with rests upon the purchaser. This rule has generally been applied to tax-sales, and the decisions cited below ^ bear out Mr. Blackwell in his description of a tax-title, viz. : " The oper- ative character of the deed depends upon the regularity of the anterior proceedings. The deed is not the title itself, nor even evidence of it. Its recitals bind no one. It creates no estoppel upon the former owner. No presump- tion arises from the mere production of the deed, that the facts upon which it is based had any existence. Wlien it is shown, however, that the ministerial officers of the law have performed every duty which the law imposed upon them, and every condition essential to its character, then the deed becomes conclusive evidence of title in the grantee accord- ing to its extent and purport." ^ But it is so difficult for a ' Browni). Veazie, 25 Me. 359; Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 176; Lang- don V. Poor, 20 Yt. 15; Wilson v. Bell, 7 Leigh, 22 ; Kubey v. Huntsman, 32 Mo. 501 ; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589. 2 Stead's Ex'rs u. Course, 4 Cranch, 402 ; "Williams v. Peyton's Lessee, 4 Wheal. 77; Games v. Stiles, 14 Pet. 332; Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 142; Little V. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26 ; Jackson i^. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88 ; Newell v. Wheeler, 48 N. T. 486 ; Westfall ». Preston, 49 N. Y. 349 ; Cassu. Bellows, 31 N. H. 501 ; Annan v. Baker, 49 N. H. 161 ; Brown t>. Wright, 17 Vt. 97 ; French V. Patterson, 61 Me. 203 ; Polk i;. Kose, 25 Md. 153 ; Shearer v. Woodburn, 10 Pa. St. 511 ; Garrett v. White, 3 Ired. Eq. 131 ; Kellogg v. McLaughlin, 8 Ohio, 114 ; Gavin v. Sherman, 23 Ind. 32 ; Scott v. Young Men's Soc, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 119; Goewey v. Urig, 18111. 242; Charles d. Waugh, 35 111. 815; Mor- ton d. Beads, 6 Mo. 64 ; Nelson v. Giebel, 17 Mo. 161; Elliott ... Eddins, 24 Ala. 508; Doe w. Ins. Co., 8 Smed. & M. 197; Hamilton «. Burum, 3 Yerg. 355 ; Fitch v. Casey, 2 Greene (Iowa), 300 ; Bucknall v. Story, 36 Cal. 67. • Blackw. Tax Titles, 430. 716 CII. XXI. J TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. § ''SI purchaser to prove in detail the performance of the pre- liminary proceedings required by the statutes, and it being the policy of the State to provide an effective mode of sell- ing lands for delinquent taxes, statutes have now been passed in some of the States which change the common-law rule of evidence just stated and throw the burden of proof upon the former owner, thereby making the tax-deed jiWma facie evidence of title and of a compliance with the require- ments of the law. The power of the Legislature to shift the burden of proof in tax-titles has been often questioned, but it is now an unquestionable rule of law that the Legis- lature may make the tax-deed jjWjwayaCTe evidence of title, but cannot give to it and its recitals the force of a conclus- ive presumption, that all the preliminary proceedings had been faithfully carried out.^ § 761. Judicial sales for delinquent taxes. — The cauce of the uncertainty, as to the validity of a tax-title, lies in the fact that the proceeding, which culminates in a sale of the land, is generally ex parte, no opportunity being given for determining judicially whether the taxes are due, or for properly protecting th e interests of the delinquent . In order to avoid this objectionable feature of tax-sales, in some of the States, notably Illinois, it is provided by statute that the tax-collector must institute suit against the delinquent in some court of record, usually the County Court, and he is only authorized to make a sale of the land under the decree or judgment of the court.' The proceeding, although 1 Pillow 1). Roberta, 13 How. 472 ; Orons o. Veazie, 57 Me. 517 ; Johnson V. Elwood, 53 N. Y. 435 ; Butts v. Francis, 4 Conn. 424 ; Hoffman v. Bell, 61 Pa. St. 444; Smith u. Chapman, lOGratt. 445; Stanberry x. Sillon, 13 Ohio St. 571 ; Siblay v. Smith, 2 Mich. 486 ; Wright v. Dunham, 13 Mich. 414 ; Delaplaine v. Cook, 7 "Wis. 44 ; Whitney v. Marshall, 17 Wis. 174 ; St. Louis V. Coons, 37 Mo. 44 ; Abbott «. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162 ; s. c, 46 Mo. 291 ; Briscoe D. Coulter, 18 Ark. 423 ; Aliens. Armstrong, 16 Iowa, 508; Genther v. Fuller, 36 Iowa, 604 ; Eay v. Murdock, 36 Miss. 692 ; Bidleman v. Brooks, 28 Cal. 72. ' Hills v. Chicago, 60 III. 88 ; Webster v. Chicago, 62 111. 302. § 761 TITLE BY INVOLUNTARV ALIF.NATION. [I'ART IM. differing somewhat from the ordinary action at law, con- tains its essential features, and has the same general effect as to the conclusiveness of the judgment. If property is sold under such a Judgment, the purchaser's title cannot be affected by any irregularity not taken advantage of in the judicial proceeding, unless the irregularity is so gross and so essential as to deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the subject-matter. '^ Where the statute requires certain preliminary proceedings to be observed, in order that the court may obtain jurisdiction, a failure to institute them will vitiate the purchaser's title, notwithstanding the sale rests upon a judgment of the court.^ This is certainly the fairest, as well as the most effective, mode of enforcing the payment of taxes, and it is surprising that it has not been adopted by all the States. ■» Cadmus v. Jackson, 52 Pa. St. 295 ; Ex parte Kellogg, 6 Vt. 509 ; Carter V. Walker, 2 Ohio St. 339 ; Denller v. State, 4 Blackf. 258 ; Wall v. Trumbull, 16 Mich. 228 ; Chestnut v. Marsh, 12 111. 173 ; Young v. Thompson, 14 111. 380 ; Bailey v. Doolittle, 24 111. 577 ; Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark. 118 ; Eitel v. Foots, 39 Cal. 439 ; Mayo v. Foley, 40 Cal. 281. 2 Thatcher K.Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; Woods v. Freeman, 1 Wall. 398; Spellmau v. Curtenius, 12 HI. 409 ; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 111. 198 ; Fox v. Tur- tle, 55 ni. 877 ; Fortman v. Buggies, 58 HI. 207 ; McGahan's Case, 6 Iowa, 331 ; Mayo v. Ah Loy, 32 Cal. 477. 718 SECTION m. TITLE BT PRIVATE GRANT. Bkotion 768. Title by private grant, what is? (a.) Common-law conveyances. 769. Principal features and classes of common-law conveyances. 770. FeofFment. 771. Grant. 772. Lease. 773. Belease, confirmation and surrender. (5.) Conveyances under the Statute of Uses. 774. Eetrospection. 775. Covenant to stand seised. 776. Bargain and sale. 777. Future estates of freehold in bargain and sale. 778. Lease and release. ( e.) Modern conveyances. 779. What conveyances judicially recognized. 780. Statutory forms of conveyance. 781. Quit-claim deeds. 782. Dual character of common conveyances. 783. Is a deed necessary to convey freeholds? § 768. Title by private grant, what is? — The term "grant," as here used, is generic in signification, and is made to include all modes of private alienation, all convey- ances infer vivos, as distinguishable from title by devise.^ The term at common law had a more specific meaning, but this restricted use of it has lost its practical value, and will be mentioned in a subsequent paragraph only for the pur- pose of explaining the source of modern rules of convey- ancing. Conveyances may be divided into three principal 1 Mr. "Washburn (3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 353) cites Mr. Wood to the effect that " the word grant, taken largely, is where anything is granted, or passed from one to another ; and in this sense it comprehends feoffments, bar- gains and sales, gifts, leases in writing or by deed, and sometimes by word without writing." 8 Wood Conv. 7. See 4 Kent's Com. 491. 719 § 769 TITLE BY PKIVATE GRANT. [PART III. classes, vis. : ( fl.) common-law conveyances ; ( 6.) convey- ances under the Statute of Uses ; ( c. ) modern conveyances. In this order they will be presented. (a.) COM3ION-LAW COirVETAlSrCES. § 769. Principal features and classes of common-law conveyances. — A common-law conveyance, using the term in its broadest sense, is one which directly, and by the force of the conveyance itself, transfers the legal title to the grantee. And when so considered, it includes the modern statutory conveyances as well as those which were known at common law. In a more restricted sense, it includes only the latter class. Common-law conveyances may be sub-divided into two classes, viz. : 'primary and secondary conveyances. A. primary conveyance is one which transfers the seisin or estate to one, who has no other interest or estate in the property ; while the conveyance is called- sec- ondary, when the estate previously created is enlarged, restrained, transferred, or extinguished.^ The following are enumerated by Blackstone as the principal kinds of pri- mary and secondary conveyances : Primary, (1) feoffment; (2) gift; (3) grant ; (4) lease ; (5) exchange; (6) partition. Secondary, (1) release; (2) confirmation; (3) surrender; (4) assignment; (5) defeasance.^ A gift, donatio, was the name applied to the grant of an estate tail, and differed from a feoffment only in the character of the estate created or granted.' An exchange was an ancient convey- ance, now obsolete, whereby a mutual grant of equal interests is effected, the one in consideration of the other, the peculiar value of which was its capacity to take effect without livery of seisin, and merely by entry into possession. But the interests or estates had to be equal in quantity ; an estate in fee could not be exchanged for one for life or for years, 1 2 Bla. Com. 309. > 2 Bla. Com. 310. 8 2 Bla. Com. 316, 317. 720 CH. XXI.] TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. § 770 although they may be of equal pecuniary value .^ Partition, if voluntary, differs now very little, if any, from the more common modes of conveyance. Partition is made by ordi- nary deeds of indenture, conveying to each of the parti- tioners his share in severalty.^ Involuntary partition is, as the term implies, a species of involuntary grant effected through the decree of the court. ^ Defeasance deeds have been already fully discussed in the chapter on mortgages, and will require no further elucidation.* Assignment is more properly a transfer of an interest already created than a peculiar mode of acquiring title. When applied to the subject of conveyancing generally, it may be treated as synonymous with the generic term conveyance. Its peculiar signification in its application to estates for years has been already explained.' The remaining common-law convey- ances will now be explained somewhat in detail. § 770. I^eoffment. — This was the chief common-law conveyance for the transfer of freehold estates in corporeal hereditaments, and arose out of the peculiarities of the feu- dal relation between the lord and his tenants. The word feoffment is derived from the verb feoffare, or infeudare, to give one a feud. It is, therefore, in its original sense, the grant of a feud, donatio feudi? This is the only pri- mary common-law conveyance now known to us which is capable of transferring a freehold. It is said to operate by transmutation of possession. It has no effect if there be no delivery of the possession. In fact, the feoffment is itself 'nothing more than the delivery of the possession with the intention to grant an estate of freehold. The grantor was called \!ikQ feoffor and the grantee the feoffee. The feoffor, in order to make the conveyance, went upon the land with the feoffee, and in the presence of witnesses delivered to ' 2 Bla. Com. 323. * See ainie, sects. 302-307. ^ See ante, sect. 260. ^ See ante, sect. 182. • See ante, sect. 261. « 2 Bla. Com. 310 ; Co. Lit. 9. i6 721 § 770 TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. [PART III. the latter a clod of earth, or a twig, or some other thing taken from the laud, which was treated as a symbolical delivery of the land itself. The feoffee, who during this time, was standing presumably near the border, but on the outside of the land, then entered upon it, and the convey- ance was complete. This ceremony was called livery of seisin.^ No writing was necessary. Indeed, at first a deed of feoffment was unusual. But later on, when the exigen- cies of advancing civilization called forth the grant of lands to different persons with different estates, or interests therein, upon various conditions, and under multitudiiio"us limitations, it was found necessary to accompany the livery of seisin with a deed, explaining and setting forth the terms and conditions of the conveyance, in order to avoid the mistakes of witnesses, which would naturally occur if they had to rely upon their memory. But not until the enactment of the Statute of Frauds in the reign of Charles II. was it necessary for a feoffment to be evi- denced by a writing.^ The conveyance by feoffment passed the actual seisin in fee or for life according to the terms of the gift, whether the feoffor had an estate in the land or not. " If it is proposed to convey a fee simple, it created an actual fee simple in the feofee, by right or by wrong, according as the feoffor was or was not seised in fee." ^ In 1 This symbolical delivery of possession Is very ancient, and has been employed by almost all of the historical nations. Thus we read in the Old Testament of the Bible, Buth, iv: 7: " Now this was the manner in former time, in Israel, concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to conform all things : a man plucljed off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor; and this was a testimony in Israel." Blackstone also tells us that contracts for the sale of lands were made among the Goths and Swedes In the presence of witnesses, who extended the cloalc of the buyer, while the seller cast a clod of the land into it, In order to give pos- session ; while a staff or wand was also delivered from the vendor to the vendee, which passed through the hands of the witnesses. 2 Bla. Com. 313. 2 2 Bla. Com. 310-317; Williams on Real Prop. 147; 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 233, 351. s Washb. on Real Prop. 351. 722 CH. XXI. J TITLE BY PKIVATE GRANT. § 771 consequence of this doctrine, a tortious feoffment disseised the rightful owner, and until entry by him he was abso- lutely divested of his seisin as if he had made the feoffment- himself. And where one attempted to make a feoffment of a greater estate than he jjossessed, his feoffee would require a tortious estate, and the smaller estate which the feoffor actually possessed would be lost or merged in the tortious estate so granted. His feoffee, therefore, acquired no indefeasible estate, and could be ousted at once by the rightful owner of the reversion. This explains the tortious operation of feoffments by the tenants of particular estates upon contingent remainders, which has already been fully set forth. ^ In England, and in most of the States of this country at the present day, feoffments have been either abolished altogether, or they have by statute been pre- vented from having any tortious operation upon future expectant estates.^ The doctrine of seisin has been so fully explained in preceding chapters that nothing further need here be snid of it. § 771. Grant. — Conveyance by grant, at common law, was the method of transferring or creating estates in incor- poreal hereditaments. These rights being intangible or incorporeal, they could not be transferred by livery of seisin. "For which i-eason all corporeal hereditaments, such as lands and houses, are said to lie in livery; and the others, 1 See ante, sect. 422. 2 4 Kent's Com. 481; 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 361; Williams on Real Prop. 146. In Alabama, Maine, New York, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Michigan. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. 120. See Grout v. Townshend, 2 Hill, 554 ; McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. 267; Dennett V. Dennett, 40 N. H. 505. In South Carolina the tortious operation of feoffment was for a long time recognized as an active element of the law, and It until lately afEorded to heirs, who were dissatisfied with the ten- ancy for life given to them by will, ready means for defeating the con- tingent remainders over and acquiring the fee simple. See Faber v. Police, 10 S. C. 376. But by a very late statute the tortious effect or the feoffment has been abolished. 723 & § 772 TITLE BY PRIVATE GEANT. [PART III. advowsons, commons, rents, reversions, etc., to lie in o-rant." 1 Conveyance by grant could only be made by deed. In this respect the law is still unchanged. But the deed of grant differs in form but little from the deed of feoffment, the same operative words being used in both,. dedi et concessi, " have given and granted." But the deed of feoffment is inoperative as a conveyance, it simply acts as an attestation of the conveyance made by the livery of seisin. At common law corporeal hereditaments could not be transferred by grant. ^ Another important distiuction between feoffment and grant was that a deed of grant could not be made to create a tortious estate. A grant only con- veys what the grantor had a right to convey. It cannot work a disseisin of the reversioner.^ § 772. liBase. — This is properly a conveyance of a par- ticular estate in lands, whether for life, or for years, or at will, where a reversion is left in the grantor.* But at present the term is used to indicate the conveyance of an estate less than a freehold. Used in that sense, it is a contract be- tween lessor and lessee, vesting in the latter a right to the possession of the land for a term of years. Until possession is taken it is merely a chose in action, an executory contract, which is called an interesse termini. It becomes an estate when it takes effect in possession. No livery of seisin is required, and the lessee merely enters upon the land.^ It is for this reason that an estate for years could be made to commence in futuro, while it was impossible to do so with a freehold.^ 1 1 Bla. Com. 317. 2 2 Bla. Com. 317; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 352; Huff ». McCauley, 53 Pa. St. 206; Drake v. Wells, 11 Allen, 143; 2 Shars. Bla. Com. 206, note. s Co. Lit. 271 b, Butler's note; 4 Kent's Com. 353; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 352. < 2 Bla. Com. 317. s 2 Bla. Com. 318. See ante, sects. 174, 178. ^ See an£e, sect. 175. 724 OH. XXI.J TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. § 773 § 773. Release, conflrmatlon and surrender. — These three secondary conveyances are so nearly allied to each other that they will be explained and distinguished in a sin- gle paragraph. A release, as deJSned by Blackstone, " is a discharge or a conveyance of a man's right in lands or ten- ements to another that held some former estate in possession. The words generally used therein are demised, released and forever quit-claimed." ^ A virtual possession, i. e., a con- structive possession which may be converted into an actual possession, is sufficient. And the possession of the lessee of a tenant for life is so far the possession of the tenant for life that the reversioner may make a release to him (the life tenant) of the reversion. ^ The deed of release may be used in the following cases : First, to enlarge a particular estate in possession; as where the reversioner releases the inher- itance to the tenant for life. But the reversion must be immediate to the particular estate. An outstanding inter- mediate estate would prevent a release of the reversion to the tenant in possession.^ Secondly, to pass the interest of one coparcener or joint-tenant to another. Thirdly, to transfer to a disseisor the disseisee's right of entry, and thus make the disseisor's title absolute.* A confirmation is, according to Lord Coke, " a conveyance of an estate or right in esse, whereby a voidable estate is made sure and unavoid- able', or whereby a particular estate is increased." ^ The operative words in a confirmation are " have given, granted, ratified, approved, and confirmed." * A surrender operates to transfer a particular estate to the immediate reversioner, and is effected by the words, " hath surrendered, granted, .and yielded up." But it can only take effect where the 1 2 Bla. Com. 324. 2 Co. Lit. 270 a; Hargrave's note, 3. 3 Co. Lit. 273 b. * 2 Bla. Com. 324, 326. « 2 Bla. Com. 325; 1 Inst. 295. •« 2 Bla. Com. 325. 725 § 774 TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. [PART HI. surrenderor has an estate in possession, and the surrenderee has a higher estate in immediate reversion.^ In all these cases the transfer is made by force of the deed of release, confirmation or surrender, and does not require livery of seisin in the first two cases, viz. : release and confirmation, because the transferee has the seisin already, and in the case of surrender because the seisin of the surrenderor, having been acquired originally from the surrenderee, is subordinate to the seisin in law of the surrenderee, his re- versioner, the estates of the two together constituting one and the same seisin.^ At the present day the ordinary quit- claim deed, so-called, has all the qualities of the release or confirmation, and is effective in any of these cases to convey the interest of the grantor.^ (6.) CONVEYANCES UNDER THE STATUTE OF USES. § 774. Retrospection. — It will be remembered, in dis- cussing the sirt)ject of uses and trusts, it was stated that a use could be created originally by a simple oral declaration of the legal owner of the land, that he held it to the use of another, provided the declaration was made for a good or valuable consideration.* The Statute of Frauds subse- quently required all creations or grants of uses and trusts to be manifested by some instrument in writing signed by the party to be charged." And although it has become customary to create uses by instruments having all the formalities of a deed, it is not necessary. These uses, when based upon a consideration, were enforced in equity as readily as if there had been a feoffment to uses.* It has also been shown that when the Statute of Uses was 1 2 Bla. Com. 326. 2 2 Bla. Com. 324-327. ' See post, sect. 781. * See ante, sects. 444, " See ante, sects. 442, 444, 507. « See ante, sect. 444. 726 CH. XXI. j TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. § 775 enacted, all uses in esse, and vested, became at once ex- ecuted into legal estates, the seisin being transferred to the cestui que use by force of the statute, and the future con- tingent uses were executed whenever they became vested.^ Afiei- the passage of the Statute of Uses, therefore, it was possible to convey the legal estate without making use of any of the primary common-law conveyances which oper- ated by transmutation of possession, and required a livery of seisin. The grantor had only to make a declaration of uses upon sufficient consideration. His declaration vested the use or equitable estate in the grantee, and the statute immediately executed it into a legal estate and transferred the seisin to him. Thus was avoided the necessity of a resort to the cumbersome and ceremonial feoffment and livery of seisin. With this explanation, and a knowledge of the doctrine of uses and trusts, it is not difficult to un- derstand the operation of the deeds of covenants to stand seised, bargain and sale, and lease and release. The deeds themselves vest in the grantee only the use or equitable estate. The legal estate and seisin are transferred by the Statute of Uses. And where any one of these deeds creates a future and contingent use which cannot be ex- ecuted by the statute, the operation of the statute upon the deed will be suspended in respect to such interest, until it has become vested and in a position to be executed. § 775. Covenant to stand seised. — This is a covenant, between near relatives by blood or marriage, founded upon the good consideration of natural love and affection, that the covenantor, the legal proprietor of the land, shall stand seised to the use of the covenantee. But the conveyance can only operate as a covenant to stand seised when it is made upon the consideration of blood or marriage.^ 1 See ante, sects. 459, 460, 470. 2 2 Bla Cora. 338; 2 Saanders od Uses, 82; 2 Rolle Abr.784, pi. 244; Emery u- Chase, 5 Me. 232. Although it Is usual for the covenant to be made with the person who is to receive the benefit of the use, it is not 727 § 776 TITLE BY PKIVATE GRANT. [PAKT III.. § 776. Bargain and sale This deed is in the nature of a contract, in which the bargainor for a valuable considera- tion bargains and sells the land to the bargainee/ and, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, becomes the trustee for the bargainee, holding the legal title and seisin in this fidu- ciary capacity. As it appears from this definition, the bargain and sale must be founded upon a valuable considera- tion, i. e., money, or money's equivalent. But the consid- eration need not be an adequate compensation for the land. The covenant to stand seised, and the bargain and sale are to be distinguished by the relation of the parties, and the consideration upon which the conveyance rests, and not by the operative words. " Covenant to stand seised" is the operative clause in the conveyance of that name, but neither it nor " bargain and sell " has any technical, precise legal import ; and a covenant to stand seised, if founded upon a valuable consideration will operate as a bargain and sale between strangers : while, on the other hand, a bargain and sale deed without valuable consideration will operate as a covenant to stand seised between near relations.^ In En- gland by statute no bargain and sale can have the effect, under the Statute of Uses, of vesting the legal title in the bargainee, unless it is made by deed, and enrolled within six months in one of the courts of Westminister Hall, or with the custos rotulorum of the country.^ This statute has never been in force in the United States.* necessary. A. may covenant with B. to stand seised to the use of C, A.'s wife or child. Co. Lit. 112 a; Bedell's Case, 7 Rep. 40; Brewer v. Hardy, 22 Pick. 376; Leavett v. Leavett, 47 N. H. 329; Barrett v. French, 1 Conn. 354; Hayes v. Kershaw, 1 Sandf. Ch. 258. ^ Read Hanks v. Folsom, H Lea, 655, distinguishing bargain and sale deeds and executory contracts for sale of lands. See anu, § 498. 2 Co. Lit. 40 b; 2 Inst. 672; 1 Prest. Conv. 88; Daviess v. Speed, 12 Mod. 39; Trafton v. Hawes, 102 Mass. 533; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 639; Eckman u. Eckman, 68 Pa. St. 460. See post, sect. 782. 3 2 Bla. Com. 338; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. .318. * Rogers o. Eagle Eire Ins. Co., 9 Wend. 611; Jackson v. VTood, 12 Johns. 74; Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 Johns. 97; Given o. Doe, 7 728 CH. XXI.] TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. § 778 § 777. Future estates of freehold in bargain and sale. — It has been held in unqualified terms by the courts of Massa- chusetts and Maine, that a freehold estate to commence in, Juturo cannot be created by bargain and sale deed.^ But it has been held very generally elsewhere, that such a deed is capable of creating a future estate of freehold, and even the courts of the States above named have finally come to the same conclusion, overruling the prior decisions to the contrary.^ It is difficult to see how this error could have gained such recognition. Bargain and sale, and covenant to stand seised, I'est upon the same foundation, that they both create uses in the grantee, and operate under the Stat- ute of Uses. And there is no better established rule in respect to the subject of uses and trusts than that a use is free from the restrictions controllina; the limitation of com- mon-law legal estates, which arise from the doctrine of seisin, and the necessity of livery of seisin, in order to con- vey a title. § 778. Lease and release. — This conveyance is stated to have been invented by Sergeant Moore soon after the pas- sage of the Statute of Enrolment, and consists of two sepa- rate instruments, a lease and a release, and was introduced to avoid the necessity of enrolling the bargain and sale. The lease is for one year, in the form of a bargain and sale, which need not have been enrolled, since the statute referred •only to freeholds. This bargain and sale lease vested a use Blackf. 210; Welch v. Foster, 12 Mass. 96; Report of Judges, 3 Binn. 156. 1 Harden v. Chase, 32 Me. 329; Pray v. Pierce, 7 Mass. 331; Gale v. Coburn, 18 Pick. 397; Brewer v. Hardy, 22 Pick. 376. 2 Shapleigh v. Pilsbury, 1 Me. 271; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 150; Jordan v. Stevens, 61 Me. 79; Drown v. Smith, 52 Me. 141; Jackson v. Swart, 20 Johns. 87; Jackson v. McKenny, 8 Wend. 235; Hayes v. Ker- shaw, 1 Sandf. Ch. 267; Bankw. Housman, 6 Paige, 526; Rogers v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9 Wend. 611; Trafton v. Hawes, 102 Mass. 533. See also Mellichamp v. Mellichamp, 28 S. C. 125; Watson ». Cressy (Me.), 10 Atl. ^9; Seals v. Pierce, 83 Ga. 587. 729 § 779 TITLE BY PRIVATE GKANT. [PART III. for one year iu the lessee, and the statute transferred to him the possession and the legal title. Being then in possession as tenant, he was in a position to receive a grant of the re- version or freehold byway of a release.^ This is, perhaps, the most effective of the conveyances under the Statute of Uses, and in England it superseded to a large extent both the covenant to stand seised and bargain and sale deeds. The possession, acquired by the Gar^ain and sale lease, is only such a constructive possession which is sufficient to support the release, and does not give to the lessee the right to maintain actions in respect to the possession until he has gained actual possession by entry .^ Both the lease and the release are common-law conveyances, but the lease, operat- ing as a common-law conveyance, vests in the lessee before entry only an interesse termini, and not an estate. It must operate as the limitation of ajise under the Statute of Uses, in order to give the lessee an estate with constructive pos- session. The release itself is a common-law conveyance, and operates as such in this connection. In England it had to operate as a common-law conveyance to do without en- rollment. But in this country it may operate just as well as the limitation of a future use as a release of a future legal estate.^ ^a" (c.) MODERN CONVEYANCES. § 779. What conveyances judicially recognized. — Al- though there is an almost infinite variance to be found in the rules of conveyancing in the different States of the country, it is believed that all the modes of conveyancing, which were recognized by the English common law, hereto- fore discussed, and those which operated under the Statute of Uses are recognized as valid and effective to pass the 1 2 Bla. Com. 337. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 356. 8 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 355. 730 CH. XXI. J TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. § 780 legal title. In New York deeds of feoffment with livery of seisin are expressly abolished by statute,^ while in other States they remain as a valid, though somewhat obsolete, conveyance. In most of these States, in order that a deed of feoffment may take effect as such, it must still be accom- panied by the ceremonial livery of seisin. But in several of the States, notably Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, Penn- sylvania, Missouri, Connecticut, Rhode Island, the record- ing and delivery of a deed of feoffment is equivalent to the actual livery of seisin, and dispenses with it. ^ The convey- ances under the Statute of Uses are also recognized, and in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illi- nois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania, Vermont and Virginia, the deed in general use is substantially a bargain and sale.^ In no State is it thought impossible to make a valid conveyance by deed operating under the Statute of Uses.* § 780. Statutory forms of conveyance. — But in addition to the forms of conveyance already discussed, there are found in some of the States others which are prescribed by statute and made effectual to pass the legal title. Such forms are to be found in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, Iowa, Maryland and Tennessee. The use of these forms, however, is not made obligatory. The statute is construed to be directory, and does not inval- 1 1 Eev. Stat. N. Y. 738. 2 Pray v. Pierce, 7 Mass. 381; Russell ». Coffin, 8 Pick. 143; Barrett v. French, 1 Conn. 354; Bryan ». Bradley, 16 Conn. 481; Caldwell b. Ful- ton, 31 Pa. St. 483; Wymau v. Brown, 50 Me. 160; Williamson v. Carle- ton, 51 Me. 462; Mlssisbippi Code (1871), sect. 2294; Rev. Stat. R. I., Ch. 146, sect. 1 ; Perry v. Price, 1 Mo. 653; Poe v. Domec, 48 Mo. 481. 3 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 452. < Givan «. Doe, 7 Blaclsf. 212; Funk ». Creswell, 5 Iowa, 68; Brewers. Hardy, 22 Pick. 876; Barrett ». French, 1 Conn. 354; Tabb ». Baird, 3 Call. 475; Duval ». Bibb, 3 Call. 362; Rogers o. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9 "Wend. 611. 731 ^ 781 TITLE BY PRIVATE GEANT. [PAET lU. idate the other modes of conveyance which were previously in use. A bargain and sale or a feoffment would be just as effectual now as formerly.^ In New York, as previously stated, feoffments have been abolished, and all conveyances, whether they are in form a feoffment or a deed under the Statute of Uses, are by statute made to operate as, and are called, grants. 2 And in Georgia a statute provides that any deed which clearly stiows the intention of the party to con- vey the title to lands, shall be effectual for that purpose. No form is prescribed, and no want of form will invalidate the transaction.^ § 781. Quit-claim deed. — Although a deed of release is a secondary conveyance and is only effectual in conveying a reversionary or equitable interest to one already possessed of an estate in possession, a form of deed similar to the re- lease, and known as a quit-claim deed, has met with general recognition in this country, and has, in some of the States, been expressly recognized by statute.* In Kentucky release is, by statute, made a primary conveyance.^ But a quit- claim deed only passes that interest which the grantor has at the time of conveyance, and the grantee under it has not the equities of a bona fide purchaser. If the title should fail there is no remedy against the grantor, for a quifc-elaim 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 360; Chamberlain u. Crane, 1 N. H. 64; French v. French, 3 N. H. 234; Prltchard v. Brown, 4 N. H. 397; Funk v. Creswell, 5 Iowa, 68 ; Redfern v. Middleton, Rice, 464; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 447; Miller v. Miller, Meigs. 484. 2 1 Rev. Stat. N. Y. 738. 3 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 361. * It is so recognized in Minnesota, Maine, Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Illinois. 8 Washb. on Real Prop. 359, notes. See, also, Brown v. Jaclison, 3 Wheat. 452; Jackson v. Bradford, 4 Wend. 619; Jackson v. Hubble, 1 Cow. 613; Rogers ». Hillhovise, 3 Conn. 398; Dart ». Dart, 7 Conn. 265; Hall u. Ashby, 9 Ohio, 96; MeConnell v. Reed, 5 IlL 117; Hamilton B. Doolittle, 37 111. 482; Bogy ». Shoab, 13 Mo. 380; Kerr ». Freeman, 33 Miss. 292; Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 150; Carpentier «. Williamson, 25 Cal. 168. « 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 360. 732 CH. XXI. J TITLE BY PRIVATE GKANT. § 782 deed contains no covenants of title. ^ It is, however, pos- sible for a deed in the form of a quit-claim deed, to contain covenants of title. But such deeds are not technical quit- claim deeds. ^ And should the grantor subsequently acquire the title, no estoppel arises against him in favor of the grantee, to prevent his enforcement of the title .^ Quit- claim deeds contain, usually, as their operative words, " remise, release, and forever quit-claim," but the form may be varied. And where there are no technical words of sale and conveyance, the quit-claim deed has been held effectual to pass the title, provided words of transfer, or words evidencing the intention to transfer, are present.* Quit-claim deeds are practically nothing more than deeds without covenants of title, and they will operate as primary or secondary conveyances, according to the circumstances of the parties in respect to the land, at least in those States where the quit-claim deed is recognized as a primary con- veyance. Deeds in the form of a quit-claim deed, may contain covenants of title, and in such cases there is very little doubt that the parties intended them to operate as primary conveyances.^ § 782. Dual character of common conveyances, — The character of the conveyance is in the first instance deter- mined by the operative words of conveyance appearing in the deed. The forms of expression, characteristic of the various modes of conveyance, have been given in connec- tion with the description of them. The ordinary deed, usually found in general use in the United States, contains the operative words, "give, grant, bargain and sell." 1 May V. LeClair, 11 WaO. 232 ; Kyle v. Kavauagh, 103 Mass. 356 ; Thorp V. K«okuk Ooal Co., 48 N. Y. 253; Sherwood v. Barlow, 19 Conn. 471. 2 See Wholey v. Cavanaugh, 88 Cal. 182. " Bruce v. Luke, 9 Kan. 201 ; 12 Am. Bep. 491 ; Price v. King, 44 Kans. 639. * Fash V. Blake, 38 111. 367; Johnson v. Boutock, 38 111, 114; Wilson u. Albert, 89 Mo. 537 fl S. W. 209). 5 See Wholey v. Cavanangh, 88 Cal. 132. 733 § 782 TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. [PART III. " Give and grant," do el concedo, were used in the deed of feoffment and grant, and are common-law words of convey- ance. ♦' Bargain and sell," as has already been explained, are the operative words of bargain and sale deeds. By a course of judicial legislation, going far back into the com- mon law of Lord Coke's day, in order to effectuate the intention of the parties, when clearly manifested, a deed has been held to operate as that mode of conveyance which best carries out the intention of the parties, pro- vided there are sufficient operative words to bring the deed within that class of conveyances. Where, there- fore, a deed contains the words "give, grant, bargain and sell," it may operate either as a bargain and sale under the Statute of Uses, or as a feoffment at common law, if there is livery of seisin, or if livery is dispensed with by statute or by judicial legislation ;^ or further, it may operate as the modern statutory conveyance, provided the operative words are the same as prescribed by the statute.^ In most of the cases arising under this rule of construction the deed is io-operative as one mode or conveyance on ac- count of some defect in the execution, or in the nature of the grant, and complies with the requirements of some other mode of conveyance. Thus a deed of release will take effect as a covenant to stand seised, if there is a limitation of a future freehold estate which cannot be created by a common-law conveyance.* So also will release be treated as a bargain and sale, where it would be invalid as a release, because it is made to a party not in possession of the land. The words of release raise a use in favor of the release*^ 1 See ante, sect. 779. 2 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 357; Sheppard Com. Assur. 82, 83. 3 Eoe V. Tranmarr, 7 Willis, 682; s. c, 2 Smith's Ld. Cas. 288; Smitho. Frederick, 1 Russ. 210; Haggerston v. Hanbury, 5 B. & C. 101 ; Gibson v, Minet, I H. Bl. 669; ». c, 3T. R. 481. * Pray ». Pierce, 7 Mass. 381; Marshall v. Fisk, 6 Mass. 24; Russell ». Coffin, 8 Pick. 143; .Jackson v. Beach, 1 Johns. Cas. 401; Havens ». Seashore Land Co. (Ind. 1891), 20 Atl. Rep. 497. 734 CH. XXI.] TITLE BY PEIVATE GRANT. § 782 A use may be raised by any words showing the intention to convey a title. In a case in Virginia the words of convey- ance were " give, grant, and deliver," and the court held it to be a good bargain and sale.^ It is also well established rule that deeds operating under the Statute of Uses will be treated as bargains and sales, or as covenants to stand seised 'whatever may be the words of conveyance, according to the consideration present to support the conveyance. If it is a good consideration it will be a covenant to stand seised, and a bargain and sale if the consideration is valuable.^ So also, if the operative words are " give, grant, bargain, and sell," and the like, will the deed be treated as a common-law con- veyance if it cannot operate as a bargain and sale, or a cov- enant to stand seised, for the want of a good or a valuable consideration.* And where there is a grant in such a deed to A. to the use of C, since the policy of the courts of this country is to execute all uses, and vest the legal title in the cestui que use whenever it is possible, the deed will be treated as a common-law conveyance, since such a limitation in a bargain and sale would create a use upon a use, which can- not be executed.* That a bargain and sale to A. to the use of B. raises a use upon a use, and gives the legal title to A. under the Statute of Uses, is the settled rule of the courts of those States where the doctrine of ulterior uses, or use upon a use, has not been abolished by statute .^ A deed may also as to one limitation operate as a common-law convey- 1 Eowletts V. Daniel,' 4 Munf. 473; Tabb v. Baird, 3 Call, 475. 2 Cox V. Edwards, 14 Mass. 492 ; Brewer v. Hardy, 22 Pick. 376 ; Traf- ton V. Hawes, 102 Mass. 533; Barrett v. French, 1 Conn. 354; Cheney v. Watkins, 1 Harr. & J. 527; Okison v. Patterson, 1 Watts & S. 395. 3 Emery v. Chase, 6 Me. 232; Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474; Adams V. Guerard, 29 Ga. 676; Cheney v. Watkins, 1 Harr. & J. 527; Bowland v. Rowland, 93 N. C. 214. * Thatcher v. Omans, 3 Pick. 522; Bacon v. Taylor, Kirby, 368; Mar- shall V. Fisk, 6 Mass. 54; Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374; Jackson v. Seb- ring, 16 Johns. 515 ; Sprague v. Woods, 4 Watts & S. 194. See Linville v. Goldlng, 11 Ind. 374. s See ante, sect. 463. 735 § 783 TITLE BY PRIVATE GEANT. [PAET III. ance, while it may be treated as a conveyance under the- Statute of Uses in respect to another limitation if sueji a construction is necessary to carry out the intention of the parties.^ But when it is desired that a deed should operate as a particalar mode of conveyance it must possess all the requisites of that conveyance. And although by this liberal and accommodating rule of construction it is not likely for a common and ordinary grant to be made, which will not possess the requisite of some form of conveyance, and which cannot take effect in consequence, yet it is possible, and where the grant is so singularly defective it will, of course, be void and inoperative.^ / § 783. Is a deed necessary to convey freeholds? — By the term " deed " is meant an instrument under seal.^ The question, therefore, which is mooted liere is, whether a sealed instrument is necessary to convey tlie legal title to a freehold estate. It has been so long and so generally con- sidered indispensable, unless abolished by statute, tliat although irresistably driven to the conclusion, it was with some hesitation that the contrary position, witli qualifica- tions, has been here assumed. The position is, that for the conveyance of a legal freehold estate in a corporeal hered- itament, a sealed instrument is not necessary, unless a statute expressly requires it. There were two principal classes of conveyances in England, viz. : common-law con- veyances, operating by transmutation of possession, and 1 Emery v. Chase, 5 Me. 232 ; Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474. 2 Emery v. Chase, 5 Me. 232; Jackson v. Sebring, 16 Johns, 615; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 622; Marshall t». Pisb, 6 Mass. 24; Carrol r. Norwood, 5 Harr. & J. 155; Deni). Hanks, 5 Ired. 30: Foster v. Dennison, 9 Ohio, 121. In Den v. Hanks, supra, the deed could not operate as a. bargain and sale, because no consideration was expressed or proved. It could not take eSect as a covenant to stand seised, lor there was no blood relationship between the parties to import a good consideration, and it could not operate as a feoffment, because there iad been no- livery of seisin. The deed was therefore declared void. 3 See^josi, sects. 787, 808. 736 CH. XXI.] TITLE BY PRIVATE GKANT. § 783 conveyances under the Statute of Uses. The principal common-law conveyances, and those which concern us in the present discussion, were "feoffment" and "grant." Grant was used to convey incorporeal hereditaments and reversionary interests in corporeal hereditaments, and required a sealed instrument.^ Feoffment was used to con- vey corporeal freeholds in possession, and consisted of the ceremonial livery of seisin. No deed, or any other writing was required, although it was customary to employ a deed, where the limitations were numerous and intricate.^ In respect to the conveyances under the Statute of Uses, it is a well known fact that uses before the Statute of Frauds could be created in corporeal hereditaments by an oral declaration which would be executed by the Statute of Uses into a legal estate, if it was supported by a sufficient consideration,^ except in one case, viz. : in the case of a bargain and sale. By statute, 27 Hen. VIII., ch. 16, commonly called and known as the Statute of Enrollment, it was enacted that no bargain and sale shall have the effect of conveying the legal title to a freehold estate, unless it is in writing, indented and sealed, and enrolled in one of the King's courts at Westminster.* From this synoptical statement it is evident, therefore, that, using the language of Mr. Washburn, " prior to the Statute of Frauds in the time of Charles II., it did not require a written instrument to convey corporeal hereditaments, except as provided in the matter of deeds of bargain and sale."^ But it was at 1 See ante, sect. 771. 2 See ante, sect. 770; Williams on Real Prop. 147, 152. 3 See ante, sects. 444, 774. Tlie Statute of Uses expressly states this to be the case. The statute enacts that "where any person stood or were seised * * * of an in any honours, castles, lands, etc., to use, etc., of any other person, etc., by reason of any bargain, sale, feoffment, * * * covenant, contract, agreement, will, or otherwise," etc. See ante, sect. 459, note. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 421. 5 3 Washb. on Real, Prop. 421, 422. 47 737 ^ 783 TITLE BY PKIVATE GRANT. [PABT III. an early day held impossible to create a use in any incorporeal hereditament, such as rents which required a deed at common law, unless it was declared by deed.* Now the Statute of Frauds only required an instrument in writing, signed by the grantor, and did not require it to be sealed. After the passage of the Satute of Frauds, therefore, except as to bargains and sales and grants,^ a deed was not required to make an effectual conveyance. Feoffments could be made by a simple instrument in writing, and it would seem that a covenant to stand seised did not actually require a seal, although a covenant is a sealed instrument; for it is stated unqualifiedly by the old authorities that, for the creation of a use, an oral declaration was sufficient, but it required a valuable consid- eration to create a use in a stranger, and a good consider- ation to vest it in a blood relation.^ But although a deed was not required before, or after, the Statute of Frauds, except in the case of grants and bargains and sales, it was always customary to use them. In the early days of the feudal system, the great lords and barons were ignorant of the art of writing, and could not sign their names; but they all possessed seals, and when any important writing was required to be executed, they sealed it with their own seals, instead of signing.* From the solemnity of the act of sealing, a seal was, at an early day, held to import a consideration. If, therefore, a sealed Instrument was used in the declaration of a use, no actual consideration was ' 2 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 392; 2 Bla. Com. 331; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 449. 2 It must not be understood that any reference is made here to the common-law secondary conveyances, such as a release, exchange or surrender. These conveyances were all in the nature of a " grant," and required a deed. See ante, sects, 769, 773. 3 See 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 392, 394; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 449, 450. The word "covenant" is also often used as synonymous with contract or agreement. Thus we speak of covenants in leases, when usually leases are not sealed. * Williams on Real Prop. 147; 2 Bla. Com. 805, 806 ; 8 Hallam's Middle Ages, 329. 738 CH, XXI. j TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. § 783 necessary to support the use, if some sufficient considera- tion was acknowledged in the deed.^ But if it was an oral declaration, a consideration had to be proved in order to raise a use. To avoid, therefore, the necessity of a con- sideration, it was the common custom to use a sealed instru- ment. This was the state of the law in England at the time of the American revolution. The next question is, what is the condition of the law in America? It follows, as a necessary consequence, that in those States which have ex- pressly or impliedly adopted the common law of England, except so far as it is modified by statute, or repugnant to the political institutions of this country, the law in respect to the requirement of a sealed instrument to convey lands must be the same, unless it has been changed by a local statute. The only doubtful question involved in this conclusion is the €ffect of the English Statute of Enrollment, upon the Amer- ican law. It has been very generally held that this statute has never been recognized by the American courts as a part of the common law.^ But the cases cited in the note only involved the question as to the necessity of an enrollment, and did not involve a discussion as to the applicability of the statute, so far as it requires a deed to create a use by bargain and sale. The natural presumption would be, that a statute could not be recognized in part, and denied to be in force as to its other requirements, particularly where the provision, supposed to be recognized, is only auxiliary to the main object and purpose of the statute. The conclu- sion, therefore, is, th&,t unless the /Statute of Enrollment is in force in this country, or unless there is a State statute, requiring a use or trust to be created by deed in order that it may be executed by the Statute of Uses into a legal estate, the ordinary deed in common use will be effectual to pass ^ See ante, sect. 443, and post, sect. 800. 2 Rogers ?J. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9 "Wend. 611; Jackson v. Wood, 12 Johns. 74; Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 Johns. 97; Givan v. Doe, 7 Blackf . 210; Welch v. Foster, 12 Mass. 96; Report of Judges, 3 Binn. 156. 739 § 783 TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT. [PAET III. the legal title to any freehold in a corporeal hereditament, without being sealed, if an actual consideration is proved to have passed from the grantee to the grantor.^ And, furthermore, if in any State the ordinary conveyance can operate as a feoffment, and the State statutes do not ex- pressly require a sealed instrument, the conveyance will be a good feoffment without being sealed, and without the acknowledgment or proof of a consideration, if the convey- ance expressly declares to whose use the lands shall be held.^ 1 The author has had neither time nor space to ascertain and state the exact law on this subject in any particular State. He has contented himself with the general statement of a somewhat abstract rule, and leaves the continuation of the investigation to the reader. One other observation may perhaps be necessary; and that is, that where a statute prescribes a form of conveyance, and requires a seal in executing it, it does not invalidate the other modes of conveyance, which were previ- ously In use, unless they are expressly repealed (see ante, sect. 780) ; and the requirement of a seal in the statutory conveyance will not by implica- tion make a seal necessary in the other forms of conveyance. 2 See sects. 443, 801. 740 CHAPTEE XXn. DEEDS THEIR REQUISITES AND COTIPONElTr PARTS. Section I. Tlie requisites of a deed. II. The component parts of a deed. in. Covenants in deeds. SECTION I. THE KEQtnSlTES OE A DEED. SEcnoir 786. Definition of a deed. 787. Requisites, what they are. 788. A suflScient writing, what constitutes. 789. A sufficient writing, what constitutes — Continued. 790. Alterations and interlineations. 791. Proper parties — The grantor. 792. Infants and insane persons. 793. Ratification and disaflirmance. 794. Deeds of married women. '795. A disseisee cannot convey. 796. Fraud and duress. 797. Proper parties — Grantees. 798. Proper parties named in the deed. 799. A thing to be granted. 800. A thing to be granted — Continued. 801. The consideration. 802. Voluntary and fraudulent conveyances. 803. Operative words of conveyance. 804. Execution, what constitutes. 805. Power of attorney. 806. Power of attorney granted by married woman. 807. Signing. 808. Sealing. 809. Attestation. 810. Acknowledgment or probate. Sll. Reading of the deed, when necessary. 812. Delive ry and acceptance. S13. "What constitutes a sufficient delivery. 741 § 788 THE KEQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. Section 814. Delivery to stranger, when assent of grantee presumed. 815. Escrows. 816. Eegistratlon. 817. To whom and of what Is record constructive notice? 817a. Priority of unrecorded mortgages over judgment creditors. 8176. Of what is record constructive notice. 819. What constitutes suflBcient notice of title — Possession. § 786. Definition of a deed. — A deed, as defined by Lord Coke, is a writing sealed and delivered by the party thereto, and contains a contract, executory or executed. According to the common-law before the passage of the Statute of Frauds, signing was unnecessary. It is now, however, an important act, and in most, if not all, of the United States, it is absolutely necessary to the validity of the deed.^ In discussing what constitutes a deed, its requi- sites will be considered first, and then the component parts in an orderly arrangement. § 787. Kequisites, what they are. — The following may be stated as including all the essentials of a deed, viz. : (1) a sufficient writing; (2) proper parties, grantor and grantee; (3) a thing to be granted ; (4) a consideration; (5) execution, i.e., signing, sealing, attestation, and ac- knowledgment; (6) delivery and acceptance; (7) regis- tration. These will be considered in their regular order. § 788. A sufficient writing, what constitutes. — With- out meeting with any positive adjudication, it seems to be the accepted opinion of all the courts and treatise-writers that, to make a valid deed it must be written on parchment or paper, it being supposed that these two materials are more durable, and less capable of erasure or alteration.* This objection goes more to the inadvisability of using other 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 239; Co. Lit. 171 b; Van Santwood v. Sandford, 12 Johns. 198 ; Hutchins v. Byrnes, 9 Gray, 367 ; Taylor b. Morton, 5 Dana, 365 ; Hammond v. Alexander, 1 Bibb, 333. 2 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 240; Co. Lit. 36 b; 2 Bla. Com. 297,- Waireni). Lynch, 5 Johns. 240. 742 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 789 materials, from the individual standpoint of the parties, rather than to establish a ground for holding the deed to be otherwise invalid. There can be no objection in principle to a deed written on cloth or on unprepared skins of ani- mals, as long as the writing remains unobliterated. And the reason fails altogether if the writing is carved on stone or engraved on metal. The writing must clearly manifest the intention of the parties, and contain the entire agree- ment. If any uncertainty, either as to the parties or the subject-matter, appears on the face of the deed, and cannot be explained away by a reference to other parts of the same deed, or by some other deed expressly referred to, parol evidence will not be admitted for that purpose, and the deed will be void for the want of certainty.^ But it is not nec- essary to the validity of the deed that there should be a strict observance of the rules of grammar or rhetoric ; a& long as the intention and meaning of | the parties can be gathered from the instrument, the law does not require ac- curacy or precision of language.^ § 789. A sufficient writing, what constitutes — Con- tinued. — But in order that a deed may be valid as a con- veyance, the writing must be completed in all its essential parts before it is delivered. Any alteration or filling up of blanks after delivery will not give life to the deed.' But though there is no variance among the decisions in respect to the correctness of this position, that the deed must be completed before it is delivered to the grantee in order to be valid, it is impossible to reconcile the authorities upon 1 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 266 ; Boardman ». Eeed, 6 Pet. 345 ; Deery v. Cray, 10 Wall. 270; Peck v. Mallams, 10 N. Y. 630; Andrews v. Todd, 50 N. H. 565; Hill v. Mowry, 6 Gray, 551; Fenwick v. Floyd, 1 Har. & G. 172; Thomas v. Turney, lb. 437. " 3 "Washb. on Real Prop. 240; Shrewsbury's Case, 9 Eep. 48 ; Walters v. Bredin, 70 Pa. St. 237. * 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 240 ; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305 ; Duncan ». Hodges, 4 McCord, 239 ; Perminter v. McDauiel, 1 Hill ( S. 0.) 267. N 743 § 789 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET in. the question, whether the delivery after its completion may not be made by an agent under a parol authority. In the early case of Texira v. Evans/ it was held that a bond which was signed by the obligor, but in which the sum was left blank, and was afterwards filled in by an agent and by him delivered to the obligee according to the parol authority of his principal, was good and binding upon the parties. This case has been often commented upon, and in the cases, cited ,in the note below, repudiated, and the contrary doctrine established that the deed must be completed before it leaves the hands of the grantor, or there must be a second delivery by him. An agent cannot deliver it, unless he obtains his authority from a power of attorney under seal.^ On the other hand, the principle has been sustained by the courts of some of the States.^ The weight of authority in this country is certainly in favor of the position that a second delivery is necessary, although the better opinion would seem to be that the completion and delivery of the deed may be done by an agent as effectively as by the principal. This rule would give ample security to the grantor against any fraudulent transactions, while it would make the title of the grantee more secure. 1 1 Anstr. 228. 2 Hibblewhite o. McMorine, 6 Mees. & W. 200; Davidsons. Cooper, 11 M. & W. 794; Drury u. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305; Basford v. Pearson, 9 Allen, 388; Vose i;. Dolan, 108 Mass. 159; Chauncey v. Arnold,^2UiJE\J30 ; Preston o. Hull, 23 Gratt. 605; Ingram V. Little, 14 Ga. 174; Gilbert v. Anthony, 1 Yerg. 69; W^illiams ■». Crutcher, 6 Miss. 71; Viser v. Rice, 33 Texas, 130; Cross v. State Bank, S Ark. 525; Cummings v. Casslly, 5 B. Mon. 74; Conover v. Porter, 14 Ohio, 450; Simms ii. Harvey, 19 Iowa, 290; People ». Organ, 27 111. 29; Mans V. Worthing, 3 111. 26; Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85; Hammerslough V. Cheatham, 84 Mo. 13; De Arguello v. Bours, 67 Cal. 447; Vaca Val., etc., E. R. Co. V. Mansfield, 84 Cal. 560 ; 24 Pac. 145. 3 Inhabitants, etc., v. Huntress, 53 Me. 90; McDonald v. Eggleston, 26 Vt. 161; Wiley «. Moor, 17 Serg. & R. 438; Field v. Stagg, 52 Mo. 634; Van Etta ■». Evanson, 28 Wis. 33; Devin u. Hlmer, 29 Iowa, 301; Owen V. Perry, 25 Iowa, 412 ; Phelps v. Sullivan, 140 Mass. 36 ; 64 Am. , Hep. 442; State v. Matthews, 44 Kan. 596. 744 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 790. § 790. Alterations and Interlineations. — It is also an important question how far alterations and interlineations may be made in a deed without affecting its validity. Lord Colse states that in ancient times an erasure or interlineation would invalidate the deed at whatever time it was made.^ But now, as it was even in the daj^s of Coke, erasures and interlineations do not invalidate the deed. But in order that the deed may take effect as modified by the interlineation or erasure, the alteration must have been made before the delivery of the deed.^ It has been held that it may be made after acknowledgment ; but if the alteration enlarges the scope of the conveyance, there must be a new acknowledgment.^ It is, however, doubtful upon whom the burden lies, to prove that the alteration was made before delivery. Where the alteration is in an unimportant part of the deed the question does not be- come important. But if the change is made in an essential part, some of the authorities treat the erasure of interlinea- tion as extremely suspicious, and throw the burden of proof upon the grantee. The presumption of law, according to these authorities, is that it was made after the delivery.* The courts of Massachusetts and other States deny that there is any presumption of law in respect to the matter, but hold that the burden of proof is thrown upon the party re- lying upon the deed.^ The following quotation from the court of Missouri may, perhaps, furnish the correct rule: 1 Co. Lit. 225 b. 2 3 Waslib. on Real Prop. 244; Jordan v. Stevens, 51 Me. 78; Bassett V. Bassett, 55 Me. 126; Gordon v. Sizer, 39 Miss. 818. s Webb V. MuUins, 78 Ala. 111. ■4 United States v. Linn, 1 How. 104; Hill v. Barnes, 11 N. H. 395; Dow V. Jewel, 18 N. H. 356; Clifford a. Parker, 2 Mann. & G. 909; Morris V. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 67; 1 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 564; Galland v. Jackman, 26 Cal. 85. 6 Ely V. Ely, 6 Gray 439 ; Wilde v. Armsby, 6 Cash. 314 ; Knight v. Clem- ents, 8 A. & E. 215; Beaman ». Russell, 20 Vt. 205; Jackson «. Osborn, •2_Wend^5; Herrick v. Malin, 22 Wend. 388; Comstock ». Smith, 26 Mich. 306. 745 § 971 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [pART III, " As a general rule, if any presumption at all is indulged, the law will presume that the alteration was made before, or at least contemporaneous with, the singing of the writ- ing, unless peculiar circumstances are patent upon its face ; and even then the whole question is one for the jury to set- tle upon the facts, when and where, and with what intent, the alteration was made."^ The safer plan, and the one adopted by all careful conveyancers, when alterations in the body of the deed are necessary, is to note the erasure or interlineation upon the instrument, and generally above the attestation clause, to show that it was made before the delivery. But no subsequent alteration of the deed, not even its destruction, can have any effect upon the title which has been passed by the deed,^ although it would be fatal to any action upon the covenants in the deed if the deed is fraudulently destroyed or a material alteration is made in the covenant.^ But if a deed is destroyed with- out the fault of the grantee, he may resort to equity to compel the grantor to give him a new deed,^ or the con- tents may be proved by parol evidence, after the loss of the deed has been established.^ § 791. Proper parties — The grantor. — It needs only to be stated, to receive immediate recognition, that to make a valid deed there must be a competent grantor. He must ' McCormick u. Fitzmorris, 39 Mo. 34; Matthews v. Coalter, 9 Mo. 705. 2 Davis V. Cooper, 11 Mees & W. 800; Bolton v. Carlisle, 2 H. Bl. 263; Eoe V. York, 6 East, 86; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 367; Dana v- Newhall, 13 Mass. 498; Chessman v. Whittemore, 23 Pick. 231; Lewis v. Payne, 8 Cow. 71; Nicholson v. Halsey, 1 Johns. Ch. 417; Jackson u. Chase, 2 Johns. 84; Raynor v. Wilson, 6^ill, 469; Eifener v. Bowman, 53 Pa. St. 318; Fletcher v. Mansur, 5 1)157267 PWood i>. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo. 284. " Davidson v. Cooper, 11 Mees. & W. 800; Deem v. Philips, 5 W. Va. 168; "Woods V. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo. 284. ^ King V. Gilson, 82 111. 354. 8 Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. St. 492 ; Shaumberg v. Wright, 39 Mo. 126. 746 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 792 own the property, and have the capacity to convey. The number of persons who are in this respect under disability is very small, and may all be -included in the classes known as infants, non compotes mentis, and married women. The disabilities resting upon these persons are not uniform in their extent, and vary in reference to each class. In re- spect to some the deeds are absolutely void, while as to others they are only voidable. They will be discussed sep- arately. § 792. Infants and insane persons. — As a general proposition, it may be stated that the deeds of infants^ and lunatics ^ are placed in respect to their validity on the same basis, and are held to be voidable and not void. But if the insane person is under guardianship, the deed will be absolutely void;^ while in New York and Pennsylvania 1 Tucker u. Moreland, 10 Peters, 58; Phillips v. Green, 3 Marsh. A. K. 7; 13 A. M. Dec. 124; Eool v. Stafiord,J7_.Cowen J80; Harrod v. Myers, 21 Arlc. 592 ; Weldorn v. Rogers, 24 Ga. 558 ; Ferguson v. Bell-, 17 Mo. 347 ; Moore ». Abernathy, 7 Blackf . 442 ; Curamings c. Powell, 8 Texas, 89 ; Kendall v. Lawrence, 22 Pick. 540, 543; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 12 Iowa, 195, 198; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 Marsh. J. J. 245; 19 Am. Dec. 71; Cook V. Toumbs, 36 Miss. 685; Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. "Va. 70; Slaughter o. Cunningham, 24 Ala. 260; 60 Am. Dec. 463; Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burr, 1794,1805; Whitney «. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457; 7 Am. Dec. 229; Boston Banks. Chamberlin, 15 Mass. 211. ' Eiggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236; Breckenridge «. Ormsby, 1 Marsh, J. J. 236; 19 Am. Dec. 71; Gates D.Woodson, 2 Dana, 452; Ingraham ». Baldwin, 5 Seld. 45; Arnold v. Richmond Iron Works, 1 Gray, 434; Allis v. Billings, 6 Met. 415; 39 Am. Dec. 744; Freed v. Brown, 55 Ind. 310; Jackson V. Gumaer, 2 Cowan, 652; Grouse v. Holman, 19 Ind. 30; Price u. Berrington, 3 Macn. & G. 186; Desilver's Est., 5 Eawle, 111; 28 Am. Dec. 645; Bensell v. Chancellor, 5 Whart. 376; 34 Am. Dec. 561; Beales V. See, 10 Pa. St. 56; 49 Am. Dec. 573; Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. 304; 22 Am. Dec. 372; Thomas «. Hatch, 3 Sum. 170; Key v. Davis, 1 Mo. 32; Eaton V. Eaton, 8 Vroom. 103; Summers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 231; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Peters, 58; Yanger v. Skinner, 1 McCart. 389. But see Farley v. Parker, 6 Or. 105; Van Dusen v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 878, 383. ■ "■ Wait V. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217; Griswold v. Butler, 3 Conn. 231 ; Pearl V. McDowell, 3 J. J. Marsh. 658; Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217; 16 Am, 747 § 792 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAKT III. the deed of an insane person seems under all circumstances to be yoid.^ But it is often difficult to determine what degree of sanity is sufficient -to enable a person to make a good and valid deed. The question is no doubt one of fact, whether the person has sufficient strength of mind to understand the nature and consequences of the act of con- veyance. The fact that his mental powers have been im- paired will not invalidate the deed, provided they have not been so far affected as to make him incai^able to transact business, and to protect his interests to a reasonable de- gree.^ But deeds of both infants and lunatics may be made valid by a subsequent ratification ; in the case of infants after coming of age, and with lunatics after the mental disturbance has passed away. The deed may be avoided only by the infant or lunatic, or by his guardian, personal representative or heirs. ^ In order to avoid a deed Dec. 391; Fitzhugh v. Wilcox, 12 Barb. 235; Mohr v. Tulip, 40 Wis. 66; Hovey v. Hobsen, 53 Me. 451; Elston v. Jasper, 45 Texas, 409; Van Dusen v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 378; Nichol ». Thomas, 53 Ind. 42; Griswold v. lailler, 15 Barb. 520; Wadsworth «. Sherman, 14 Barb. 169; Leonard r. Leonard, 14 Pick. 280; White u. Palmer, 4 Mass. 147; M'Donald v. Morton, 1 Mass. 543 ; Rogers v. Walker, 6 Pa. St. 371 ; 47 Am. Dec. 470. But see Hunt v. Hunt, 2 Beasl. 161. V 1 Van Deusen v. Sweet, 51_NV5f . 384 ; Matter of Desilver, 5 Rawle, 111. But see Roof v. Stafford, 7 Cow. 180; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45. 2 Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. 538; Doe v. Prettyman, 1 Houst. 339; In re Barker, 2 Johns. Ch. 232; Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. 531. See Northwestern Mut. Mre Ins. Co. v. Blankenship, 94 Ind. 535; 48 Am. Rep. 185; Bell, C. J., in Dennett, 44 N. H. 531, 5K8-. See Hovey ». Hob- son, 55 Me. 256; Osmond v. Fitzroy, 3 P. Wms. 129; Carpenter v. Car- penter, 8 Bush, 283 ; Shelford on Lun. 37 ; Titcomb ». Vantyle, 84 111. 371; Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. 142; Jackson v. King, 4 Cowen, 207; 15 Am. Dec. 354; Corbit v. Smith, 7 Iowa, 60; 71 Am. Dec. 431 ; Sprague v. Duel, 1 Clarke, 90; 11 Paige, 480; Kennedy v. Marrast, 46 Ala. 161; Jack- son V. King, 4 Cowen, 216; 15 Am. Dec. 354; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. (4 Otto) 506, 510; Harding ti. Hardy, 11 Wheat. 125; Kemson «. Ashbee, 10 Ch. Cas. 15. 3 Arnold v. Townsend, 14 Phila. 216; Campbell v. Kuhn, 45 Mich. 513; Cates D. Woodson, 2 Dana, 452; Brown v. Freed, 43 Ind. 253; Key u. Davis, 1 Md. 32; Judge of Probate v. Stone, 44 N. H. 593; Brown v. 748 CH. XXII.J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 792 made by an infant or insane person it has been held not to be necessary to restore the consideration.^ But if the infant or lunatic has bought property, and still has it when the minority or lunacy terminates, the property must be restored before he can disaffirm.^ An infant cannot avoid Caldwell, 10 Serg. & E. 114; 13 Am. Dec. 660; Hartness v. Thompson, 5 Johns. 160; Van Bramer v. Cooper, 2 Johns. 279; Oliver v. Houdlet, 13 Mass. 237; 7 Am. Dec. 134; Worcester v. Eaton, 13 Mass. 371; Nightin- gale V. Withington, 15 Mass. 272; 7 Am. Dec. 101; Person v. Chase, 37 Vt. 647; Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364; Veal v. Forbson, 67 Texas, 482 ; Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641 ; Nelson v. Eaton, 1 Redf . 498 ; Abbott V. Parson, 3 Burr. 1805; Tillinghast v. Holbrook, 7 E. I. 230; Vaughan v. Parr, 20 Ark. 600 ; JefEord v. Ringgold, 6 Ala. 544. J 2 Kent's Com. 236; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 453; Gibson v. Soper, 6 Gray, 279 ; Richardson v. Boright, 9 Vt. 368 ; Wallace v. Lewis, 4 Harr. 75; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156; Babcock v. Bowman, 8 Ind. 110; Buckenrldge v. Ormsby, 1 Marsh J. J. 236, 248; 19 Am. Dec. 71; Kilbee V. Myrick, 12 Pla. 419. But see Thomas v. Hatch, 3 Sum. 170; Edgerton V. Wolf, 6 Gray, 466; Mustard v. Wohlford, 15 Gratt, 329, 343; Bedinger V. Wharton, 27 Gratt, 857; Eitts o. Hall, 9 N. H. 441; Chandler v. Sim- mons, 97 Mass, 508; Green ti. Green, 7 Huh. 4j 2j Gibson v. Soper, 6 Gray, 279, 282; 66 Am. Dec. 414; Badger v. Phinney, 15 Mass. 359; Price V. Eurman, 27 Vt. 268; 65 Am. Dec. 194; Dill v. Bowen, 64 Ind. 204; Manning v, Johnson, 26 Ala. 446; Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 363, 358; 21 Am. Dec. 689; Williams v. Norris, 2 Litt. Sel. Cas. 167, 158; Smith v. Evans, 5 Humph. 70; Grace v. Hale, 2 Humph. 27; 36 Am. Dec. 296; Hill V. Anderson, 5 Smedes & M. 216; Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396, 399; Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 92; but see Stout v. Merrill, 35 Iowa, 47; Kerru. Bell, 44 Mo. 120; Hillyer v. Bennett, 3 Edw. Ch. 222. But see Rusk V. Fenton, 14 Bush, 490; Addison v. Dawson, 2 Vern. 678. And see Davis Sewing Machine Co. u. Barnard, 43 Mich. 379 ; Fitzgerald v. Reed, 9 Smedes & M. 94; Scanlan v. Cobb, 85 111. 296; Niell v. Morley, 9 Ves. 478; Riggan v. Green, 80 N, C. 236; Price ». Berrington, 3 Macn. & G. 486; MenkinsB. Lightner, 18 111. 282; Ganger v. Skinner, 1 McCart. 389 j Carr v. Holliday, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 344; Batons, Eaton, 8 Vroom, 1P8. => Womack v. Womack, 8 Texas, 397 ; 68 Am. Dec. 119 ; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Stuart v. Baker, 17 Texas, 417; Pursley v. Hays, 17 Iowa, 311; Badgers. Phinney, 15 Mass. 359; 8 Am. Dec. 805; Hillyer v. Bennett, 3 Edw. Ch. 222; Smith v. Evans, 6 Humph. 70; Bartholomew v. Finnemore, 17 Barb. 628; Gray v. Lessington, 2 Bosw. 257; Ottman ». Moak, 6 Sand. Ch. 431; Kitchen v. Lee, 11 Paige, 107; 42 Am. Dec. 101; Roof V. Stafford, 7 Cowen, 179 ; Farr v. Sumner 12 Vt. 28 ; 36 Am. Dec. 327; Taft v. Pike, 14 Vt. 405; 39 Am. Dec. 228; Locke v. Smith, 41 N. H. 346; Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 668; 2 Kent. Com. 240. 749 •\/ § 793 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET III. his deed while he is an infant, and a second deed during infancy is no disaffirmance of the first. ^ § 793. Batification and disafflrmance. — What consti- tutes a ratification or a disaffirmance is, perhaps, not easy of solution. It is not necessary that the act of ratification should be as formal as the ordinary release of an outstand- ing claim of title ; but, on the other hand, the act or acts, froai which the ratification may be inferred, must be a suf- ficiently strong admission of the title of the grantee to give rise to the presumption, that the quandam inf'dnt or lunatic intends to ratify his deed.^ The acceptance of a lease, an oral acknowledgment of the validity of the conveyance, the subsequent acceptance of the consideration, provided these acts are done intelligently, will be a sufficient ratification.' 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 250; Emmons v. Murray, 16 N. H. 385; Hastings v. DoUarhide, 24 Cal. 195; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119; 31 Am. Dec. 285; McUormlc v. Leggett, 8 Jones (N. C), 425. In California this is changed by the Code. Civ. Code, sect. 335; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Williams, C. J., in Shipman v. Horton, 17 Conn. 482. See Pitcher v. Laycock, 7 Ind. 398; Hoylec. Stowe, 2Dev. & B. 820; Slator ». Trimble, 14 I. R. C. L. 342; Peterson v. Lails, 24 Mo. 541; McGau P.Mar- shall, 7 Humph. 121; Jacijson v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 131; Cresinger B. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156; 45 Am. Dec. 566. " Howe V. Howe, 99 Mass. 98. •'' Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 618; Bond v. Bond, 7 Allen 1 ; Ferguson v. Bell, 17 Mo. 347 ; Bond v. Bond, 7 Allen 1. And see Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Peters, 64; Eaton v. Eaton, 8 Vroom. 108; Arnold v. Richmond Iron Works, 1 Gray, 434; Robbins v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 561; Boody v. McKen- ney, 23 Me. 517; Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353; Alexander v. Harriot, 1 Bail. 223; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494; Phillips v. Green, 5 Mon. 344; Belton V. Briggs, 4 Desaus. Eq. 465; Deason v. Boyd, 1 Dana, 45; Barnaby v. Barnaby, 1 Pick. 221; Tyler on Infancy and Coverture, sect. 43 ; 2 Vent. 203 ; Boston Bank v. Chamberlin, 15 Mass. 220. See Lynde v. Bud d, 2 Paige, 1 91; Hubbard v. Cummings, 1 Me. 11; Danau. Coombs, 6 Me. 89; 19 Am. Dec. 194; Richardson v. Boright, 9 Vt. 368; Phillips v. Green, 5 Mon. 344, 355; Williams y. Mabee, 3 Halst. Ch. 500. See Eagle Eire Co. v. Lent, 1 Edw. Ch. 301; a. c. 6 Paige, 635; Houser v. Reynolds, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 143; 1 Am. Dec. 551; Eiggs v. Fisk, 8 Cent. L. J. 325; Hughes V. Watson, 10 Ohio, 127 ; Blankenship v. Stout, 25 111. 132; Howe V. Howe, 99 Mass, 98; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 111. 158. 750 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 793 So, on the other hand, an entry, the institution of a suit, a subsequent conveyance, are sufficient acts of disaffirmance to avoid the deed, and no subsequent ratification of the first deed can invalidate the title of the grantee in the second con- veyance if the second deed is recorded. ^ So far the courts are agreed. But whether a mere silent acquiescence will operate as a ratification is a disputed point. A number of the courts hold that, in order to avoid a deed made under dis- ability, it must be disaffirmed within a reasonable time after the removal of the disability, and that if the grantee is suf- fered to remain in possession for a long time, particularly if he makes valuable improvements upon the premises, the deed will be ratified, and the grantee's title made good.^ But the position is not sustained by the other courts, which maintain that mere acquiescence will not operate as a rati- fication, unless it has been so long continued as to bar the right of action under the Statute of Limitations.' 1 Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 76; Bond v. Bond, 7 Allen, 1; Jackson t>. Carpenter, 11 Johns, 541; Jackson v. Burchin, 14 Johns. 124; Drake V, Ramsey, 5 Ohio, 253; Black v. Hills, 36 111. 379; Williams, C. J., In Shipman v. Horton, 17 Conn. 482; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182. 2 Robins v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 561; Eramons v. Murray, 16 N. H. 385; Jackson v. Carpenter, l.l_Johns. _539; Bostwick v. Atkins, 3 N. Y. 58; ^ Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 506; Richardson v. Boright, 9 Vt. 371; Wallace V. Lewis, 4 Harr. 75; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. 41; Hartman v. Kendal, 4 Ind. 403; Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353, 359 ; 21 Am. Dec. 589 ; Richard- son V. Boright, 368, 371; Holmes v. Blogg, 8 Taunt. 35, 39, Dallas, J.; Hartley v. Wharton, 11 Ad. & E. 934; Civ. Code, sect. 35; Kline t7. Beebe, per Hosmer, Chief Justice, 6 Conn. 494, 505; Wallace u. Lewis, 4 Har. (Del.) 75; Wright v. Germain, 21 Iowa, 585; Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641; Flinn v. Powers, 36 How. Pr. 289; Hoit v. Underhill, 9 N. H. 439; 32 Am. Dec. 380. See Jamison v. Smith, 35 La. An. 609; Green ». Wilding, 59 Iowa, 679; 44 Am. Rep. 696. * Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 618; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 453; Drake V. Ramsey, 5 Ohio, 253; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156; Prout v. Wiley, 26 Mich. 164; Huth ». Carondelet, etc., R. R. Co., 56 Mo. 202; Thomas v. PuUis, 56 Mo. 211; Wallace v. Latham, 52 Miss. 291. See Stringer v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 82 Ind. 100; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 626; Tucker v. Moreland, IC Peters, 59; Huth v. Caron- delet, 56 Mo. 202, 210, per Napton J. See Urban v. Grimes, 2 Grant 751 § 794 THE EEQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET III. § 794. Deeds of married woman. — It may be stated as a general proposition that the deeds of married women, unless they are also executed by their husbands, or unless it is otherwise provided by statute, are absolutely void; and if, after becoming discovert, a second conveyance, or a second delivery of the same deed, is made, the deed takes effect as a primary conveyance from the time of the second delivery, and not as a secondary conveyance confirmatory of the prior conveyance during coverture.^ Reference is not made here to her sole and separate property. This species of property is an equitable estate governed by the rules of the law of uses and trusts ; this branch of the sub- ject has been already discussed, and the powers of married women in relation thereto explained.^ But in a number of the United States statutes have been enacted abolishing the entire common law in relation to the property rights of married women, and giving them the rights and capacity of single women.' In Massachusetts the separate deed of a married woman will be good for every other purpose except to convey the husband's right of curtesy therein.* And perhaps it may be doubtful in some of the other States,, where statutes of this character have been passed, whether it is not still necessary for the husband to join in the execu- tion of the deed, in order to bar his right of curtesy. la Cas. 96; Gillespie B. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70; Sims v. Everhardt, 22 Alb. L. J. 445; Sims v. Bardoner, 86 lad. 87; 44 Am. Eep. 263; Sims v. Smith, 86 Ind. 577; Shepley, J., In Boody v. McKenney, 23 Me. 517, 523; Jackson v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 539; Curtln v. Patten, H Serg. & R. 311. 1 Zouch V. Parsons, 3 Burr. 1805; Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 374; Hatch t>. Bates, 54 Me. 139 ; Lowell «. Daniels, 2 Gray, 761; Concord Bank t> . Bellis, 10 Cash. 277; Dow v. Jewell, 18 N. H. 355; Davis v. Andrews, 30 Vt. 681; Perrinew. Perrine, 11 N. J. Eq. 144; Harris ». Burdock, 4 Harr. 66; Le- fevre v. Murdock, Wright, 205; Baxter v. Bodkin, 25 Ind. 172; Bressler V. Kent, 61 111. 426; Cope ». Meeks, 3 Head, 388; Qoodright v. Straphan, Cowp. 201. ^ See ante, sect. 469. 3 See ante, sect. 94. * Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray, 458; WlUard v. Eastham, 16 Gray, 334; Campbell v. Bemis, 16 Gray, 487. 752 CH. XXII. j THE EEQUISITES Or A DEED. § 794 New York the husband's curtesy is barred by the separate conveyance of the wife.^ At commoa law the only mode of conveying the wife's property was by levying a fine.^ Subsequently, by statute, 3 & 4 Wrn. IV., ch. 74, a joint conveyance of husband and wife, when properly acknowl- edged, was made sufficient to convey her estate, thus doing away with the necessity of the fine.^ And still later, in 1874, by statute 37 & 38 Vict., ch. 78, when any estate shall be vested in a married woman as a bare trustee, she may convey it as freely as if she were a, feme sole.* But in this country fines and recoveries were never recognized as modes of conveying the interests of married women, and instead thereof it has from the early colonial days become customary in the United States for married women to convey their real estate by deed, in which their husbands joined. This cus- tom has been generally recognized wherever the common- law disability still prevails, and has been adopted as law and incorporated into the statutes of the different States.^ •In some of the States certain forms of conyeyance and modes of execution are prescribed by statute, and in those ' Tale V. Dederer, 22_K-X^fiO; Hatfield v. Sneden, 64 N. Y. 287. ■/ 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 252; Williams on Real Prop. 229, 230. ' Williams on Real Prop. 230. " Williams on Real Prop. 232. 5 Fowler ». Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; Lithgow v. Kavanagh, 9 Mass. 161 j Gordon a. Haywood, 2 N. H. 402; Jackson «. Gilchrist, 15 Johns. 110; Darey v. Turner, 1 Dall. 11; Lloyd's Lessees v. Taylor, 1 Ball. 17; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 252; Williams on Real Prop. 231, Rawle's note; 4 Kent's Com. 152, 154 ; Blythe v. Dargin, 68 Ala. 370 ; Evans v. Summerlin, 19Fla. 858; Rowe v. Hamilton, 3 Me. 63; Ex parte Thomas, 3 Me. 60;. Shaw V. Russ, 14 Me. 432; Holt v. Agnew, 67 Ala. 360; Lane v. McKean, 15 Ala. 304; Call v. Perkins, 65 Me. 439; Payne v. Parker, 10 Me. 178; Buchanan v. Hazzard, 95 Pa. St. 240; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; An- drews ». Hooper, 13 Mass. 476; Concord Bank ». Bellis, 10 Cash. 276; Ela». Card, 2 N. H. 176; 9 Am. Dec. 46: Gordon v. Haywood, 2 N. H. 402; Sumner v. Conant, 10 Vt. 20; Whiting v. Stevens, 4 Conn. 44; Hyde V. Morgan, 14 Conn. 104; Durante. Ritchie, 4 Mason, 45; Hall v. Savage, 4 Mason, 273; Powell v. The Monson & B. Manuf. Co., 3 Mason, 347; Manchester v. Hough, 6 Mason, 67. 48 753 § 794 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. States a strict compliance with the requirements of the statute is necessary; if it is not executed according to the statute the conveyance will be void.^ In some of the States it is required that she be examined privately by an officer authoi'ized to take oaths, and the deed acknowledged by her as her free act and deed, and she is generally required to state further, that her husband has not by any means of in- timidation prevailed upon her to execute it against her will.' In the New England States, and in some others, a privy ex- amination is not required, a simple acknowledgment being sufficient, and in some of the States the joint conveyance may be made by separate deeds. ^ It is also generally nec- 1 Hepburn v. Dubois, 12 Pet. 375; Elwood v. Blackf. 13 Barb. 50; Askew V. Daniel, 5 Ired. Eq. 321; Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36; Mariners. Saunders, 10 111. 113; Garrett o. Moss, 22 111. 363; Morrison ji. Wilson, 13 Cal. 498; McClure v. Douthitt, 6 Pa. 414; Glidden v. Strupler, 62 Pa. 400; Kirkland v. Hepselgefser, 2 Grant Cas. 84; Trimmer v. Heagy, 16 Pa. 484; Sulp v. Campbell, 19 Pa. 361 ; Peckc. Ward, 18 Pa. 361 ; Peck V. Ward, 18 Pa. 506; Stoops v. Blackford, 27 Pa. 213; Pettit v. Fretz, 33 Pa. 118; Rumfelt V. Clements, 46 Pa. 455; Thorndell ». Morrison, 25 Pa.- 326; Millenberger v. Croyle, 27 Pa. 170; Richards v. McClelland, 29 Pa. St. 385; Roseburg's Exrs. v. Sterling's Heirs, 27 Pa. 292. 2 Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Pay, 4 N. Y. 9; Dundas u. Hitchcock, 12 How. 256; Elliott v. Pearce, 20 Ark. 508; Askew v. Daniel, 5 Ired, Eq. 321; Doe ^). Fridge, 3 McLean, 245; Applegate v. Gracy, 9 Dana, 214; Scott V. Purcell, 7 Blackf. 66; Barton v. Morris, 5 Ohio, 408; Garrett v. Moss, 22 111. 363; Lyon v. Kain, 36 111. 370; Bours v. Zachariah, 11 Cal. 281; Sanders v. Bolton, 26 Cal. 408; 8 Washb. on Real Prop. 255, 256; Rowe V. Hamilton, 3 Me. 63; Ex parte Thomes, 3 Me. 50; Shaw v. Russ, 14 Me. 432; Holt v. Agnew, 67 Ala. 360; Lane v. McKean, 15 Ala. 304; Call u. Perkins, 65 Me. 439; Payne ti. Parker, 10 Me. 178; Buchanan b. Hazzard, 95 Pa. St. 240; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; Andrews v. Hooper, 13 Mass. 476; Concord Bank v. Bellis, 10 Cash. 276; Ela v. Card 2N. H. 176; 9 Am. Dec. 46; Gordon v. Haywood, 2 N. H. 402; Sumner V. Conant, 10 Vt. 20; Whiting v. Stevens, 4 Conn. 44: Hyde v. Morgan, 14 Conn. 104; Durant v. Ritchie, 4 Mason, 45; Hall -j. Savage, 4 Mason, 273; Powell v. The Monson & B. Manuf. Co., 3 Mason, 347; Manchester V. Hough, 5 Mason, 67; Blythe v. Dargin, 68 Ala. 370; Evans v. Sum- merlin, 19 Fla. 858. 3 4 Greenl. Cruise, 19, note; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 254, 265; 2 Kent's Com. 150-154; Shepherd v. Howard, 2 N. H. 507; Lawyer v. Slingerland, 11 Minn. 458; Strickland v. Bartlett, 51 Me. 355; Bean ». 754 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 795 essary that the deed, iii order to pass the wife's property, must contain words of grant which expressly or impliedly refer to her, and proceed from her. Merely signing a deed, in which the husband is represented as conveying his right or interest in the property, will not make it her deed. She must bo joined with him in the operative words of the deed. ^ But generally there will be a sufficient joining of the hus- band in the deed if he signs it. It is not necessary for him to be mentioned in the deed as one of the grantors.^ And where both are mentioned as grantors the deed may be made to convey not only her property, but also his independent interests in the same.' In seVeral of the States it is pro- vided by statute that a married woman will have the powers and capacity of single women, if her husband has deserted her, or has been consigned to prison, or has become inca- pable of executing deeds from any other cause.* It is im- possible to present within any narrow compass the details of the law in respect to property rights of married women, as it prevails in the different States. Ileference must be had to the statutes and decisions of the State in which the question arises. § 795. A disseisee cannot convey. — Another requisite under the head of competent grantors is, that the grantor is Boothby, 57 Me. 295; Woodward v. Seaver, 38 N. H. 29; Frary v. Booth, 37 Vt. 78. 1 Agricultural Bank v. Rice, 4 How. 225; Dundas v. Hitchcock, 12 How. 256 ; Lithgow v. Kavanagh, 9 Mass. 173 ; Lulkin v. Curtis, 13 Mass. 223; Dodge v. Nichols, 5 Allen, 548; Raymond v. Holden, 2 Cash. 264; Melvin v. Props, of Locks and Canals, 16 Pick. 137; Learned o. Cutler, 18 Pick. 9; Frost ii. Deering. 21 Me. 156; Whiting v. Stevens, 4 Conn. 44; Cincinnati v. Newhall, 7 Ohio St. 37; Purcell v. Goshorn, 17 Ohio, 105; Cox V. Wells, 7 Blackf. 410; Stearns v. Swift, 8 Pick. 532. 2 Hills «. Bearse, 9 Allen, 406; Elliott v. Sleeper, 2 N. H. 525; Wood- ward V. Seaver, 38 N. H. 29; Stone v. Montgomery, 35 Miss. 83; In- goldsby V. Juan, 12 Cal. 564. ' Needham v. Judson, 101 Mass. 161. ' 4 Greenl. Cruise, 19, 20; Gregory o. Pierce, 4 Mete. 478; Abbott v. Bayley, 6 Pick. 89; Boyce v. Owens, 1 Hill (S. C), 8. 755 § 795 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET IH, seised at the time of the conveyance. If the land is in the adverse possession of another, disseisin leaving nothing in him but a chose in action, the grantor is prohibited at com- mon law from conveying this interest. This prohibition has. been retained in a number of the States, to which reference is made in the cases cited below. ^ It has also been held that the disseisin of a mortgagor will invalidate the mortgage and the assignment of it by the mortgagee.'' But the deed IS only void against the parties in adverse possession at the time of the conveyance. As against the rest of the world and between the parties to the deed, it is good.^ And al- 1 Hathome v. Haines, 1 Me. 238; Foxcroft ». Barnes, 29 Mich. 128 j Barter u. Props., etc., 3 Mete. 98 ; Wade v. Lindsey, 6 Mete. 407; Sohier V. Coffin, 101 Mass. 179; Park v. Pratt, 68 Vt. 563; White v. Fuller, 38 Vt. 204 ; Dame o. Wingate, 12 N. H. 291 ; Thnrman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87; Den v. Shearer, 1 Murph. 114; Hoyle v. Logan, 4 Dev. 494; Gresham v. Webb, 29 Ga. 320; Helms «. May, 29 Ga. 124; Jones v. Mon- roe, 32 Ga. 188; Betsey ?;. Torrance, 34 Miss. 132; Ewing o. Savary, * Bibb, 424; Webb v. Thompson, 23 Ind. 432; German Ins. Co. ;;. Grim, 32- Ind. 257; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 546; Granger v. Swart, 1 Woolw. C. C. 91 ; Jackson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns^__479.;J'ackson v. An- drews, 7 Wend. 152; Murray v. Ballow, 1 Johns. Ch. 573; Ludlow jr. Kidd, 3 Ohio, 541. See Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. 467; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 37; Loud u. Darling, 7 Allen, 205; Way v. Arnold, 18 Ga. 181 ; Burdick, 14 R. I. 574; Dame ». Wingate, 12 N. H. 291; Johnson V. Cook, 73 Ala. 537; Bernstein c. Humes, 75 Ala. 241; Sohier v. Coffin, 101 Mass. 179; Jones v. Monroe, 32 Ga. 188; Hoyle v. Logan, 4 Dev, 495; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87; Gresham v. Webb, 29 Ga. 320 Den V. Shearer, 1 Murph. 114; Hathorne v. Haines, 1 Me. 238; Ewingt) Savary, 4 Bibb, 424; Helms v. May, 29 Ga. 121; Betsey «. Torrance, 34 Miss. 132; Parker v. Proprietors, etc., 3 Met. 98; 37 Am. Dec. 121 Stockton M. Williams, 1 Dongl. (Mich.) 546; Wade v. Liodsey, 6 Met 407, 414; Selleck r. Starr, 6 Vt. 194; Foxcroft v. Barnes, 29 Me. 128 Granger v. Swart, 1 Woolw. 91 ; Harral v. Leverty, 50 Conn. 46 ; 47 Am. Rep 608; Burgett v. Taliaferro, 118 111. 503; Johnson v. Prairie, 94 N. C. 7T3, 2 Williams v. Baker, 49 Me. 428. 3 Wade ». Lindsey, 6 Mete . 407; Farmer v. Peterson, 111 Mass. 151; Edwards u. Roys, 18 Vt. 473; White v. Fuller, 38 Vt. 204; Park v. Pratt, 38 Yt. 653 ; Livingston v. Proseus, 2 Hill, 526 ; Livingston o. Peru Iron Co., 9 Wend. 511; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 546; Betsey v. Torrance, 34 Miss. 138 ; Brinley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348, 355 ; Loud v. Darling, 7 Allen, 206; Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219; Barry v. Adams, 756 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 795 though the legal title, as against the disseisor, remains in the grantor unafi'ected by the grant, the grantee acquires such an interest in the land as will enable him to claim the land against the grantor, and maintain his action of ejectment against the disseisor in the name of the grantor. ^ But it is always competent for the grantor to make a good convey- ance of lands in the adverse possession of another by enter- ing upon the land and delivering the deed there, His entry restores the seisin to him for the time being, and interrupts the continuity of the adverse possession.^ This doctrine does not apply to incorporeal hereditaments, nor to such adverse possession of strips of land arising from a mistake as to the boundaries.^ And since a State cannot be disseised, no adverse possession will invalidate its deed of convey- ance.* These principles prevail generally in this country, but in some of the States the entire doctrine has been re- pudiated, and it is there held that disseisin does not in any way affect the capacity of the grantor to convey.^ 3 Allen, 493; Kincaia v. Meadows, 3 Head, 192; Sohier v. Coffin, 101 Mass. 179; Farnum v. Peterson, 111 Mass. 151. See McMahan v. Bowe, 114 Mass. 140; Snow o. Orleans, 126 Mass. 453; Alexander v. Carew, 13 Allen, 72; Edwards v. Roys, 18 Vt. 473; Livingston «. Peru Iron Co., 9 Wend. 511; University of Vermont v. Joslyn, 21 Vt. 61 ; White v. Fuller, 38 Vt. 204; Betsey ». Torrance, 34 Miss. 138; Livingston v. Proseus, 2 Hill, 526; Wade v. Lindsey, 6 Mete. 407; Stocliton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. . Lee, 73 6a. 25- 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 265. ^ German Assn. v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 331. See ante, sect. 445, and post, sects. 883, 884. ■• Austin V. Shaw, 10 Allen, 552; Brown v. Combs, 29 N. J. L. 3fi; Tower v. Hale, 46 Barb. 361; Den v. Hay, 21 N. J. L. 174. See posJ, sects. 883, 884, in reference to the devises to unincorporated bodies. ' Horubeck v. Westbrook, 9 Johns. 73 ; Hunter u. Watson, 12 Cal. 363. • Jackson v. Corey, 8 Johns. 388; Hornbeck v. Westbrook, 9 Johns. 74; Hardiau. Hardin (S. C. 1890), 11 S. E. 102.' ' Bean u. Kenmuir, 86 Mo. 666; Bodine's Admr. u. Arthur (Ky. 1891), 14 S. W. 904. 762 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 799 § 799. A thing to be granted. — In order that there may be a conveyance, there must be a thing to be conveyed, and this must be sufficiently described in the deed, so as to be capable of easy identification.^ It may now be stated as a general rule, subject to a few exceptions to be mentioned hereafter, that every freehold interest in, or issuing out of, lands must and can only be conveyed by deed.^ And what- ever is created by deed, can only be transferred by deed.^ Not only must estates in the land itself be conveyed by deed, but incorporeal hereditaments of a freehold character, Easements, profits a prendre, the mines and other deposits upon the land apart from the soil, all require a deed to be granted.* It has been a much debated question whether, to pass the title to growing or standing trees, it is neces- sary that the sale should be made by writing. Some authorities hold, notably the English courts, that if the sale contemplates the immediate removal of the trees, it is not necessary that it should be done by deed or other instrument in writing, since it can and ought to be considered a sale of chattels rather than an 1 See post, sects. 827-841, for a discussion of the usual elements of a description of the land, and for what is a sufficient description. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 341. Mr. Washburn, on the page referred to, says that " since the Statute of Frauds (29 Charles II. ch. 3), a deed has been required, in order to convey a freehold, in, to, or out of any messuages, manors, lands, tenements, or hereditaments." The Statute of Frauds only requires such conveyances to be put in writing, and does not require a deed. When this section (799) was written, the author had entertained the generally prevailing idea that a deed, i. «., an instrument in writing under seal, was necessary to convey all freehold interests In lands, and had not yet written section 783, in which the contrary posi- tion, with qualifluations, has been assured. Inasmuch as a deed is nec- essary in the conveyance of very many freehold interests — for example, incorporeal hereditaments — the present section has not been altered ; but the statements made there and elsewhere must be read in the light of section 783. s 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 341. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 341. See ante, sect. 783. 763 ^ 799 THE EEQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET III. interest in the freehold. ^ On the other hand, the courts of this country generally hold th;it standing trees are " a part of the inheritance, and can only become per- sonality by actual severance, or by severance in contempla- tion of law as the effect of a proper instrument in writing.' A sale of standing trees is a twofold contract. It includes a sale of trees when severed from the land, which must necessarily be executory in its character, and a license to go upon the land and remove them. Until a severance has been made, the only vested interest which the vendee has is the license, and it being an interest in land, it is revocable unless granted by a proper instrument of conveyance. Where the license is of a definite duration, it being then a leasehold interest in the land, a deed strictly so-called will not be necessary. But if it is indefinite, it becomes a free- hold interest in lands, and requires a deed to grant it.* Standing trees and other things growing upon the land cer- tainly pass with the conveyance of the freehold, unless ex- pressly excepted.* If, therefore, a sale is made of standing 1 Smith V. Surman, 9 B. & C. 561; Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 829; Marshall v. Green, 33 L. T. Rep. (n. s.) 404; Bostwick v. Leach, 3 Day, 476. But In Eodwell v. Phillips, 9 Mees. & W. 505, contra, the court say: " It must be admitted, taking the cases altogether, that no general rule is laid down in any one of them that is not contradicted by some other." 2 Slocum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. 139; TruU v. Fuller, 28 Me. 548; Green e. Armstrong, 1 Denio, 550; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 117; Vorebeck V. Roe, 50 Barb. 305; Claflin v. Carpenter, 4 Mete. 580; Parsons b. Smith, 5 Allen, 580; Giles v. Slmonds, 15 Gray, 441; Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 548; Poor?). Oakmau, 104 Mass. 816; Whiten. Foster, 102 Mass. 378; Buck V. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 164. 3 Clap V. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Denio, 554; KiDgsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313; Howe v. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 208; Sterling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 308; Huff v. McCauley, 58 Pa. St. 210; Pattl- sou's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 297. < Brackets. Goddard, 54 Me. 313; Xoble v. Bosworth, 19 Pick. 314; Mott V. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill, 142; Terhaw v. Ebberson, 1 Pa. St. 726; Cook v. Whiting, 16 III. 481. Bat Chancellor Kent maintains that growing crops do not pass with the grant of the land. 4 Kent's Com. 468; Smith v. Johnston, 1 Pa. St. 471. See Foote v. Colvin, 764 OH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 800 trees with a pai'ol license to enter and cut them, it does not prevent the title to the trees from passing to a subsequent grantee ; the license by such subsequent conveyance is re- voked, and the licensee is left to his remedy against his licenser for the breach of his executory contract.^ Some of the courts are also inclined to treat the sale of annual crops as the sale of chattels instead of an interest in lands. This is undoubtedly the correct theory, qualified, however, by the statement that the sale must be evidenced by some writing, in order to give to the vendee any vested interest during the growth of the crop. But since the license is only for a year, or less than a year, anv writing will suffice. 2 § 800. A thing to be granted — Continued — A mere possibility. — A further qualification of the above stated general rule is, that there cannot be a grant of a mere possi- bility, unless coupled with a vested interest. It must be a vested present future estate.* But this rule is not now en- forced so rigidly as formerly. Thus, the deed of an heir apparent conveying his ancestor's estates has been held to attach in equity to the estate upon the death of the ancestor.* Also a grant by a soldier of bounty lands to be thereafter- 3 Johns. 216 ; Kittridge v. Wood, 3 N. H. 503 ; Turner v. Eeynolds, 23 Pa. St. 199; Chapman v. Long, 10 Ind. 465; Mcllvaine v. Harris, 20 Mo. 467. 1 Whitmarsh v. Walker, 1 Mete. 313; Giles v. Simonds, 15 Gray, 441. 2 Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East, 602; Waddington v. Bristow, 2 B. & P. 452; Warwick ». Bruce, 2 M. & S. 205; Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 836; Whipple V. Foote, 2 Johns. 418; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns. 108; Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 40; Green ». Armstrong, 1 Denio, 554; Powell V. Kich, 31 111. 469; Graff v. Fitch, 58 111. 377, s Ful wood's Case, 4 Eep. 66; Davis v. Hayden, 9 Mass. 519; Trull v. Eastman, 3 Mete. 121; Jackson v. Catlin, 2 Johns. 261; Dart v. Dart, 7 Conn. 255; Baylor v. Commonwealth, 40 Pa. St. 37; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 348. < Stover u. Eycleshimer, 46 Barb. 84; Trull ». Eastman, 3 Mete. 121. But this is true only where the conveyance is a deed with covenant of war- ranty. Gardner v. Pace (Ky.), 11 S. W. Eep. 779. See, also, ante, sects. 727, 728. 765 § 801 THE EEQDISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. wards given to him by the government. ^ So, also, can there be a grant of a right of redemption from a mortgage or deed of trust. ^ And a further modification is attained by the application of the doctrine of estoppel arising on a covenant of title in the deed.^ § 801. The consideration. — It is sometimes stated as a general proposition that a consideration, good or valuable, is necessary to be acknowledged or proved, in order to pass the title to real estates. Without qualification and expla- nation, this is incorrect and misleading. All common-law conveyances, properly so-called, which operate by transmu- tation of possession, or as grants, such as feoffments, re- leases, etc., and modern statutory conveyances, where the statute does not provide otherwise, will be effectual to pass the legal estate of any interest in lands, and, except in the case of the grant of a fee by a common-law conveyance, the equitable estate also, without resting upon any consid- eration whatever.* And where a deed can operate both as a common- law conveyance and as a conveyance under the Statute of Uses, the want of a consideration will not pre- vent it from passing the legal title as a common-law con- veyance. ° A common-law conveyance passes the legal title without a consideration, but if the estate granted is a fee simple, since it is presumed under the doctrine of resulting uses that a man will not part with the beneficial interest in real property without receiving some consideration therefor, 1 Jackson v. Wright, 14 Johns. 193. " Lindley v. Crombie, 31 Minn. 232. ' See ante, sects. 727, 728. * Greens. Thomas, 11 Me. 318; Laberee u. Carlton, 63 Me. 212; Boyn- toni). Rees, 8 Pick. 332; Smith u. Allen, 5 Allen, 458; Rogers u. Hillhouse, 3 Conn. 398; Winans v. Peebles, 31 Barb. 380; Taylor v. King, 6 Manf. 358; Den v. Hanks, 5Ired. 30; Doe v. Hurd, 7 Blackt. 510; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Ind. 331; Pierson v. Armstrong, 1 Clark (Iowa), 282; Perry V. Price, 1 Mo. 553; Jackson u. Dillon, 2 Overt. 261. 5 Cheney v. Watkins, 1 Harr. & J. 527; Den v. Hanks, 5 Ired. 30; Poe V. Domec, 48 Mo. 481. See ante, sects. 779, 782. 766 CH. XXII. ] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 801 the use or equitable interest tlierein results to the grantor, and the Statute of Uses draws the legal seisin out of the grantee and revests it in the grantor. ^ But this is merely a legal presumption, and may be rebutted b}' other evidence appearing in the deed and showing a contrary intention on the part of the grantor.'' For this reason it is customary in Massachusetts, and, perhaps, in other States, in the ordinary deed to grant the premises to the grantee and his heirs, to his and their use. The employment of the italicised clause excludes the idea of a resulting use.' Mr. Williams says: "AH that was ultimately effected by the Statute of Uses was to import into the rules of law some of the then existing doctrines of the courts of equity, and to add three words, to the use, to every conveyance."*' It is, however, different with conveyances which operate under the Statute of Uses, such as bargain and sale, covenant to stand seised, lease and release. For reasons already explained,^ in all three of these conveyances a consideration is necessary, in order to raise in the grantee the use which the statute is to execute. In a bargain and sale, or lease and release, a valuable con- sideration was necessary, while a good consideration was sufficient to support a covenant to stand seised.® But the valuable consideration need not be substantial or adequate, in order to pass title as between the parties.' In Missouri it seems doubtful that a valuable consideration must be See ante, sect. 443. 2 See ante, sect. 443. 8 2'Wa8hb. on Real Prop. 440; Williams on Eeal Prop. 188; 2 Sand, on Uses, 64-69. < Williams on Real Prop. 159, 160. « See ante, sects. 444, 773-776. « Goodspeed v. Fuller, 46 Me. 141; Jackson v. Florence, 16 Johns. 47; Jackson?;. Caldwell, 1 Cow. 622; Jackson v. Delancey, 4 Cow. 427; Oki- son V. Patterson, 1 Watts & S. 39S; Boardman v. Dean, 34 Pa. St. 252; Cheney v. Watkins, 1 Harr. & J. 527; Den v. Hanks, 5 Ired. 30; Woodc. Beach, 7 Vt. 522; Young ». Eingo, 1 B. Mon. 30; Webb ». Webb, 29 Ala. 606; Kinnebrew v. Kinnebrew, 35 Ala. 636. ' Diefendorf v. Diefendorf (1890), 8 N. Y. S. 617. 767 § 801 THE REQUISITES OP A DEED. [PART III.. acknowledged or proved in a bargain and sale.^ And in Tennessee it has been held unnecessary under their statute to acknowledge a consideration in any deed.^ But if there be a good consideration between the parties, although the deed be in form a bargain and sale, it will be treated as a covenant to stand seised.^ And although a consideration is generally necessary to the validity of deeds under the Stat- ute of Uses, it is not necessary that the consideration should actually be passed to the grantor if the receipt of a proper consideration is acknowledged by him in the deed. But it must be acknowledged in the deed, or proved aliunde to have actually passed.* The acknowledgment of the consid- eration is only prima facie evidence of the character and amount of the consideration. And if one is expressed, another consideration may be proved if it be not inconsis- tent with or contradictory of the one expressed.^ But no parol evidence will be admitted to prove that the considera- tion acknowledged in the deed was never paid, in order to Perry v. Price, 1 Mo. 653. That is because the same deed may operate as a feoffment, since the delivery and registration of the deed are equivalent to livery of seisin. See also Poe u. Domec, 48 Mo. 441. 2 Jackson i;. Dillon, 2 Overt. 261. See also Fetrow ti. Merriweather, 53 111. 278. 8 See ante, sects. 774-776, 782. * Jackson «. Alexander, 8 Johns. 434; Jackson v. Pike, 9 Cow. 69; Jackson v. Leek, 19 Wend. 339; Jackson «. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. 230; Wood V. Beach, 7 Vt. 522; White v. Weeks, 1 Pa. St. 486; Den «. Hanks, 5 Ired. 30; Toulmin v. Austin, 5 Stew. & P. 470; Young v. Ringo, 1 B. Mon. 30. But see Boardman v. Dean, 34 Pa. St. 252. The acknowledg- ment of a consideration will be sufficient to raise a use only when it is under seal. In order, therefore, that a bargain and sale may create a use and pass the legal title by instrument in writing not under seal, in con- formity with the doctrine laid down in sect. 783, a consideration must actually pass from the grantee to the grantor. « Pierce v. Brew, 43 Vt. 295; Drury v. Tremont, etc., Co., 13 Allen, 171; Paige v. Sherman, 6 Gray, 611; Miller v. Goodwin, 8 Gray, 542; Morris Canal v. Ryerson, 27 N. J. L. 467; Parker v. Foy, 43 Miss. 260; Toulmin v. Austin, 6 Stew. & P. 410; Rabsuhl v. Lack, 35 Mo. 316; Law- ton V. Buckingham, 15 Iowa, 22; Harper v. Perry, 28 Iowa, 63. 768 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 802 invalidate the deed between the grantor and grantee. ^ The amount acknowledged is presumed to be the true considera- tion agreed upon ; but this is not conclusive. In an action to enforce the payment of the consideration a different amount may be established by parol evidence, and the ac- knowledgment of the receipt of the consideration is no bar to its recovery. The recital of the consideration in a deed is only conclusive as to the fact that there was a considera- tion to the deed.^ § 802. Voluntary and fraudulent conveyances. — Al- though a consideration may not be necessary to make a valid conveyance, as between the parties and their privies, the question presents a different phase in respect to the creditors of the grantor. Questions of this kind arise under the statutes 13 Eliz. ch. 5, and 27 Eliz. ch. 4, which have been substantially re-enacted in all the States of this coun- try. The statutes are said to be affirmatory of the common law. Whether this be so is a matter of very little impor- tance. Under the statutes, if a conveyance of lands is made 1 Trafton v. Hawes, 102 Mass. 541; Wilkinson v. Scott, 17 Mass. 257; Ballard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 537; Basford v. Pearson, 9 Allen, 393; Good- speed V. Fuller, 46 Me. 141; Bassett o. Bassett, 55 Me. 127; Eockwell v. Brown, 54 N. T. 213; Murdock v. Gilclirist, 52 N. Y. 246; Calloway v. Hearn, 1 Houst. 610 ; Mendenhall v. Parisli, 8 Jones L. 108 ; Lowe v. Weatherley, 4 Dev. & B. 212; Kimball i7. Walker, 30 111. 511; Lake v. Gray, 35 Iowa, 462; Kumler v. Ferguson, 7 Minn. 442; Coles v. Soulsby, 21 Cal. 47; RWra v. Ellen, 36 Cal. 362. 2 Goodspeed v. Fuller, 46 Me. 141; Bassett v. Bassett, 55 Me. 127; Pierce v. Brew, 43 Vt. 295; Beach v. Packard, 10 Vt. 96 ; Paige v. Slier- man, 6 Gray, 511; Miller v. Goodwin, 8 Gray, 542; Wilkinson v. Scott, 17 Mass. 257; Murdock v. Gilclirist, 52 N. Y. 246; Grout v. Townsend, 2 Denio, 335 ; Morris Canal v. Eyerson, 27 N. J. L. 467 ; Callaway v. Hearn, 1 Houst. 610; Mendenhall v. Parish, 8 Jones L. 108; Lowe v. Weather- ley, i Dev. & B. 212; Parker v. Foy, 43 Miss. 260; Eabshul v. Lack, 35 Mo. 316; Kimball v. Walker, 30 111. 511; Eockhill v. Spaggs, 9 Ind. 30; Lawton v. Buckingham, 16 Iowa, 22; Harper ». Perry, 28 Iowa, 63; Kumler v. Ferguson, 7 Minn. 442; Irvine v. McKeon, 23 Cal. 475; Ehim V. Ellen, 36 Cal. 302; Gaze v. Hoyt, 58 Vt. 536; Mills v. Allen (Mills v. Dew's Admr.), 133 U. S. 423; 10 S. Ct., 413. 49 769 ^ 802 THE EEQUISITES OF A DEED. [pAET III. without a substantial valuable consideration, while the grantor is in debt, under certain circumstances at least, ex- isting creditors can avoid the conveyance, and satisfy their demands by proceeding against the land . If the conveyance is to any one except a child or wife, or in other words where there is not even a good consideration passing be- tween the parties, the conveyance is in any case void as against existing creditors.^ But in a voluntary conveyance to a wife or child, if at the time of the conveyance suflScient was left in the hands of the grantor to amply secure existing creditors, the conveyance will nevertheless be good. But if the grantor is insolvent, then it may be avoided by existing creditors.^ Subsequent creditors have no interest in such conveyances, and cannot avoid them unless they have been made with an actual fraudulent intent,* and then they may be avoided by subsequent as well as existing creditors.* And even where the consideration is valuable, if it is done with a fraudulent intent, and the grantee participates in the fraud, the deed can be avoided by creditors. But if the grantee is an innocent purchaser for value, he acquires a ^ Sexton V. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229; Hinde's Lessee v. Longworth, 11 V7heat. 199; Lerow ?;. Wilmarth, 9 Allen, 386; Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. 500; Salmon ». Bennett, 1 Conn. 525; Washband ». Wash- band, 27 Conn. 424; Doe v. Hurd, 7 Blackf. 510; Mercer v. Mercer, 29 Iowa, 557; Bullitt v. Taylor, 34 Miss. 708. 2 Lerow t>. Wilmarth, 9 Allen, 386; Pomeroy y. Bailey, 43 N. H. 118; Van Wyck V. Seward, 6 Paige, 62; Baker v. Bliss, 39 N. Y. 70; Posten v. Pos- ten, 4 Whart. 42; Miller v. Pearce, 6 Watts & S. 101; Gridley v. Watson, 53 111. 193; Bridgtord v. Riddel, 55 111. 261; Pratt v. Meyers, 56 111. 24; Stewart v. Rogers, 25 Iowa, 395; Baldwin v. Tattle, 23 Iowa, 74. ' Thacheri). Phinney, 7 Allen, 150; Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray, 447; Traf. ton V. Hawes, 102 Mass. 541; Lormore v. Campbell, 60 Barb. 62; Stone v. Meyers, 9 Minn. 311. •* Marston v. Marston, 56 Me. 476; Parkman v. Welch, 19 Pick. 231; Coolidge V. Melvin, 42 N. H. 521; Redfleld v. Buck, 35 Conn. 329; Paulk tj. Cooke, 39 Conn. 566; Van Wycke v. Seward, 6 Paige, 62; Savage v. Murphy, 34 N. Y. 508; Case v. Phelps, 39 N. Y. 164; Williams v. Davis, 69 Pa. St. 21 ; Pratt v. Myers, 56 111. 24; Bridgeford v. Riddle, 55 111. 261; Bul- litt V. Taylor, 34 Miss. 740 ; Herschefeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 466. 770 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 803 good title free from the claims of the creditors. ^ Voluntary conveyances are those which do not rest upon a valuable consideration. And under the term " valuable considera- tion " the law includes everything possessing a pecuniary value and likewise a promise to marry, as well as actual marriage. Conveyances possessihg any one of these con- siderations are not voluntary.^ Although the valuable con- sideration must be substantial, it need not be adequate in order to make the conveyance good against cred- itors.^ It is further necessary, in order that a conveyance may be avoided by creditors, that the thing conveyed must be subject to levy and sale under execution. The con- veyance of a homestead without consideration cannot be avoided by creditors for being voluntary.* § 803. Operative words of conveyance. — To make a complete and valid conveyance, it is also necessary that the deed should contain what are termed operative words of conveyance, i. e., words which clearly manifest the intent of the grantor to part with his interest or estate in the land. It has been shown more at length in a previous chapter what 1 Oriental Bank;;. Haskins, 3 Mete. 340; Somes ». Brewer, 2 Pick. 184; Bridge v. Eggleston, 14 Mass. 250; Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 131; Clapp v. Tirrell, 20 Pick. 247; Jackson v. Henry, 10 Johns. 185; Verplancki!. Sterry, 12 Jolins. 552; Carpenter ». Murin, 42 Barb. 300; Wright v. Brandls, 1 Ind. 336; Ruffing v. Tilton, 12 Ind. 260; Hughes V. Monty, 24 Iowa, 499; Chapel ». Clapp, 29 Iowa, 194; Wright ». Howell, 35 Iowa, 292. 2 Prodgers v. Langham, 1 Sid. 133; Smith a. Allen, 5 Allen, 458; Washband v. Washband, 27 Conn. 424; Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 261 ; Huston V. Cantril, 11 Leigh, 176; Eockhill v. Spraggs, 9 Ind. 32. 8 Washband v. Washband, 27 Conn. 424; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229; Hinde's Lessee v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. 199; Salmon?;. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525; Lerow v. Wilmarth, 9 Allen, 380; Beade v. Living- ston, 3 Johns Ch. 500; Bullitt v. Taylor, 34 Miss. 708; Mercer v. Mercer, 29 Iowa, 557; Doe v. Hurd, 7 Blackf. 510. ' * Gassett c. Grout, 4 Mete. 490; Danforth v. Beattie, 43 Vt. 138; Wood V. Chambers, 20 Texas, 254; Dreutzer ». Bell, 11 Wis. 114; 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 334. But see contra sect. 163, note. 771 § 803 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III are the technical operative words usually employed iu the different kinds of common-law and statutory couveyances,i and nothing further in respect to them need be added here. The deed in general use in all the States contains ordina- rily the words " give, grant, bargain, and sell," and this deed may be construed to be a primary or secondary con- veyance, a common-law conveyance, or one under the Stat- ute of Ubes, according as one or the other construction would best effectuate the intention of the parties.^ Not only is this the rule, but it is not even necessary to use the technical operative words of any kind of conveyance, al- though it is advisable to do so to remove all doubt as to the validity of the conveyance. Any words, although not rec- ognized as formal or technical words of conveyance, will be sufficient, if they establish clearly the intention to transfer the estate.^ Thus, where the grant was to A. and his heirs, provided if A. died in his minority without issue, then the property was to go to the issue of B., the word go was held sufficient, in connection with the previous grant, to pass the estate to the issue of B.* And the word alien has been held sufficient to pass an estate in reversion, where the con- veyance would not operate as a bargain and sale, for the 1 See ante, ch. XXI., sect. 3. 2 See ante, sect. 782. 3 Roe V. Tranmarr, 2 Wils. 75; s. c. Smith's Ld. Cas. ; Shove t>. PIncke, 5 T. R. 124; Harden b. Chase, 32 Me. 229; Lynch v. Livingston, 8 Barb. 468; Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. St. 300; Folk v. Yarn, 9 Rich. Eq. 303; Young v. Ringo, 1 B. Mon. 30; McKinney v. Settles, 31 Mo. 541; Spencer u. Kobbins, 106 Ind. 580; Wilson v. Albert, 89 Mo. 537; 1 S. W. 209; Jennings v. Brizeadlne, 44 Mo. 332; Wilcoxson ». Sprague, 51 Cal. 640; Lynch v. Livingston, 8 Barb. 483, 485; Marden v. Chase, 32 Me. 329; Collins V. Lavelle, 44 Vt. 230; Pierson u. Armstrong, 1 Iowa, 282; Jackson v. Alexander, 3 Johns. 484; Roe v. Tranmarr, 2 Wils. 75, 78; Clanrickard v. Sidney, Hob. 277; Young v. Riugo, I Mou. 30, 32; 1 Wood on Conveyancing, 203 ; 2 Rolle. Abr. 789, pi. 30. See Shep. Touch. 82, 222 ; Coruish on Purchase Deeds, 29 ; 3 Wash. Real Prop. 379 ; Schmitt V. Giovanari, 43 Cal. 617; Rowe v. Beckett, 30 Ind. 154; and see Folk V. Yarn, 9 Rich. Eq. 303 ; Patterson v. Carneal, 3 Marsh. A. K. 619. * Folk V. Yarn, 9 Rich. Eq. 303. 772 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 805 want of enrollment. 1 On the other hand, a deed, in which the only words of conveyance were " sign over," was held to be invalid.^ So, likewise, the word "reserve" was held to be insufficient.' In like manner, it would not be fatal to the validity of the deed if the operative words are in the past, instead of the present tense, for example, " nas given and granted," instead of " do give and grant," but it is the prevailing custom in most parts of this country to use both tenses, viz. : have given and granted and do here- by give and grant, although the past tense is mere sur- plusage.* § 804. Execution, what constitutes. — By the execution of a deed are here meant the various formalities required by law for the completion of it, which include signing, sealing, attestation and acknowledgment. And, according to a late authority, delivery also.^ A deed may be executed either by the grantor himself, or by an agent duly authorized to act for him. § 805. Power of attorney. — It requires, however, to enable an agent to execute a deed for his principal, a power of attorney under seal, the rule of agency being that the power must be of the same grade of instrument as that which the agent is to execute.* This statement must be 1 Adams v. Steer, Cro. ,Tac. 210. 2 McKinney v. Settles, 31 Mo. 541; "Webb v. Mullins, 78 Ala. 111. s Hall V. Hall (Miss.), 5 So. Eep. 523; Davis v. McGrew, 82 Cal. 135 (" Waive and renounce "). ^ 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 378; Pierson v. Armstrong, 1 Iowa, 292. s Colee V. Colee, 122 Ind. 109; 23 N. E. 687. " Livingston v. Peru Iron Co., 9 Wend. 622; Hanford v. McNalr, 9 Wend. 54; Stetson v. Patten, 2 Me. 358; Alontgomery v. Dorion, 6 N. H. 250; Tappan v. Eedfleld, 5 N. J. Eq. 399; Kime v. Brooks, 9 Ired. 219; Doe V. Blacker, 27 Ga. 418; Smith v. Dickenson, 6 Humph. 261; Plummer V. Russel, 2 Bibb, 17; Rhode v. Louthain, 8 Blackf. 413; Moore v. Pen- dleton, 16 Ind. 481; Videau v. Griffin, 21 Cal. 389; Territory ». Klee (Wash. 1890), 23 Pac. 417. See Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. 513; 5 Am. Dec. 286 ; Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. 400 ; 22 Am. Dec. 379 ; Gram v. 773 § 805 THE REQUISITES OP A DEED. [PART III. qualified by the remark that, if it is executed by the agent in the presence of the principal, it is constructively the manual act of the principal, and needs no power of attorney under seal.^ This is not only the rule in regard to ordinary agencies, but it applies also to the general agency of partners in a partnership. Without an express authority granted by a power of attorney under seal, the conveyance by one partner of partnership lands, although in the name of the partnership, will pass only his interest or share in the prop- erty. And a subsequent ratification, to be effective, must also be by an instrument under seal.^ In respect to the manner in which the deed must be executed, when done by an agent, the law is extremery technical. In the execution, the act must appear to be that of the principal, and the deed must show through whom the principal acts. It must be the principal's deed ; he must grant and convey the land. If the premises of the deed are in the name of the agent, although he signs the deed as agent, and the deed contains a recital of his authority, it will not be the deed of the Seton, 1 Hall, 262; Story on Partnership, sect. 122; N. Banorgee v. Hovey, 5 Mass. 11; 4 Am. Dec. 417; Reed v. Van Ostrand, 1 Wend. 424; 19 Am. Dec. 529; Hanford v. McNalr, 9 Wend. 54; 19 Am. Dec. 529; Blood V. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 68; 24 Am. Dec. 121; McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Ohio, 223; 38 Am. Dec. 731; Harrison v. Jackson, 7 Term Rep. 207; Cooper V. Rankin, 5 Binn. 613; Gordon v. Bulkley, 14 Serg. & R. 331; Hunter v. Parker, 7 Mees. & W. 322. ^ 1 Ball V. Duntersville, 4 T. R. 313; King v. Longnor, 4 B. & Ad. 647; Frost c. Deering, 21 Me. 156; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 309; Gardner v. Gardner, 5 Cash. 483; Wood v. Goodrldge, 6 Gush. 117; McKay v. Blood- good, 9 Johns. 285; Kime v. Brooks, 9 Ired. 219; Videau v. Griffiu, 21 Cal. 392; Jansen v. Cahill, 22 Cal. 563; Videau v. Griffin, 21 C.d. 389; Frost ». Deering, 21 Me. 156; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 309; Goodell r>. Bates, 14 R. I. 65; Ball v. Dunsterville, 4 Term Rep. 313; Pierce ». Hakes, 23 Pa. St. 231 ; Mutual, etc., Ins. Co. v. Brown, 30 N. J. Eq. 193; Gardner v. Gardner, 5 Gush. 483; King v. Longnor, 4 Barn. & Adol. 647; Lovejoy v. Richardson, 68 Me. 386; Lord Lovelace's Case, Jones, W. 268. 2 Pars, on Part. 369 ; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 262. In Iowa a parol ratification is held to be sufficient to effectuate the conveyance by one partner. Haynes v. Seacrest, 13 Iowa, 455. 774 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 805 principal, and hence inoperative.^ However, such a deed would be evidence of a sale having been made, and would vest in the grantee an implied equitable title, which could be con- verted into a legal title by an action for specific perform- ance or for reformation of the deed.^ The proper mode of signing is A. (priucipal) by B. (agent) ; and there are some authorities which hold that no other signature will be a good execution. But the rule has of late been somewhat relaxed, so that where the deed purports in terms to be the act of the principal, and the signature is B. (agent) for A. (prin- cipal), or B. as the attorney of A., and the like, it will be a valid execution.^ But the deed must be in the name of the principal and it must be sealed with his seal.* If signed by the agent without affixing the principal's name, it will be a defective execution ; and so also, if the principal's name is signed without mentioning that it was done by at- torney.* But it has been held that a recital in the deed, that it was executed by the grantor by attorney, does away with the necessity of the signature of the agent.' To be good the principal must also be alive. A common-law power of attorney dies with the principal, and the deed by the attor- ney after the death of the principal is absolutely void.^ But 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 277; Copeland v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 6 Pick. 198; Squier v. Morris, 1 Lans. 282; Townsend v. Smith, 4 Hill, 351 ; Martin v. Flowers, 8 Leigh, 158 ; Briggs v. Partridge, 7 J. & Sp. 339. 2 Joseph V. Fisher, 122 Ind. 399. ' Wilkes V. Back, 2 East, 142; Mussey v. Scott, 7 Cash. 216; Jones v. Carter, i Hen. & M. 196; Doe v. Blacker, 27 Ga. 418; Butterfleld v. Beal, 3 Ind. 208; Wilburn «?. Larkin, 3 Blackf. 55; Hunter v. Miller, 6 B. Mon. 612; Martin v. Almond, 25 Mo. 313; Wilkinson v. Getty, 13 Iowa, 167. * Elwell ■». Shaw, 16 Mass. 42; Townshend v. Corning, 23 Wend. 439; Barger v. Miller, 4 Wash. C. Ct. 280; Harper v. Hampton, 1 Harr. & J. 709; Echols ». Cheney, 28 Cal. 160; Morrisons. Bowman, 29 Cal. 352. -i Blwell V. Shaw, 16 Mass. 42 ; Wood v. Goodridge, 6 Cash. 117; Thur- man v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 90. « Devinney v. Reynolds, 1 Watts & S. 328. ' Harpers. Little, 2 Me. 14; Stetson v. Patten, 2 Me. 358; Bergen v^ Bennett, 1 Caines' Cas. 15; Hunt v. Rousmauiere, 2 Mason, 248; Wilson 775 § 806 THE REQUISITES OE A DEED. [PAET III. the reader must here bear in mind the important distinction already explained between powers of attorney, a common- law authority, and powers of appointment, operating under the Statute of Uses and the Statute of Wills. The latter vest upon their creation an irrevocable equitable interest in the donee, which survives the principal, and is executed in the name of the donee. Authors very often speak of 'powers coupled with an interest, as distinguishable from common-law powers of attorney, in respect to the irrevoc- ability of the former. Except as a power of appointment under the Statute of Uses and the Statute of Wills, there is no such power in the common-law of real property as one coupled with an interest.^ 806 . Power of attorney granted by married VFoman . — It is the settled law in a number of the States that a mar- ried woman cannot make a valid power of attorney, author- izing the conveyance of her lands, even though the power is executed jointly with her husband, and acknowledged by her in the manner pointed out by the statute for the ac- knowledgment of her deeds. ^ And a deed by the husband's attorney, conveying lands of the wife, which is executed and acknowledged by the wife, has also been held invalid.^ But it is difficult to discover any reason for not permitting her to do by an agent what she is authorized to do herself, provided the formalities required by statute for the execu- tion of deeds by married women have been complied with in the execution of the power of attorney. And such a V. Troup, 2 Cow. 236; Mansfield k. Mansfield, 6 Conn. 662; Ferris v. Irving, 28 Cal. 648; Frink v. Roe, 70 Cal. 296. 1 See ante, sect. 558. See, also, Frink v. Roe, 70 Cal. 296; Norton ». Whitehead, 84 Cal. 263. 2 Allen V. Hooper, 50 Me. 373; Holladay v. Daily, 19 Wall. 609; Sum- ner u. Conant, 10 Vt. 9; Earle v. Earle, 1 Spen. 347; Kearney ». Macomb, 16 N. J. Eq. 189 ; Lewis v. Coxe, 6 Harr. 401. See Dawson v. Shirley, 6 Blackf. 531. 2 Toulmin v. Heidelberg, 32 Miss. 268. 776 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 807 power has been expressly recognized by statute in some of the States, while in others it seems to be taken for granted that she may execute a valid power of attorney.^ It is, how- ever, apparently well settled that a power of attorney exe- cuted b)' a feme sole will be revoked by her subsequent mar- riage.^ § 807. Signing. — At common law it was not necessary for the parties to sign the deed, although under the Saxon laws the deeds wer.e subscribed with the sign of the cross, and were not required to be sealed. After the Norman conquest sealing was invariably required, but signing be- came unnecessary".^ It seems that in some of the States to a .very late day a deed is recognized as a valid conveyance without being signed by the parties, but in most of them, if not all, signing is absolutely required, and in all it is cus- tomary and advisable.* Sometimes the statute requires the deed to be subscribed. In that case the parties must write their names at the bottom of the instrument. But, gener- ally, in the absence of such a statute, the signature in any part of the deed would suffice ; and, although it is usual for 1 Eoarty v. Mitchell, 7 Gray, 243; Gridley v. 'Wytiant, 23 How. 503; Weisbrod v. Chicago & N. W. E. R., 18 Wis. 41; Wilkinson v. Getty, 13 Iowa, 137; Koch v. Briggs, 14 Gal. 262 ; Dow v. Gould, 31 Gal. 646 ; Jones V. Bobbins, 74 Texas, 615. In Hardenburg v. Larkin, 47 N. Y. 113, that the common law did not permit a married woman to execnte a deed by attorney; but she is now authorized by statute to do so. In Dawson v. Shirley, 6 Blackf. 531, it was held that a married woman could not acknowledge her deed by attorney. 2 3 Washb. onEeal Prop. 259; 2 Kent's Com. 645; Judson v. Sierra, 22 Texas, 365. 8 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 270; Co. Lit. 171 b; Van Santwood v. Sand- ford, 12 Johns. 198; Hutchins v. Byrne, 9 Gray, 367; Hammond v. Alex- ander, 1 Bibb, 333 ; Taylor v: Morton, 5 Dana, 365 ; 2 Bla. Com. 309 ; WUl- iams on Eeal Prop. 152. * Sicard v. Davis, 6 Pet. 124; Clark v. Graham, Wheat. 519; Hutchins V. Byrnes, 9 Gray, 367; Ishamu. Benington, 19 Vt. 232; Elliott v. Sleeper, 2 N. H. 529; McDill v. McDill, 1 Dall. 64; Plummer v. Russel, 2 Bibb, 174; Chiles v. Conley, 2 Dana, 21. 777 § 808 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. the grantor to write the signature himself, it is not always necessary. To enable an ignorant person to execute a deed one may, at his request, and in his presence, sign his name, and, by affixing a mark to the signature, the grantor adopts the signature as his own, and the deed will be valid. ^ It is not even necessary that the grantor should affix his mark in order to adopt the signature as his own. If done in his presence, the signature by the authorized agent is theoreti- cally the act of the principal, and the deed is valid, though it is not shown that the grantor has been disabled by any cause from signing himself.^ And in one case it was held that where a wife signed her husband's name to a deed in his absence, and he afterwards acknowledged it as his act and deed, and delivered it to the grantee, the subsequent acknowledgment and delivery constituted a ratification, or rather an adoption, of the signature as his own, and that the deed was properly executed.^ This case was different from the case where the entire execution of the deed was intrusted to another. Then, as has been explained in a preceding paragraph, a power of attorney under seal would have been required. § 808. Sealing. — At common law sealing was an impor- tant part of the execution, although, as has been stated, signing was dispensed with.* This circumstance arose, no doubt, from the fact that very few people in the early days of the common law could write and sign their names, and it became customary to identify their solemn deed by attach- ing their seals, which were peculiar and easily recognized. Although it has now become a mere formality, it is still ^ Baker v. Dening, 8 Ad. & El. 9t; Truman v. Lore, 14 Ohio St. 154. ^ Ball V. Duntersville, 4 T. R. 313; Frost«. Deering, 21 Me. 156; Gard- ner V. Gardner, 5 Gush. 483; Wood v. Goodridge, 6 Cush. 117; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 309; McKay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285; Kime v. Brooks, 9 Ired. 219; Videau v. Grlffln, 21 Cal. 392. 3 Bartlett v. Drake, 100 Mass. 176. * 2 Bla. Com. 309; 3 Washb. on Beal. Prop. 270, 271. 778 Cfl. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 808 held to be indispensable in most of the States, possibly in all except California, Colorado, Kentucky, low^, Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana and Texas, where by statute seals have been abolished as a requisite of a deed.^ The word "deed " means an instrument under seal, and, except in those States where seals are by statute dispensed with, no instrument can be called a deed without being sealed, whatever may be the intention of tHe parties.^ But there need be no reference in the attestation clause of the deed to the sealing, if the seal is actually affixed, although it is usual to state that the party has set his hand and seal thereto.^ It is not necessary for the party to affix the seal himself. It may be done by any one else, provided he is authorized to do so, or the unauthor- ized act is subsequently ratified and adopted by the acknowledgment and delivery of the deed.* And one seal may be adopted as the seal of all the parties to the deed.* 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 271. See Shelton v. Armor, 13 Ala. 647; Simpson v. Mundee, 3 Kan. 172; Pierson v. Armstrong, 1 Clarke (Iowa), 293; Mr. Justice Field, in Le France, 5 Sawy. 603. See Smith v. Ball, 13 Cal. 510; Pratt ». Clemens, 4 W. Va. 443; Taylor v. Morton, 5 Dana, 365; Davis V. Brandon, 1 How. (Miss.) 154; Jones v. Crawford, 1 McMuU. 373. See Kentucky Gen. Stats. 1824, eh. 22, sect. 2 ; Texas Kev. Stats. 1879, art. 4487; Goodlett ». Hensell, 56 Ala. 346; Pierson ». Armstrong, I Iowa, 282, 293; 60 Am. Dec. 440; Simpson v. Mundee, 3 Kan. 172; Courand v. Vollmer, 31 Texas, 397. See also Bower v. Chambers, 53 Miss. 259. 2 Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. 239; Jackson «. Wood, 12 Johns. 13; Jackson v. Wendel, 12 Johns. 355; Wadsworth v. Wendell, 5 Johns. Ch. 224; Underwood «. Campbell, 14 N. H. 393; Taylor v. Glaser, 2 Serg. & K. 602; Cline v. Black, 4 McCord, 431; Davis v. Brandon, 1 How. (Miss.) 154; Alexander D. Polk, 39 Miss. 737; Deming v. Bullitt, 1 Blackf. 241; McCabe v. Hunter, 7 Mo. 355 ; Davis v. Judd, 6 Wis. 85. 8 State V. Peck, 53 Me. 299; Bradford v. Eandall, 5 Pick. 496; Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417; Taylor v. Glaser, 2 Serg. & R. 602. * Koehler v. Black Eiver, etc., Co., 2 Black, 715; Elwell v. Shaw, 16 Mass. 42; Co. Lit. 6 a; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 272. ' Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. 496 ; Tasker v. Bartlett, 5 Cush. 309 ; Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. 239; McKay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavett, 54 N. Y. 35; Lambden o. Sharp, 9 Humph. 779 § 808 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART ITT. In respect to what will constitute a sufficient sealing the law is not uniform. At common law impression upon wax or some tenacious substance was required. Lord Coke says: "It is required that the deed, charter, or writing, must be sealed, that is, have some impression upon wax ; for sigillum est cera impressa, quia cera sine impressione non est sigillum} In the New England States, and New Jersey, unless changed by recent legislation; the common- law seal is required, although probably in no place would it be necessary to use wax or substance of that character, an impression of a seal upon paper being sufficient. At least such is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.' But in the majority of the States a simple scroll with " L. S." or the word " seal" written in it, is a sufficient 224; Lunsford v. La Motte Lead Co., 54 Mo. 42fi; Van Alstyne v. Tan Slyck, 10 Barb. 383; Yarborough v. Monday, 2 Dev. 493; McLean ». Wilson, 4 111. 50; Chancellor Walworth in Townsend v. Hubbard, 4 Hill, 341, 358. See Tasker v. Bartlett, 5 Cush. 359; Mapes v. Newman, 2 Ark. 469; Burnetts. McCluey, 78 Mo. 676; Yale v. Flanders, 4 Wis. 96; ■Carter v. Planders, 4 Wis. 96; Carters. Chaudron, 21 Ala. 72; Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. 285; Williams v. Greer, 12 Ga. 459; State Bank w. Bailey, 4 Ark. 453; Flood v. Yanders, 1 Blackt. 102; Bohannons v. Lewis, 5 Mon. 376; Bank of Cumberland ». Bugbee, 19 Me. 27; Bowman ©. Eobb, 6 Pa. St. 302; Lambden v. Sharp, 9 Humph. 224. 1 3 Inst. 169. See Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johns. 239; Bradford v. Ran- dall, 6 Pick. 496; Tasker v. Bartlett, 5 Cush. 359; 3 Inst. 169. See also Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417; Warren v. Lynch, 5 Johus. 239; 3 Caines, 362; Beardsley v. Knight, 4 Vt. 471; Tusker v. Bart- lett, 5 Cush. 359, 364; Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. 496; 4 Kent's Com. 452. ' Pillow V. Roberts, 13 How. 473. See Bates v. B. &N. Y. Cent. E. R., 10 Allen, 254; Pillow v. Roberts, 13 How. 473; s. c. 7 Eng. (12 Ark.) 822; Bank of Rochester v. Gray, 2 Hill, 227; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558; Allen v. Sullivan R. R. Co., 32 N. H. 446; Jones v. Longwood, 1 Wash. (Va.) 42; Connolly v. Goodwin, 6 Cal. 220; Follett v. Rose, 3 McLean, 332, 335; Bank of Manchester v. Slason, 13 Vt. 334; Corrigan v. Trenton Co., 1 Halst. Ch. 52; Beardsley 5 Johns. Ch. 224; Davis v. Brandon, 1 How. (Miss.) 154. And see also McCarley v. Tappah County Supervisors, 58 Miss. 483, 749; Williams «. Young, 3 Ala. 145; Moore v. Lesseur, 18 Ala. 606; Vance v. Funk, 3 111. 263. 2 2Bla. Com. 307; Dale v. Thurlow, 12 Mete. 157; Thatcher v. Phln- ney, 7 Allen, 149; Craig n. Pinson, Cheves, 273; Meuley i>. Zeigler, 23 Texas, 88. ^ Dale ». Thurlow, 12 Mete. 157; Long v. Ramsey, 1 Serg. & R. 73; Wiswall c. Ross, 4 Port. 321; Ingram 0. Hall, 1 Hayw. 205. ' Clarke. Graham, 6 Wheat. 577; Merwin v. Camp, 3 Conn. 35; Coit u. Starkweather, 8 Conn. 289; Winsted Sav. Bk. u. Spencer, 56 Conn. 195; Stone v. Ashley, 13 N. H. 38; Hastings v. Cutler, 24 N. H. 481; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 320;' Craig v>. Pinson, Cheves, 272; Pat- terson v. Pease, 5 Ohio, 119; Richardson ». Bates, 8 Ohio St. 261; Fitzhugh B. Croghan, 2 J. J. Marsh. 429; Wilkins ». Wells, 8 Smed. &. M. 325; Shirley ». Fearne, 33 Miss. 653; Chandler t>. Kent, 8 Minn. 625; Ross t). Worthlngton, 11 Minn. 443. s Stone ». Ashley, 13 N. H. 38; Hastings v. Cutler, 24 N. H. 481; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 320; Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 J. J. Marsh. 782 CH. XXII.] THE KEQUISITES OF A DEED. § 810 are required, subscription by one witness will enable the deed to be used in equity to support an action for specific performance.^ The witnesses are required in making a proper attestation to sign their names to the instrument, and to witness the execution of it by the grantor.^ But it is not necessary that it should be executed by the parties in his presence. It is sufficient if the witnesses are requested by the parties to subscribe to the attestation clause, and the signatures on the deed are acknowledged by the parties to be theirs.^ Witnesses to deeds are intended merely to attest the execution of the deed, and cannot, like witnesses to wills, express opinions upon the mental capacity of the parties to the deed.* Mr. Washburn cites Mr. Harrington to the effect that anciently the witnesses were a necessary part of the jury which was to try the validity of the instru- ment, and a statute then dispensed with the necessity of their presence, when after being duly summoned, they fail to appear.^ § 810. Acknowledgment or probate. — As a general rule, it is not required, to make the deed valid, that a cer- tificate of acknowledgment or probate be attached to it.® But in Ohio the certificate is necessary to pass the title, and in New York and Texas an unacknowledged deed is not good against subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers.^ And 429. See contra, Crane v. Keeder, 21 Mich. 24; Marable v. Mayer, 78 Ga. 60. 1 Day V. Adams, 42 Vt. 520; Koss v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 438. 2 Janes v. Penny, 76 Ga. 796. 3 Parke v. Mears, 2 B. & P. 217; Jackson v. Phillips, 9 Cow. 113; Jones V. Bobbins, 74 Texas, 615; Poole v. Jackson, 66 Texas, 380. '' Dean v. Fuller, 40 Pa. St. 474. 5 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 277, citing Barring. St. (4th ed.) 175. « Gibbs V. Swift, 12 Cush. 393; Blain y. Stewart, 2 Iowa, 383; Lake v. Gray, 30 Iowa, 415; s. c. 35 Iowa, 459; Doe v. Naylor, 2 Blackf. 32; Stevens v. Hampton, 46 Mo. 408; Ricks v. Reed, 19 Cal. 571. ' Smiths. Hunt, 13 Ohio, 260; Genter v. Morrison, 31 Barb. 165; Rag- gen V. Avery, 63 Barb. 65; Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509; Morse v. Salls- 783 § 810 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAKT III. perhaps in all the States the ackaowledgment by a married woman is absolutely required, and must conform strictly to the requirements of the statute, in order to bind her.^ But in all the States, except Colorado and Illinois, in order that a deed may be recorded, and the record furnish constructive notice to subsequent purchasers, it must be acknowledged and proved before some officer authorized to take such ac- knowledgments, and the certificate of acknowledgment must be indorsed in the deed.^ And where the recording law, in express terms, requires the " execution" of a deed to be acknowledged or proved, the acknowledgment or pro- oate must include proof of delivery as well as of signing^ and sealing.^ It must also be signed by the party who is proving the execution of the deed. An unsigned acknowl- edgment is ineffectual.* But the deed need not be signed by grantor in presence of the officer.^ An alteration in the deed enlarging its scope when made after the execution of an acknowledgment necessitates the taking of a new ac- knowledgment. It is different where the alteration restricts the prior scope of the deed.^ In some of the States the acknowledgment is re- bury, 48 N. Y. 636 ; Meuley v. Zeigler, 23 Texas, 93. See Kimmarle v. Houston, etc., R. R. Co., 76 Texas, 686; 12 S. W. 698; Trustees Catholia Church V. Manning (Md. 1890), 19 Atl. 599. 1 See Brace u. Perry, 11 Rich. 121; McBride v. Wilkinson, 29 Ala. 662; Perdue v. Aldridge, 19 Ind. 290; Corey v. Moore (Va. 1890), 11 S. E. 114; Lineberger v. Tidwell, 104 N. C. 506; 10 S. E. 758; Coffey v. Hendricks- ^ 66 Texas, 676; 2 S. W. 47; Witt v. Harlan, 66 Texas, 660; 2 S. W. 41. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 314; Simpson o. Mundee, 3 Kan. 181; Car- penters. Dexter, 8 Wall. 582; Reed v. Hemp, 16 111. 445; Woolfolk v. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 22 S. C. 332; New England, etc., Co. v. Ober, 84 Ga. 294; Edwards v. Thorn, 25 Fla. 222; Fisher v. Cowles, 41 Kan. 418; Cox V. Wayt, 26 W. Va. 807. See 18 Kan. 481; Shelton v. Aultman, etc., Co., 82 Ala. 315. ^ Edwards v. Thom, 25 Fla. 222. ■• Carlisle v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 542; Clark v. WUson, 27 HI. App. 610; S. c. 127 111. 449; 19 N. E. 860. « Brown v. Swift (Ky.) 1 S. W. 474. 8 Webb V. MuUins, 78 Ala. 111. 784 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 810 quired to be made by the grantor, while in others the deed is probated by the oath of one of the witnesses. But only one form of probate is required in any par- ticular deed, in those States in which both are per- mitted.^ If the grantor and attesting witnesses die before aclinowledgment and probate of the deed, it may be pro- bated by proof of genuineness of the signature of one of the attesting witnesses or of the grantor.^ And if the attesting witness is alive but cannot testify to the due execu- tion of the deed, it may be probated by any one who saw its execution.^ The taking of the acknowledgment is a ministerial and not a judicial act. It is, therefore, no objection to the acknowledgment that it was taken by an officer related to the parties, although if he is interested in the conveyance the certificate will be valueless.* And where the officer is only authorized to perform his special duties within certain limits of territory, an acknowledg- ment taken by him without these limits, would, of course, be void.^ So, also, where the officer's commission had 1 Simmons v. Havens, 101 N. Y. 427. 2 Davis V. Higgins, 91 N. C. 382; Howell v. Bay, 92 N. C. 510. 3 Jones V. Hougli, 77 Ala. 437. * Beaman c. Whitney, 20 Me. 413; "Withers v. Baird, 7 Watts, 227; Stevens v. Hampton, 46 Mo. 408; Wilson v. Traer, 20 Iowa, 233; Kimball V. Johnson, 14 Wis. 683; Groesbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 345; Dekeman o. Arnold (Mich. 1890) ; 44 N. W. 407; Bowden v. Parrish (Va. 1889), 9 S. E. 616. But see Stevenson v. Brasher (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 175; Corey®. Moore (Va. 1890), 11 S. E. 114. In one of the Western States a deed was presented for registration, In which the acknowledgment of a mar- ried woman, as grantor, was taken by her husband as notary public, and he certified that she was examined separate and apart from her husband. It is needless to remark that the deed was not a valid conveyance. « Lynch v. Livingston, 8 Barb. 463; s. c. 6 N. Y. 422; Jackson v. Humphrey, 1 Johns. 598; Jackson v. Golden, 4 Cow. 280; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 91; Howard Mut. L. Ass. v. Mclntyre, 3 Allen, 572; Harris v. Burton, 4 Harr. 66 ; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Corey, 54 Hun, 493 ; 7 N. Y. S. 939. Contra, Odiorne v. Mason, 9 N. H. 30. But In Massa- chusetts a magistrate for one county may take acknowledgments in another county. Learned v. Eiley, 14 Allen, 109. 50 785 § 810 , THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET III. expired by limitation, when he took the acknowledgment or probate.^ But the authority of a notary de facto can- not be questioned in a collateral proceeding.^ A proper certificate should show that all the requirements of the statute were substantially complied with.' But if the cer- tificate of acknowledgment is erroneously prepared it may be corrected and made to conform to the facts by the oflScer who took the acknowledgment.* In some of the States the certificate is not conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, but it contains prima facie evidence of its own genuineness, as well as of the facts therein stated.* And, no doubt, in all of the States, as between the parties, the certificate may be impeached for fraud. ^ But in the other States the certificate is conclusive against subsequent pur- chasers as to the facts stated therein.' It must be observed 1 Quimby v. Boyd, 8 Col. 194. 2 BuUeiie v. Garrison, 1 Wash. 587. 3 Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388; Wood v. Cochrane, 39 Vt. 544; TuUy V. Davis, 30 111. 108; Jacoway v. Gault, 20 Ark. 190; Bryan v. Ramirez, 8 Cal. 461 ; Huff V. Webb, 64 Texas, 284; Butler v. Brown, 77 Texas, 342; 14 S. W. 136; Owen u. Baker (Mo. 1890), 14 S. W. 175. * Kalston v. Moore, 83 Ky. 571. '' Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 4 Johns. 161; Jackson v. Hoyner, 12 Johns. 472; Hall v. Patterson, 51 Pa. St. 289; Borland v. Walrath, 33 Iowa, 130; Dodge V. Hollinshead, 6 Minn. 25; Annan v. Folsom, 6 Minn. 500; Edg- erton v. Jones, 10 Minn. 429; Landers v. Bolton, 26 Cal. 406; Harrison V. Oakman, 56 Mich. 390; Farrior v. New England, etc., Co., 88 Ala. 275; O'Neil V. Webster, 150 Mass. 572; 23 N. E. 235. ' Eyster v. Hathaway, 50 111. 522; Williams v. Baker, 71 Pa. St. 482; Grahams. Anderson, 42 111. 514; Bissett ». Bissett, 1 Har. & McH. 211; Hartley b. Frosh, 6 Texas, 208; Razor v. Dowan (Ky. 1890), 3 S. W. 914. ' Bissett v. Bissett, 1 Har. & McH. 211 ; Hartley ». Frosh, 6 Texas, 208; McNeely v. Eucber, 6 Blackf . 391 ; Graham v. Anderson, 42 111. 514; Hes- ter ». Glasgow, 79 Pa. St. 79; 21 Am. Rep. 461; Singer Mfg. Co. ». Rook, 84 Pa. St. 442 ; 24 Am. Rep. 204. And this is true, also, in respect to the certificate of acknowledgment by a married woman. White v. Graves, 107 Mass. 325; 9 Am. Rep. 38; Kerr v. Russell, 69 111. 666; 18 Am. Rep. 634; Singer Mfg. Co. i». Rook, 84 Pa. St. 442; 24 Am. Rep. 204; John- stone V. Wallace, 53 Miss. 331; 24 Am. Rep. 699. And where the certifi- cate in a married woman's deed Is defective, it cannot be subsequently amended, unless the defect or mistake relates to an unimportant fact. 786 CH. XXII. ] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 811 that the acknowledgment or probate is intended to evidence the due execution of the deed, and not to supply any of its deficiencies. If the deed is in itself inoperative, on account of some serious deficiency, it cannot be cured by any statements or admissions in the certificate.^ §811. Reading' of tlie deed , when necessary. — Although the reading of the deed to the grantor and grantee can hardly be called a requisite of the deed, yet if the party is unable to read, and requests the deed to be read to him, a failure to comply with his request, or a false reading or statement of its contents, would vitiate the deed.^ The same rule applies to those who cannot read the language in which the deed is written.^ But he must make the request. If he does not, he comes under the general rule that a grantor is presumed to know the contents of the deed, and cannot avoid it on the plea of ignorance of its contents, unless the circumstances of the transaction are suflScient to sustain the charge of fraud, accident or mistake.* Angier v. Schieffelin, 72 Pa. St. 106; 13 Am. Rep. 659; Merritt v. Yates, 71 111. 636; 22 Am. Rep. 128. 1 White V. Connelly, 105 N. C. 65; Turner v. Connelly, 105 N. C. 72. 2 Manser's Case, 2 Rep. 3; Henry Pigot's Case, 11 Rep. 27 b; Souver- bye 1). Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 252; Hallenbackti. De Witt, 2 Johns. 404; Jack- son V. Croy, 12 Johns. 429; Jackson v. Hayner, 12 Johns. 460; Withing- ton V. Warren, 10 Mete. 434; Taylor v. King, 6 Munf. 358; Shuler v. Bonander (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 487; Suffern v. Butler, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 Green, C. E.) 220; Thoroughgood's Case, 2 Co. 9, a. b.; Hallenbeck ». DeWitt, 2 Johus. 404. See Withington v. Warren, 10 Met. 434; Souver- bye V. Arden, 1 Johns. 252; Taylor u. King, 6 Munf. 358; 8 Am. Dec. 746 ; Rex v. Longnor, 1 Nev. & M. 576 ; Rossetter v. Simmons, 6 Serg. & R. 452; Lyons v. Van Riper, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C.E. Green), 337; Morrison V. Morrison, 26 Gratt. 190. 3 School Committee of Prov., etc., v. Kesler, 67 N. C. 443; Jackson v. Cory, 12 Johns. 427. * Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 223; Kimball v. Eaton, 8 N. H. 391 ; Tru- man V. Lore, 14 Ohio St. 155; School Committee of Prov., etc., v. Kesler, 67 N. C. 443; Jackson v. Cory, 12 Johns. 427; Rogers o. Place, 29 Ind. 577; Clem v. Newcastle R. Co., 9 Ind. 488; 68 Am Dec. 653; Starr v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 303; New Albany R. Co. v. Fields, 10 Ind. 187; Russell V. Branham, 8 Blackf. 277. 787 § 812 THE EEQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET III. § 812. Delivery and acceptance. — After the deed has been signed, sealed and acknowledged, the next requisite i& its delivery by the grantor and its acceptance by the grantee. These acts are as essential to the validity of a deed as sign- ing or sealing.^ As long as it remains in the possession of the grantor, and even where the deed has been stolen, and the property passes into the hands of an innocent purchaser, or where the deed falls into the possession of the grantee in any other way than by the consent of the grantor and ivith the inlenlion topass the <«7/e,the title isstill in the grantor, and no one can acquire title from the grantee.^ But if it is once delivered, no subsequent act of the grantor can impair the 1 Goddard's Case, 2 Rep. 4 b; Younge v. Gilbeau, 3 Wall. 641; Fair- banks V. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 230; Jackson v. Danlap, 1 Johns. Cas. 114;. Church V. Gilman, 15 Wend. 656; Fisher b. Hall, 41 N. Y. 421; Cook ». Brown, 34 N. Y. 470; Johnson y. Farley, 45 N. H. 510; Stiles v. Brown, 16 Vt. 563; Fletcher v. Mansur, 5 Ind. 267; Hnlick v. Scovil, 9 111. 175; Overman v. Kerr, 17 Iowa, 486; Fisher v. Beckwith, 30 Wis. 55; 11 Am. Rep. 546; 1 Dev. 222, n. 1. 2 Thoroughgood's Case, 9 Rep. 136; Chamberlains. Staunton, 1 Leon. 140; Cutts u. York Co., 18 Me. 190; Mills v. Gore, 20 Pick. 28; Metho- dist Church V. Jaques, 1 Johns. Ch. 456; Roberts v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 478; Black v. Lamb, 12 N. J. Eq. 108; Hadlock u. Hadlock, 22 111. 388; Fishers. Beckwith, 30 Wis. 55; 11 Am. Rep. 646; Dwinellu. Bliss, 58 Vt. 353; Mitchells. Shortt, 113 111. 251; Miller a. Murfleld (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. 640; McElroy v. Hiner (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 435; Martling v. Mart- ling (N. J. 1890), 20 Atl. 41; Cline v. Jones, 111 111. 663; Andersons. Anderson (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 1036; Stevens v. Stevens, 150 Mass. 557; 23 N. E. 357: per Dixon, C. J., in Tisher s. Beckwith, 30 Wis. .55; Henry s. Carson, 96 lad. 412; Everts s. Agnes, 4 Wis. 343; 4 Kent. Com. 459; 5 Greenl. Cruise, Tit. Deed, 45, 46; 3 Am. Dec. 415; Jackson s. Catlin, 2 Johns. 248, 429, 431; Frost s. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 296; Jackson V. Rowland, 6 Wend. 660; Carr s. Hoxie, 5 Mason, 60; Jackson s. Sheldon, 9 Shep. 669; Robbins s. Bellas, 2 Watts, 359; 1 Story's Eq. Juris,, sects. 75, 76; Somes s. Brewer, 2 Pick. 184; 13 Am. Dec. 406; Worcester s. Eaton, 11 Mass. 373; 13 Mass. 371; 7 Am. Dec. 155; Brackett s. Barney, 28 N. Y. 333. See also Hoag s. Owen, 60 Barb. 34; Fisher s. Hall, 41 N. Y. 416; Crosby u. Hillyer, 24 Wendl 280; People s. Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 445; Fonda u. Sage, 48 N. Y. 173; Worrall s. Munn, 1 Seld. 229; Chouteau s. Suydam, 21 N. Y. 179; Fords. James, 2 Abb. N. Y. App. 159; Graves s. Dudley, 20 N. Y. 77; Gilbert s. North American Fire Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 43; 35 Am. Dec. 543. 788 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 812 validity of the conveyance. The title is in the grantee, and it cannot be recovered from him except in one of thelegaland formal ways recognized by the law for acquiring property.^ And though the delivery was made by the grantor through the fraudulent misrepresentations of the grantee, or through some mistake of fact or law, if thedelivery was an intentional act, it passes the title, and can only be divested by an equita- ble proceeding. If the property is in the meantime conveyed to an innocent purchaser, he acquires an indefeasible title. ^ The title also passes, notwithstanding both parties believed that the title will not pass by delivery of the decd.^ To make a good delivery, the deed must be executed completely.* A delivery before its completion is of no effect. But, ex- cept in the caseof a married woman's deed, a delivery before the acknowledgment of probate will be good, particularly in those States where the acknowledgment is not a requisite to the validity of the deed; although it seems that a delivery will not be presumed to have been made before the date of acknowledgment.' Usually the deed contains the date of its execution and delivery, and although a date is not nec- €ssary to the validity of the deed,^ if it contains a date the deed will be presumed to have been executed and delivered on that date.' But the deed only takes effect from the actual 1 Shelton's Case, Cro. Ellz. 7; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 255; Younge v. Moore, 1 Strobh. 48; Connelly v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 320; Somers 1). Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 240; Hyne v. Osborn, 62 Mich. 235; 28 N. W. 821; Den-ver & S. F. R. E. Co. v. School Dist. (Colo. 1890), 23 Pac. 978. 2 Berry V. Anderson, 22 Ind. 41. 3 Henchliffe v. Hlnman, 18 Wis. 138. * Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305; McKee v. Hicks, 2 Dev. 379. " People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 402 ; Darst v. Bates, 51 111. 439 ; Blanchard V. Tyler, 12 Mich. 339. 6 Goddard's Case, 2 Rep. 4 b; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. 234 Center v. Morrison, 31 Bart). 155; Lee v. Mass. Ins. Co., 6 Mass. 208 Gelss V. Odenheimer, 4 Yeates, 278 ; McKinney v. Rhoades, 5 Watts, 343 Colqnhoun v. Atkinson, 6 Munf. 550; Swan v. Hodges, 3 Head, 254 Thompson v. Thompson, 8 Ind. 333; Banning v. Edes, 6 Minn. 402. ' Kent, C. J., in Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. 230, 231; Meech v. Powler, 14 Ark. 29; Lyerly v. Wheeler, 12 Ired. 290; 53 Am. Dec. 414; 789 § 812 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. time of delivery, and the actual date of delivery will always control the date mentioned in the decd.^ It has, however, been held that the delivery will be presumed from the date of acknowledgment.^ The deed must also be delivered during the life-time' of the grantor. A delivery after his death will have no effect.' But there may be an accept- ance by the grantee after the grantor's death.* Accept- ance by the grantee is equally essential with delivery by the grantor. And where no proof of acceptance is of- fered, and the facts do not justify the legal presumption Newlin v. Osborne, 4 Jones (n. c.) 157; 67 Am. Dec. 269; Costigan v. Gould, 5 Denio, 290; Colquhoun v. Atkinson, 6 Munf. 550; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Ind. 325; 68 Am. Dec. 638; Darst v. Bates, 51 111. 439; Bill- ings V. Stark, 15 Fla. 297; Ellsworth v. Central R. U. Co., 34 N. J. L. 93; McConnell v. Brown, Litt. Sel. Cas. 459; Jayne v. Gregg, 42 111. 413; Ford V. Gregory, 10 Mon. B. 175, 180; Sweetser v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446; Harris v. Norton, 16 Barb. 264; Treadwell v. Reynolds, 47 Cal. 171 ; Clark V. Akers, 16 Kan. 166, 171; Cal. Civ. Code, sect. 1055; Raines v. Walker, 77 Va. 92; Harman v. Oberdorfer, 33 Gratt. 497; Cutts v. York, etc., Co., 18 Me. 190; Deininger v. McConnel, 47 III. 228; Hall o. Benner, 1 Pen. & W. 402; 21 Am. Dec. 394; Ellsworth v. Central R. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 93; Meech v. Fowler, 14 Ark. 29; Harrison v. Phillips Academy, 12 Mass. 456; Billings v. Stark, 15 Fla. 297; Geiss v. Odenheimer, 4 Yeates, 278; 2 Am. Dec. 407; Colquhoun v. Atkinson, 6 Muul. 515; McConnell v. Brown, Litt. Sel. Cas. 462; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 286; Faulkner v. Adams, 126 Ind. 459. 1 Xenos V. Wickham, 14 C. B, (n. s.) 469; Mitchell v. Bartlett, 51 N. Y. 453; Jackson v. Bard, 4 Johns. 230; Elsey v. Metcalf, 1 Denio, 323 Cutts 1?. York Co., 18 Me. 190; Harrison v. Phillips' Academy, 12 Mass 455; Smith «. Porter, 10 Gray, 67; Geiss v. Odedheimer, 4 Yeates, 278 Colquhoun v. Atkinson, 6 Munf. 550; Savery v. Browning, 18 Iowa, 249 Lyon V. Mcllvain, 24 Iowa, 15; Walker v. Rand, 22 N. E. 1006 (111.1890) Mr. Justice Breese in Blake v. Fash, 44 111. 302; Sweetser v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446. " Fontaine v. Boatmen's Savings Institution, 57 Mo. 552, 561 ; Blanch- ard V. Tyler, 12 Mich. 339; County of Henry v. Bradshaw, 20 Iowa, 355; Loomis V. Pingree, 43 Maine, 299, 308. » Shoenberger ■!). Zook, 34 Pa. St. 24; Jackson <;. Leek, 12 Wend. 107; Jackson v. Phipps, 12 Johns. 421; Fisher v. Hall, 41 N. Y. 423; Fay v. Richardson, 7 Pick. 91 ; Woodbury v. Fisher, 20 Ind. 388; Weisinger v. Cocke (Miss. 1890), 7 So. 495. * See post, sect. 814. 790 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 813 of acceptance, no title passes.' Qntil acceptance by the grantee, the title is subject to the claims of creditors who have levied upon the property after a tender of delivery.^ So, also, if the grantor tenders the deed and the grantee declines to accept, the title remains unaffected in the grantor.^ But the acceptance may precede the complete execution of the deed.* If there are several grantees in a deed, the deed may be delivered to them individually on separate d:iys. But the grantor may by express declara- tion make the delivery to one answer as a delivery to all, and in that case, the acceptance by one is presumed to be a sufficient acceptance for all.^ And where the deed con- veys conditional limitatious and remainders, the delivery to the tenant of the particular estate always constitutes a delivery to the tenants of the future or expectant estate.® § 813. What constitutes a sufficient delivery. — If the deed is found in the possession of the grantee, a delivery and acceptance are presumed.' But, like other legal pre- 1 Rogers v. Gary, 47 Mo. 232; Younge v. Guilbeau, 3 Wall. 636; Jack- son V. Phipps, 12 JohQS. 421; WilSt-y v. Dennis, 44 Barb. 369; Fonda v. Sage, 4b Barb. 123; Hatch v. Bates, 54 Me. 140; Maynard v. Maynard, 10 Mass. 456; Baker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479; Jones v. Bu^h, 4 Harr. 1; Fen- nel V. Weyant, 2 Harr. 501; Mitchell v. Kyan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Kingsbury V. Burnside, 58 111. 310. 2 Parmelee v. Simpson, 5 Wall. 86 ; Derry Bank v. Webster, 44 N. H. 268; Johnson v. Farley, 45 N. H. 609; Elmore v. Marks, 39 Vt. 538; Woodbury I). Fisher, 20 lad. 389; Jackson ». Cleveland, 15 Mich. 101; Day V. Griffith, 15 Iowa, 103; Hibberd u. Smith, 67 Cal. 547. ^ Tompkins v. Wheeler, 16 Pet. 119; Derry Bank v. Webster, 44 N. H. 268; Johnson v. Farley, 45 N. H. 509; Cole v. Gill, 14 Iowa, 529; Bead V. Robinson, 6 Watis & S. 329; Peavey v. Tilton, 18 N. H. 162; Xenos v. Wickham, 14 C. B. (n. s.) 471; Welsh v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243. * Dikeman v. Arnold (Mich. 1890;, 44 N. W. 407. ^ Hannah i;. Swarner, 8 Watts, 9; Tewksbury d. O'Connell, 20 Cal. 69; Shelden v. Erskine (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 146. 8 Phelps V. Phelps, 17 Md. 134; Folk v. Varn, 9 Rich. Eq. 303. ' Ward V. Lewis, 4 Pick. 518; Chandler v. Temple, 4 Cuah. 285; Cutts V. York Co., 18 Me. 190; Canning v. Pinkham, 1 N. H. 353; Clark v. Ray, 1 Harr. & J. 319; Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Cole, 4 Fla. 359; Houston v. 791 ^ 813 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED [PAET III, sumptions, it is liable to be rebutted by proof that the pos- session of it was obtained without the intention of the gran- tor to make a delivery, or without his consent, and parol evi- dence is admissible to establish this fact.^ In determining what will constitute a sufficient delivery, it is found that the intention is the controlling element.^ No particular formal- ity need be observed, and the intention to deliver the deed may be manifested by acts, or by words, or by both. But one or the other must be present to make a good delivery. The grantor may direct the grantee to take the deed lying upon the table, and if the latter does so, the delivery is complete. So also if the deed is thrown down upon the table by the grantor, with the intention that the grantee should take it, although nothing should be said, it will be a good delivery.^ But the intention may be mani- Stanton, 11 Ala. 412; Ward v. Eoss, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 136; Green v. Tarnall, 6 Mo. 326; Butrick v. Tilton, 141 Mass. 93; Sibimons v. Simmons, 78 Ga. 365; Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, 116 111. 340; Brown v. Danforth, 9 N. Y. S. 19; Strough v. Wilder, 119 N. Y. 530; 23 N. E. 1057; Faulkner v. Adams, 126Ind.459. 1 Johnson v. Baker,4 B. & Aid. 440; Adams u. Frye, 3 Mete. 109; Ford». James, 2 Abb. Pr. 162; Roberts v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 478; Black ». Lamb, 12 N. J. Eq. 116; Blacks). Shreve, 13N. J. 457; Den ». Farlee, IN. J. 279; Little V. Gibson, 39 N. H. 505; Williams v. Sullivan, 10 Rich. Eq. 217; Morris v. Henderson, 37 Miss. 501; Wolverton v. Collins, 34 Iowa, 238; Major V. Todd, 84 Mich. 85. 2 Jordan v. Davis, 108 111. 336; Eevard v. Walker, 39 111. 413; WaiTen o. Swett, 31N. H. 332; Ruckman ». Ruckman, 32 N. J. Eq. 259; Byers t). McClanahan, 6 Gill& J. 260; Stewart ». Eeddett, 3 Md. 67; Crawford©. Bertholf, 1 N. J. Eq. 458; Thompson «. Hammond, 1 Edw. Ch.497; Dukes V. Spangler, 9 Cent. L. J. 398; Burkholder v. Casad, 47 Ind. 418; Hast- ings V. Vaughn, 5 Cal. 315. And see Harris v. Harris, 59 Cal. 620. ' Souverby o. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 253; Scrugham v. Wood, 15 Wend. 645; Pennsylvania Co. v. Dovey, 67 Pa. St. 260; Stewart v. AVeed, 11 Ind. 92; Mills V. Gore, 20 Pick. 28; Methodist Church ». Jaques, 1 Johns. Ch. 456; Williams D. Sullivan, 10 Rich. 217; Ray v. Hallenbeck, 42 Fed. 381; Hubbard v. Cox, 76 Texas, 239 ; 13 S. W. 170 ; Beiser v. Beiser, 8 N. Y. S. 65; Messelback v. Norman, 46 Hun, 414; Walker u. Walker, 42 111.311; Bryan «. Wash, 2 Glim. 565; Thatcher v. St. Andrew's Church, 37 Mich. 264, 268; Cannon v. Cannon, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 Green, C. E.) 316; Craw- ford V. Bertholf, Saxt. Ch. 467; Folly v. Vantuyd, 4 Halst. 158; Farlee v. 792 •CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 813 fested by still more informal proceedings. The deed need not be actually delivered if the grantor intends the execution to have the eifect of a delivery, and the parties act upon the presumption.^ Thus leaving the deed to be recorded, if done with the knowledge of the grantee, and more particularly when this is done with the evident or expressed intention that the title shall pass to the grantee, will ordinarily be held a good delivery. ^ But the intention Parlee, 1 Zab. 285; Garnons v. Kaight, 6 Barn. & C. 687; i Kent's Com. 605. See also Armstrong v. Stovall, 26 Miss. 275; Jackson v. Sheldon, 22 Me. 569; Whittaker v. Miller, 83 111. 381; Wood on Conveyancing, 193; 3 "Washb. on Real. Prop. 286; O'Neal u. Brown, 67 Ga. 707; Snow v. Orleans, 126 Mass. 453. See also Jones v. Loveless, 99 Ind. 327; Davis v. Cross, 14 La. (Tenn.) 637; 52 Am. Rep. 177; Miller v. Lullman, 81 Mq. 311; Brown v. Brown, 66 Me. 316, 320; Burkholder v. Casad, 47 Ind. 418; Mc- Lure V. Colclough, 17 Ala. 89; Dayton v. Newman, 19 Pa. St. 194; Porter v. Cole, 4 Me. 20, 25; Devina v. Holmes, 22 Me. 121; Hatch b. Bates, 54 Me. 136; Chadwick o. Webber, 4 Me. 141; 3 Gieenl. 141; 14 Am. Dec. 222; Uerplanck v. Sterry, 12 Johns. 536; 7 Am. Dec. 348; Jones «. Jones, 6 _ Conn. Ill; 16 Am. Dec. 35; Gilmore v.. Whitesides, Dud. Eq. 14; 31 Am. Dec. 563; Blight f. Schenck, 12 Barr. 285; 10 Pa. St. 245; 51 Am. Dec. 478; Doe v. Knight, 5 Barn. & C. 671; Woodman V. Coolbroth, 7 Me. 181; Turner v. Whidden, 22 Me. 121; Shep. Touch. 57, 58; Chess v- Chess, 21 Am. Dec. 350; Hughes v. Easten, 4 Marsh. J. J. 672; 20 Am. Dec. 230; Warren v. Sweet, 31 N. H. (11 Frost.) 332; Eastman, J. (p. 340). 1 Walker v. Walker, 42 111. 311 ; Rogers v. Carey, 47 Mo. 235. 2 Parmelee v. Simpson, 5 Wail. 86; Elmore v. Marks, 39 Vt. 538; Penn- sylvania Co. V. Dovey, 64 Pa. St. 260; Folly v. Vantuyl, 9 N. J. 153; Cooper V. Jackson, i Wis. 549; Jackson v. Cleveland, 15 Mich. 101; Som- ers V. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 240; Jackson ». Leek, 12 Wend. 107; Jackson «. Phipps, 12 Johns. 418; Jackson v. Richards, 6 Cow. 617; Stillwell v. Hubbard, 20 Wend. 44; Mills v. Gore, 20 Pick. 28; Hedge v. Drew, 12 Pick. 141; Parkers. Hill, 8 Mete. 447; Berkshire Mut. Fire Ins. Co. k. Sturgis, 13 Gray, 177; Hawks v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560; Hatch v. Bates, 54 Me. 139; Porter v. Buckingham, 2 Harr. 197; Boody v. Davis, 20 N. H. 140; Boardman «. Dean, 34 Pa. St. 252; Baldwin ». Maultsby, 5 Ired. 505; Oliver v. Stone, 24 Ga. 63; Denton v. Perry, 6 Vt. 382; Bliss b. West, 58 Hun, 71 ; Cusacks. Tweedy, 56 Hun. 617; Greene v. Conant (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 44; Geissmann v. Wolf, 46 Hun, 289; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N. Y. 267; 22 N. E. 756; Colee r. Colee, 12 Ind. 109; 23 N. E. 687; Ross u. Campbell, 73 Ga. 309; Tobin v. Bass, 85 Mo. 654; 55 Am. Rep. 392; 793 § 813 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. that the registration is to operate as a delivery must be established, if it is disputed or thrown into doubt. ^ The ex- ecution of a deed before witnesses will be a fact from which delivery may be presumed.^ On the other hand, if after execution the deed is retained by the grantor for any pur- pose which prevents the transaction from being complete, as where it is held as security for the purchase-money, there will be no presumption of delivery.^ In order that any acts may constitute a sufficient delivery, except in the case of an escrow, the grantor must part with all control of the deed. If he retains the control in any manner, as where he makes the delivery conditionally, the delivery will not be sufficient.* Where the grantor is a corporation, nothing more is usually required to make a good delivery than that the deed should be executed and the common seal of the corporation affixed to the deed. But if the corpo- ation, in executing the deed, appoint an agent to make a delivery, the formal delivery will be required.' Where the grantee is a corporation, a delivery to an authorized agent and acceptance by him are considered the acts of the cor- poration, and, therefore, constitute a sufficient delivery and acceptance.® Vaughn v. Godman, 1093 Ind. 499; Messelback v. Norman, 46 Hun, 414; Collins V. Collins, 45 N. J. Eq. 813; 18 Atl. 860; Diefendorf v. Diefen- dorf, 8 N. Y. S. 617; Reld v. Abernethy, 77 Iowa, 438 1 Huse v. Den, 85 Cal. 390. ' Maynard v. Maynard, 10 Mass. 456 ; Jackson v. Phipps, 12 Johns. 418 ; Elsey V. Metcalf, 1 Denio, 326; Fennel u. Weyant, 2 Harr. 501 ; Jones v. Bush, 4 Harr. 1; Stevens v. Castell, 63 Mich. Ill; 29 N. W. 828. 2 Moore v. Hasleton, 9 Allen, 106; Howe v. Howe, 99 Mass. 98; Loud V. Brigham (Mass. 1891), 28 N. E. 7. 2 Jackson o. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Cas. 114; Turner v. Carpenter, 63 Mo. 333; Wainwrisht v. Low, 57 Hun, 386. * Cook V. BrowD, 34 N. H. 470; Phillips v. Houston, 5 Jones L. 302; Dearmond v. Dearmond, 10 Ind. 191; Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 240; Rivard v. Walker, 39 III. 413. ' 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 287, 288; Co. Lit. 22 n, 36 n. « Western R. R. v. Babcock, 6 Mete. 356. 794 CH. XXII.J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 814 § 814. Delivery to stranger, when assent of grantee presumed. — Although some doubt was entertained at an early day as to its validity, it seems now to be well settled that if a deed is delivered to a stranger for the frrantee, even though the grantee has not authorized the third person to receive it, if it is subsequently assented to by the grantee, it will constitute a good delivery.' But the grantor must part with his entire control over the deed. If the deed is handed to a stranger to be delivered to the grantee when the grantor should so direct, or the direction is to deliver it at a specified time, unless the order is countermanded, if the circumstances do not make the deed an escrow, the delivery to the stranger will not be sufficient to pass the title. ^ And 1 Doe V. Knight, 5 B. & C. 671; Hatch v. Bates, 54 Me. 139; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307; Marsh v. Austin, 3 Mete. 412; O'Kelly v. O'KeUy, 8 Mete. 489; Rusf^les ». La-.vson, 13 Johns. 285; Church v. Gilmaa, 15 Wend. 656; Boody v. Davis, 20 N. H 140; Buffum v. Green, 5 N. H. 71; Belden v. Carter, 4 Day, 66; Stephens v. Rinehart, 72 Pa. St. 440; Ste- phens V. Hu-s, 54 Pi. St. 26; Wesson v. Stevens, 2 Ired. Eq. 557; Phillips V. Houston, 5 Jones L. 303; Cloud v. Calhoun, 10 Rich. Eq. 358; Oliver v. Sttme, 24 Ga. 63; Mallett v. Page, 8 Ind. 364; Stewart v. Weed, 11 Ind. 92; Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 382; Morrison v. Kelly, 22 111. 626; Kingsbury v. Burnside, 58 111. 310; Cooper v. Jackson, 4 Wis. 553; Cecil V. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 241; Ray p. Hallenbeck, 42 Fed. Rep. 381; Brovyn v. Danforth, 9 N. Y. S. 19; Ward v. Small's Admr. TKy. 1890), 13 S. W. 1070; Orr v. Clark (Vt. 1890), 19 All. 929; Diefendorf v. Die- fendorf, 8 N. Y. S. 617; Munoz v. Wilson, 111 N. Y. 295; McPherson v. Featherstone, 37Wis. 6.32; Stewart ». Weed, 11 Ind. 92; Bennett ti. Waller, 23 111. 97; Brown ?j. Austen, 35 Barb. 341; Bell ». Farmer's Bank, H Bush, 34; Guard v. Bradley,7 Ind. 600; Marsh v. Austin, 1 Allen, 235; Cooper v. Jackson, i Wis. 537;. Turner v. Whidden, 22 Me. 121; Concord Banlc v. Belles, lOCush.276; Lessee of Mitchell u. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Church o. Oilman, 15 Wend. 656 ; 30 Am. Dec. 82 ; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 244 ; Hatch V. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307 ; 6 Am. Dec. 67. See al.so Hatch v. Bates, 54 Me 136 ; Guest V. Beeson, 2 Houst. 246; Stephens v. Huss, 54 Pa. St. 20; Turner V. Whidden, 22 Me. 121; Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Iliff, 13 Ohio St. 235; Merrills v. Swilt, 18 Conn. 257; 46 Am. Dec. 315; Morrison v. Killy, 22 111. 610; 74 Am. Dec. 169; Peavey v. Tilton, 18 N. H. 151; 45 Am. Dec. 365; Ells v. Mo. Pac. Ey., 40 Mo. App. 165. 2 Prestman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644; Phila. W. & B. R. R. v. Howard, 13 How. 334; Warrail v. Munn, 1 Seld. 229; Graves v. Dudley, 20 N. Y. 795 § 814 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. although the law presumes that a delivery of a deed to the grantee personally is done with the intention of passing the title, there is no such presumption indulged in when the deed is handed to a stranger. To make the delivery to a stranger effectual, the intention- with which the delivery was made must be expressed atthe time. There are, however, no formal words or declarations required. ^ But where the deed was mailed at the request of the grantee, the deposit in the post-office was held to be a good delivery .^ The knowledge and assent of the grantee are just as necessary in this mode of delivery as in the delivery or tender of the deed to the grantee himself, and until acceptance, ex- pressed or presumed, the delivery is inoperative to pass the title. ^ It has been held that a deed is revocable by the grantor after delivery until it is accepted by the grantee.* Delivery and acceptance are " mutual and concurrent acts," and unless the delivery is an open and continuing one an acceptance at a subsequent period will 76; Parker v. Parker, 1 Gray, 409; Berry©. Anderson, 22 Ind. 39; Black V. Shreve, 13 N. J. 459; Howe v. Dewing, 2 Gray, 476; Tyson v. Brad- shaw, 23 Gal. 528; Cook v. Brown, 34 N. H. 476; Phillips v. Houston, 5 Jones L. 302; Millett v. Parker, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 613; Shirley r;. Ayres, 14 Ohio, 310; Fitch v. Bunch, 30 Gal. 213; Porter v. Woodhouse, 59 Conn. 668; Robertson v. Woodhouse, lb. 1 Church V. Gilman, 15 Wend. 656; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 Johns. Gh. 255; Maynard ». Maynard, 10 Mass. 456; Tibbals o. .Jacobs, 31 Conn. 428; Folk v. Varu, 9 Rich. Eq. 303; Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Cecil v. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 240. See Lutes v. Reed, 138 Pa. St. 191. 2 McKinney v. Rhoades, 5 Watts, 343. 3 Young V. Guilbeau, 3 Wall. 636 ; Jackson v Bodle, 20 Johns. 1S4 ; Wilsey v. Dennis, 44 Barb. 359; Bullitt v. Taylor, 34 Miss. 741; Mallett «). Page, 8 Ind. 364; Boardman ». Dean, 34 Pa. St. 252; Derry Bank v. Webster, 44 N. H. 268; Jackson a. Phipps, 12 Johns. 422; Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 243; Berkshire Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sturgis, 13 Gray, 177; Dike v. Miller, 24 Texas, 417; Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 386; Mills V. Gore, 20 Pick. 28; Stillwell v. Hubbard, 20 Wend. 44. * Derry Bank v. Webster, 44 N. H. 268; Johnson v. Farley, 45 N. H. 609; Owings v. Tucker (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 1078. 796 CH. XXII.J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 814 not give validity to the deed.^ But the subsequent assent will be good, although the grantor may have died in the meantime.^ The assent of the grantee need not alwaj'S be proved affirmatively and expressly. It may in certain cases be presumed from the delivery. If the grantee was aware of the delivery for his use, and the conveyance was bene- ficial to him, his assent may be presumed from the time of delivery.^ And if it is questioned, it will be necessary to show affirmatively that the grantee was in esse, in order to support the presumption of acceptance.* But this pre- sumption in reference to the assent of the grantee is only prima facie. If the grantee actually dissents or refuses to receive the deed, of course no title passes.^ But where the grantee is under disabilities, as in the case of infant grantees, and perhaps married women, the presumption of assent to a beneficial conveyance becomes a rule of law, and knowledge of the conveyance and delivery is not essen- J Jackson v. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Cas. 114; Jackson v. Bodle, 20 Johns. 187; Church v. Gilman, 15 Wend. 656; Canning v. Pinkham, 1 N. H. 353; Buffum V. Green, 5 N. H. 71; Hulick v. Scovil, 9 111. 177. 2 Hatch V. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307; Poster v. Mansfield, 3 Mete. 412; O'Kelly v. O'Kelly, 8 Mete. 439; Stephens v. Huss, 54 Pa. St. 26; Shaw V. Hayward, 7 Cush. 175; Mather v. Corless, 103 Mass. 568; McCalla v.. Bayne, 45 Ped. Rep. 828. But see State Bank -o. Evans, 3 Green, 155 ; Diefendorf v. Dlefendorf, 8 N. W. S. 617. 3 Robinson v. Gould, 26 Iowa, 93; Cecil v. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 241; Gil- lord V. Corrigan, 117 N. Y. 257; 22 N. E. 756; Munoz v. Wilson, 111 N. Y. 295. But an acceptance will not be presumed, as long as the grantee is ignorant of the conveyance. Maynard v. Maynard, 10 Mass. 456; Prestman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644; Baker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479; Thomp- son V. liloyd, 49 Pa. St. 128; Miller v. Murfleld (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. 540; McElroy v. Hiner (111. 1890), 24 N. E. 435. ^ Hulick V. Scovil, 9 111. 177; Walker v. Walker, 42 111. 311; Bensleyu. Atwill, 12 Cal. 231. 6 peaveyt). Tilton, 18 N. H. 152; Townson v. Tickell, 3 B. & Aid. 36; Younge v. Guilbeau, 3 Wall. 641; Tompkins v. Wheeler, 16 Pet. 119; •Read u. Robinson, 6 Watts & S. 329; Ponda v. Sage, 46 Barb. 109; Welsh V. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243; Rogers v. Carey, 47 Mo. 282; Dikes v. Miller, 24 Texas, 423; St. Louis I. M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Ruddell (Ark. 1890), 13 S. W. 418; Dikeman v. Arnold (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 407. 797 § 815 THE REQUISITES OB^ A DEED. [PAET III. tial.i The relation existing between the person receiving the deed and the grantee may often make the assent and acceptance of the deed by the former sufficient to give the title to the grantee. For example, an acceptance by the father or mother of a deed to an infant child is a good ac- ceptance.^ And on the same ground at common law, a conveyance to a married woman was void if her husband dissented. But his assent is binding upon her even after his death.^ § 815. Escrows. — Although the delivery of the deed will pass the title, if such is the intention of the grantor, and such intention will be presumed in the absence of anything to the contrary, yet there may be a conditional delivery, conditioned that the deed shall only take effect upon the happening of an event specified at the time of delivery. Such a deed is called an escrow. In order that a deed may be an escrow, it must be delivered to a stranger to hold until the condition is performed, and then to be delivered to the grantee. If the delivery is made to the grantee, it will be an absolute delivery, whatever conditions may be annexed thereto, and the title will immediately pass to the grantee.* 1 Baker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479; Spencer v. Carr, 45 N. Y. 410; Greg- ory V. Walker, 38 Ala. 26 ; Eivard v. Walker, 39 III. 413 ; Cecil v. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 241; Mitchell v. Kyan, 3 Ohio St. 387; Peavey v. Tilton, 18 N. H. 152 ; Concord Bank v. Bellis, 10 Cash. 378 ; Diefendorf v. Diefendort, 8N. Y. S. 617. 2 Biker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 456; Jaques v. Methodist Church, 17 Johns. 577 ; Gregory v. Walker, 38 Ala. 27; Bryan »._ Wash, 6 111. 557; Morrison v. Kelly, 22 111. 612; Hogers v. Carey, 47 Mo. 236; Cloud v. Calhoun, 10 Rich. Eq. 362. 3 Butler & Baker's Case, 3 Rep. 26; Melvin u. Props., etc., 16 Pick. 167; Foley V. Howard, 8 Clarke (Iowa), 36; Dielendorf v. Diefendort, 8 N. Y. S.617. * Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 230; Ward v. Lewis, 4 Pick. 520; Gil- bert V. N. A. F. Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 43; Worrallc. Munn, 6 N. Y. 229;' Black V. Shreve, 13 N. J. 458; Lawton v. Sager, 11 Barb. 849; Moss v. Riddle, 5 Cranch, 361; Cin., W. & Z. R. E. v. Iliff, 13 Ohio St. 249; M. & Ind. Plank Road Co. v. Stevens, 10 Ind. 1; State B.Chrisman, 2 Ind. 126; 798 CH. XXn.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 815 But if the delivery to the grantee is merely for the purpose of having it delivered immediately to a third person to hold as an escrow, the delivery to the grantee will not vesta title in him, the intent, with which it was done, controlling its effect.^ Where the deed is delivered to a stranger for the grantee, whether it shall operate as a present deed, or as an €Scrow, depends upon the intention of the parties, as ex- pressed at the time of the delivery. If the deed is handed to the stranger with the instruction that the delivery to the grantee shall depend upon the happening of a condition, it is an escrow; but if the delivery is made to the stranger, although accompanied by instructions that it shall not be delivered until the death of the grantor, it is a grant in proe- senti.^ The importance of distinguishing escrows from other deeds like those above described lies in this fact : escrows can operate only from the time that the condition is performed. A delivery before the performance of the condition will not have the eflFect of passing the title to the grantee, not even against innocent purchasers for value of the grantee.^ But Foley V. Cowgill, 5 Blackf. 18; Blake v. Fash, 44 111. 305; Jane v. Greg- ory, 42 111. 416; Herdmanu. Bratten, 2 Harr. 396; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 29 Ala. 160. But see Bibb v. Eeid, 3 Ala. 88; Stevenson v. Crapnell, 114 111. 19. 1 Murray v. Stair, 2 B. & C. 82; Jackson v. Slieldon, 22 Me. 669; Gil- bert ». N. A. Fire Ins. Co., 23 Wead. 43; Slmonton's Estate, 4 Watts, 180; Den V. Partee, 2 Dev. & B. 530. But see Fairbanks v. Metcalf , 8 Mass. 239 ; Braman v. Bingham, 26 N. Y. 483. 2 Foster v. Mansfield, 3 Mete. 414; Cook v. Brown, 34 N. H. 465; Too- ley V. Dibble, 2 Hill, 641; Braman v. Bingham, 26 N. Y. 483; Hathaway V. Payne, 34 N. Y. 106; Price v. P., & Ft. W. & C. B. B., 34 111. 13. 2 Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 230; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 240; Hinman v. Booth, 21 Wend. 267; People v. Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 450; Stiles V. Brown, 16 Vt. 563; Smith v. So. Royalton Bk., 32 Vt. 341; Black V. Shreve, 13 N. J. 458 ; Jacksoii v. Sheldon, 22 Me. 569 ; Blight v. Schenck, 10 Pa. St. 285; Berry v. Anderson, 22 lad. 40; Illinois Cent. R. R. v. McCullaugh, 59 HI. 170; Chipmanti. Tucker, 38 Wis. 43; 20 Am. Rep. 1; Chicago, etc., R. E. Land Co., v. Peck, 112 111. 400. In Rhodes b. Gardiner, 30 Me. 110, it was held that sufficient title passed by such an authorized delivery to give a good title to an innocent purchaser from the grantee. 799 § 815 THE EEQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART UI. if the deed is one operaiiug immediately, even though the bailee of the deed is instructed not to deliver it before the grantor's death, it passes the title immediately, and a deliv- ery before the grantor's death will be good. Indeed, it does not seem that any formal delivery to thegrantee is required.^ For this reason it is always necessary in delivering a deed as an escrow to be explicit as to the intent with which the delivery was made, and it would be much more prudent if the delivery is accompanied by a memorandum in writing, explaining the character of the delivery to the bailee, and the terms of the condition upon which the delivery to the grantee depends. No technical or formal language is re- quired provided the intention is made clear by the use of any other language.^ In an escrow no title vests in the grantee until the second delivery.^ But though the deed after the first delivery can only be revoked by the grantor, for default in the performance of the condition,* the prem- ises so far continue to be the property of the grantor that they can be levied upon by the grantor's creditors, and their attachments will take precedence to the title acquired by the grantee.^ But notwithstanding the deed does not take effect until the second delivery, yet for many purposes, after the ' Murray v. Stair, 2 B. & C. 82 ; Shaw v. Hayward, 7 Cush. 175 ; Foster ». Mansfield, 3 Mete. 412; O'Kelly v. O'Kelly, 8 Mete. 436; Mather v. Cor- less, 103 Mass. 568; Braman v. Bingham, 26 N. Y. 483; Hathaway v. Payne, 34 N. Y. 106; Price v. P., & Ft. W. & C. R. R., 34 111. 13; Good- paster V. Leathers (Ind. 1890), 23 N. E. 1090. 2 JacksoQ V. Catlin, 2 Johns. 248; Clark v. Gifiord, 10 Wend. 310; Gil- bert V. N. A. Fire Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 43; Fairbanks v, Metcalf, 8 Mass. 239; Jackson v. Sheldon, 22 Me. 669; State v. Peck, 53 Mo. 293; White V. Bailey, 14 Conn. 271; Shoenberger v. Hackman, 37 Pa. St. 87; MUlett V. Parker, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 616. 2 Frost V. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 297; James u. Vanderheyden, 1 Paige, 885; Everts ». Agnes, 4 Wis. 351. " Worrall o. Munn, 6 N. Y. 229; Millet v. Parker, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 608; Wright V. Shelby R. R., 16 B. Mon. 4. 5 Frost V. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 297; Jackson u. Catlin, 2 Johns. 248; Jackson v. Rowland, 6 Wend. 666. 800 CH. XXII. j THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 816 second delivery, the deed relates back to the first delivery, and takes effect nunc pro tunc. This is the case when the doctrine of relation is necessary on account of some inter- vening obstacle which would otherwise invalidate the deed, as where the grantor dies before the second delivery.^ § 816. Kegistration of deeds and other instruments. — Except in respect to the enrollment of deeds of bargain and sale, deeds were not required by the English law to be registered or recorded. And although a system of registra- tion has been in operation since the reign of Queen Anne in some of the counties of England, no general registration law has ever been in force there. ^ But in the United States from an early period, every State in the Union has had a general registration law and officers appointed whose duty it was to record all deeds of conveyance, and other written instruments mentioned in the statute. The object of re- cording a deed is to furnish a subsequent purchaser with reliable means of investigating titles. And hence it must be recorded in the county in which the land lies.* The record simply furnishes evidence of the conveyance, and the law provides that if a deed is recorded, the record is constructive notice of the conveyance, and that an unrecorded deed shall not prevail against subsequent pur- chasers without notice.* 1 Euggles 1). Lawson, 13 Johns. 285; Jackson v. Rowland, 6 Wend. 666; Shirley a. Ayres, 14 Ohio, 307; Price v. P., Ft. 'W. & C. R. R., 34 111. 84; Evans v. Gibbs, 6 Humph. 405; Hallu. Harris, 5 Ired. Eq. 303; Frost v. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch.. 257; Jackson v. Catlin, 2 Johns. 248; Hatch «^. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307; Carr v. Hoxie, 5 Mason, 60. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 313; Williams on Real Prop. 466, 467. 3 Oberholtzer's Appeal, 124 Pa. St. 583. * Earle v. Fiske, 103 Mass. 492; Trull ». Bigelow, 16 Mass. 406; Stephens v. Morse, 47 N. H. 433 ; Murphy v. Nathans, 46 Pa. St. 512 ; King V. Gilson, 32 111. 654 ; Sicard v. Davis, 6 Pet. 124 ; Irvin v. Smith, 17 Ohio, 226; Van Rensselaer ». Clark, 17 Wend. 25; Jackson v. Leek, 19 Wend. 339; Corliss v. Corliss, 8 Vt. 373; Wells v. Morrow, 38 Ala. 125; Martin V. Quattlebaum, 3 McCord, 205; Rogers v. Jones, 8N. H. 264; Burkhalter 51 801 § 816a THE REQUISITES Or A DEED. [PAET III. § 816a. Requisites of a proper record. — But in order that tlie record may be constructive notice of the deed and its contents, the deed must be a valid one, and possess all the requisites of a valid deed. The record of a defective deed furnishes no notice, except to one who has seen it. And the deed or other instrument must further be one required or permitted by law to be recorded. ^ A quit-claim deed is sufficient to give o. Ector, 25 Ga. 55; Ricks v. Reed, 19 Cal. 571; LUlard v. Racker, 9 Terg. 64; Dixon v. Dae, 1 Smed. & M. 70; Givan v. Doe, 7 Blaclif. 210; Apple- gate V. Gracy, 9 Dam, 224; Hopping v. Barnham, 2 Greene (Iowa), 39; Fitzhugh V. Barnard, 12 Mich. 110. 1 De Witt V. Moulton, 17 Me. 418; Shaw v. Poor, 6 Pick. 88; Blood v. Blood, 23 Pick. 80; Graves v. Graves, 6 Gray, 391; Isham v. Bennington Co., 19 Vt. 230; Peck v. Mallams, 10 N. Y. 518; Carter v. Champion, 8 Conn. 640; Muighen v. Strong, 6 Miss. 177; Kerns v. Swope, 2 Watts, 75 McKeen v. Mitchell, 35 Pa. St. 269; Bossard v. White, 9 Rich. Eq. 483 Harper v. Barsh, 10 Rich. Eq. 149; Harper v. Tapley, 35 Miss. 510; Hern- don V. Kimball, 7 Ga. 432; Burnham o. Chandler, 15 Texas, 441; Stevens » Hampton, 46 Mo. 408; Bischop v. Schneider, 4G Mo. 472; 2 Am. Rep. 533 Ely u. Wilcox, 20 Wis. 529; Prlngle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; 19 Am. Eep 772; Stewart ■!). McSweeney, 14 Wis. 468; Sands v. Beardsley, 32 W. Va. 694; Johns t!. Reardon, 3 Md. Ch. 67; 6 Md. 81; Herndon u. Kimball, 7 Ga. 432; Work v. Harper, 24 Miss. 517; Thomas v. Grand Gulf Bk., 9Sm. & Mar. 201; Graham u. Samuel, 1 Dana, 166; Halstead v. Bank of Ky., 4 J. J. Marsh. 554; White v. Denman, 1 Ohio St. 110; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449, 460, 461; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423; De Witt v. Moulton, 17 Id. 418; Stevens v. Morse, 47 N. H. 532; Isham v. Bennington Iron Co.', 19 Vt. 230; Blood v. Blood, 23 Pick. 80; Sumner v. Rho.des, 14 Conn. 135; Reynolds v. Kingsbury, 15 Iowa, 238; Harney v. Little, 15 Id. 527; Brin- toav. Seevres, 12 Id. 389; Hodgson v. Butts, 3 Cranch, 140; Shults v. Moore, McLean, 621; Harper t). Reno, 1 Ereem. Ch. 323; Carter u. Cham- pion, 8 Conn. 548; Parklst v. Alexander, 1 Johns. Ch. 394; Green v. Drinker, 7 W. & S. 440; Heistner v. Fortner, 2 Binu. 40; Strong?). Smith, 3 McLean, 302; Cockey v. Milne, 16 Mil. 200. lu Musgrove v. Bouscr (5 Oreg. 313; 20 Am. Rep. 737), the Supreme Court of Oregon held that the record of a deed, not properly admitted to record, furnishes constructive notice of the contents of the deed to all who have actually seen the record. See, also, to same effect. Kerns i\ Swope, 2 Watts, 75; Hastings V. Cutler, 4 Eost. 481. It is also a general rule that the record must be properly made, in order to raise constructive notice to subsequent pur- chasers; and it has been held in Wisconsin, though denied in Missouri and Pennsylvania, that a record without an index furnishes no notice. Pringle 802 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 817 the grantee priority over a prior unrecorded deed.^ And a subsequent grantee, who takes without notice of the prior unrecorded deed, can claim priority over such prior convey- ance, althougli his own deed may be unrecorded.^ If a deed has been properly recorded, in most of the States it may be used in evidence without any other proof of its execution.* And in some of them a certified copy of the record is made orio;inal evidence in establishing the claim of title from one grantor to another.* But in other of the States the deed must be proved as at common law, unless it comes under the head o{ ancient deeds, i. e., deeds thirty years old.^ § 817. To whom is record constructive notice. — This record is constructive notice ■ to only subsequent purchasers claiming under the grantor, i. e., those who acquire an interest in the property subsequently, and as privy to the grantor, whether as grantee, mortgagee, or at- taching creditor.^ It is not notice to those who claim inde- V. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; 19 Am. Kep. 772; Bishop w. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; 2 Am. Eep. 653; Schelli). Stein,, 76 Pa. St. 398; 18 Am. Rep. 416. 1 Cutler V. James, 64 Wis. 173; 54 Am. Hep. 603. ' Edwards v. Thorn, 25 Fla. 222. •'■ Younge v. Guilbeau, 3 Wall. 640; Houghton v. Jones, 1 Wall. 702; Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. 632; Ball v. McCawley, 29 Ga. 355; Hutchin- son V. Eust, 2 Gratt. 394; Doe v. Prettyraan, 1 Houst. 339; Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207; Simpson v. Mundy, 3 Kan. 181; Young v. Eingo, 1 B. Mon. 30; Clark v. Troy, 20 Cal."* 219; Fell v. Young, 63 III- 106; Sanders v. Bolton, 26 Cal. 405; Hinchliffe v. Hinman, 18 Wis. 135; Toulmin v. Austin, 5 Stew. & P. 410. 4 Scanlan v. Wright, Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207; Harvey V. Mitchell, 31 N. H. 582; Farrar v. Fessenden, 39 N. H. 268; Dixon v. Doe, 5 Blackf. 106; Bogaa v. Frisby, 36 Miss. 178; Clague v. Washburn, 42 Minn. 371; 44 N. W. 130. 3 See Woolfolk v. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 22 S. C. 332. " Tilton V. Hunter, 24 Me. 35; Shaw v. Poor, 6 Pick. 85; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. 224; Flynt v. Arnold, 2 Mete. 619; Doe v. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 412; Whittington v. Wright, 9 Ga. 23; Miller v. Bradford, 12 Iowa, 18; Crockett v. Maguire, 10 Mo. 34; Losey v. Simpson, 3 Stockt. Oh. 246; Ely v. Wilcox, 20 Wis. 630; Traphagen v. Irwin, 18 Neb. 195. 803 § 817 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. pendeutly of the grantor, ^ as, for example, where a mort- gagee assigns the mortgage. The record of the assignment is not constructive notice to the mortgagor or his assignees.^ So, also, is the mortgagee or his assignee not charged with constructive notice by the record of the mortgagor's as- signment.^ The same rule applies in general to those who acquire their interests from the grantor by a prior deed.* 1 Blake v. Graham, 6 Ohio St. 480; Iglehart ». Crane, 42 111. 261; St. John V. Conger, 40 jfd. 535 ; Crockett v. Maguire, 10 Mo. 34; Long v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 218, 453; Baker v. Griffin, 50 Miss. 158; TUton v. Hunter, 24 Me. 29; Bates v. Norcross, 14 Pick. 224; George v. Wood, 9 Allen, 80; Murray v. Ballon, 1 Johns. Ch. 566; Wliittington v. Wright, 9 Ga. 23; Brook u. Headen, 13 Ala. 370; Doliu v. Gardner, 15 Id. 758; Leiby v. Wolf, 10 Ohio, 80, 83 ; Embnry v. Conner, 2 Sandf. 98 ; Stnyvesant V. Hall, 2 Barb. Ch. 151, 158; Page v. Waring, 76 N. Y. 463; Cook v. Travis, 20 N. Y. 402; Lightner v. Mooney, 10 Watts, 412; Hetherington ■». Clark, 6 Casey, 393, 395; Keller v. Nutz, 5 Serg. & R. 246; Hoy v. Bramhall, 4 Green Ch. 563; Losey v. Simpson, 3 Stockt. Ch. 246; Farm- ers' L. & T. Co. V. MaltlDy, 8 Paige, 361; Calder v. Chapman, 52 Pa,. St. (2 P. F. Sm.) 359; Wood v. Farmere, 7 Watts, 282. 2 Jones V. Gibbons, 9 Ves. 410; Mitchell v. Burnham, 44 Me. 302; James v. Johnson, 6 Johns. Ch. 417; Walcott v. Sullivan, 1 Edw. Ch. 399; Ely v. Schofleld, 35 Barb. 330; Belden v. Meeker, 47 N. Y. 307; Bank v. Anderson, 14 Iowa, 644; Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 176; Titus v. Haynes, 9 N. Y. S. 742; Castle v. Castle (Mich. 1890), 44 N. W. 378. In some of the States, notably California, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin, Mary- land, the same rule is established by statute. Jones on Mort., sect. 473; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 148. See Watson v. Dundee Mortgage, etc., Co., 12 Ore. 474. And see sect. 815. 3 4 Kent's Com. 174; Stnyvesant y. Hall, 2 Barb. Ch. 158; Bell®. Flem- ing, 12 N. J. Eq. 16; Blair v. Ward, 10 N. J. Eq. 126; Groesbeck v. Mat- tison, 43 Minn. 547; Clark v. McNeal, 114 N. Y. 287; First Nat. Bank v. Honeyman (Dakota, 1889), 42 N. W. 771. See sect. 815. * George u. Wood, 9 Allen, 80; Losey v. Simpson, 3 Stockt. Ch. 246; Holley B. Hawley, 39 Vt. 632; Boone v. Clark, 129 111. 466; 2 Pom. 99 n, 142. See Maul i). Rider, 69 Pa. St. (9 P. F. Sm.) 106, 171; Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Ward's Exr. v. Hague, 25 N. J. Eq. (10 C. E. Green) 397; Leach v. Beattie, 33 Vt. 195; Kyle v. Thompson, 11 Ohio St. 616; Stnyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb. Ch. 151; Stnyvesant v. Hone, 1 Sand. Ch. 419; Taylor v. Maris' Exrs, 5 Rawle, 51; Cheesebrough 0. Millard, 1 Johns. Ch. 4H; Guion v. Knapp, 6 Paige, 42; Chan- cellor Walworth, in 2 Barb. Ch. 151, 157, 158. See also, Howard 804 •CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 817 It has also been held that' the doctrine of constructive notice from record of a deed does not apply where A.'s deed to B. is unrecorded and B. then conveys to C, who puts his deed upon record without notice of the fact that B., the grantor, has derived his title from A. It is held that a subsequent purchaser is not charged with constructive no- tice of the prior recorded deed from B. to C.^ But it is a doubtful question whether the registration of the prior deed, before the title had been acquired by the grantor and re- corded, would properly be considered constructive notice of the estoppel, whereby the after-acquired title would inure to the prior grantee even as against a subsequent purchaser without actual notice. It is certainly in violation of the spirit of the registration laws, which only require the in- vestigator to search the records of any incumbrance or conveyance which occurs between the time when the grantor acquired the title, and the time when he offers the title for conveyance.^ Ins. Co. V. Halsey, 8 N. Y. 27A; Hill v. McCarter, 27 N. J. Eq. 41; Hoy v. Bra-mhall, 19 J(i. 563; Van Orden v. Johnson, 1 McCarter, 376; Blair u. •Ward, 2 Stockt. Ch. 126; George v. Wood, 9 Allen, 80; Taylor v. Marls, 6 Eawle, 51; Leiby v. Wolf, 10 Ohio, 83; James v. Brown, 11 Mict. 25; Cooper V. Bigly, 13 Id. i63 ; Doolittle v. Cook, 75 III. 365 ; Iglehart v. Crane, 42 Id. 261; Deuster v. McCamus, 14 Wis. 307; Straight v. Harris, 14 Id. 509; Halsteads v. Bk. ol Ky., 4 J. J. Marsh. 558. 1 Veazie v. Parker, 53 Me. 170; Pierce ». Taylor, 23 Me. 246; Felton v. Pitman, 14 Ga. 530; Roberts v. Bourne, 23 Me. 165; Harris v. Arnold, 1 K.I. 125; Cook V. Travis, 22 Barh. 338; 20 N. Y. 402; Loseyi;. Simpson, ,3 Stockt. Ch. 246; Lightner v. Mooney, 10 Watts, 407; Calder v. Chap- man, 52 Pa. St. 35S; Fenne v. Sayre, 3 Ala. 478; Chicago v. Witt, 75 III. 211. ? Calder v. Chapman, 2 P. r. Smithy 359 ; McCusker v. McEvey, 10 E- T. 606, the dissenting opinion of Judge Potter; Great Falls Co. v. Wor- icester, 15 N. H. 452; Divins v. Vinzant, 15 Ga. 621; Gouchenour v. Mowry, 33 111. 331; Bright v. Bucbraan, 39 Fed. Eep. 243; Pike 17. Calvin, 29 Me. 183; Wark v. Willard, 13 N. H. 389; Kimball v. Blaisdell, 5 Id. ZS3; JarviSB. Aikens, 25 Vt. 635; White v. Patten, 24 Pick. 324; Somes V. Skinner, 3 Id. 52 ; Tefft v. Munson, 57 N. Y. 97; Doyle v. Peerless Pet. Co., 44 Barb. 239; Farmers L. & T. Co. v. Maltby, 8 Paige, 361. But see Wilson V. Smith, 62 Hun, 171. 805 § 817 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. It has been held by some of the courts that a purchaser from the heir cannot claim precedence for his recorded deed over the unrecorded deed of the ancestor, on the ground that since the unrecorded deed was a good conveyance against the heir, nothing descended to the heir which he could convey.^ But the better opinion seems to be that the deed from the heir in such a case would be entitled to priority, and would vest the superior title in the grantee of theheir,for the reason that the registry laws declare a deed void against all subsequent purchasers without notice if it has not been recorded. ^ If one has a recorded deed which has a priority over an ante- cedent unrecorded deed, the holder of the recorded deed acquires an absolute paramount title, which he can convey even to those who have notice of the prior unrecorded deed,' with the exception of his own grantor, who originally acquired title with notice of the prior unrecorded deed. Such a person cannot improve his title by conveying the land to an innocent purchaser, and repurchasing it, rely- ing upon the superior title of the intermediate grantee.* And if the recorded deed is to one who has notice of the prior deed, although in his hands the recorded deed does not have precedence,^ if he conveys to one having no no- tice, his grantee acquires a good title. But if the prior deed is recorded before the conveyance by the first grantee who has had notice, the grantee of the second conveyance is bound by the constructive notice.* But no one can take ^ Hill V. Meeker, 24 Conn. 211; Hancock v. Beverly, 6 B. Mon. 532; Harlan v. Seaton, 18 B. Mon. 312. 2 Earle v. Fiske, 103 Mass. 491 ; Powers v. McFerron, 2 Serg. & R. 47; McCulloch v. Endaly, 3 Yerg. 346; Youngblood v. Vasllne, 46 Mo. 239; Kennedy v. Nortrup, 15 111. 148. 3 Lowther v. Carlton, 2 Atk. 133; Trull v. Bigelow, 15 Mass. 406; Bumpus V. Platner, 1 Johns. Ch. 219; Bell v. Twilight, 18 N. H. 159. * Clark V. McNeal, 114 N. Y. 287. s Cox V. Wayne, 26 W. Va. 807. " riynt«. Arnold, 2 Mete. 619; Trull «. Bigelow, 16 Mass. 406; Adams V. Cuddy, 13 Pick. 460; Brackett v. Ridlon, 54 Me. 434; Hagthorp v. Hook, 1 Gill & J. 270; Bay lis v. Young, 51 111. 127. 806 CH. XXII. J THE REQUISITES OP A DEED. § 817« advantage of the record for the purpose of giving his deed priority over another unrecorded deed, who has not paid a substantial valuable consideration therefor, and he must show by extraneous evidence that it has been paid.^ § 817a. Priorityof unrecorded mortgages over judgment creditors. — It is also claimed by many of the authorities, that an unrecorded mortgage or conveyance will have priority over the subsequently docketed judgment, although the judgment is obtained and docketed without notice of the prior conveyance or mortgage, on the ground that the lien of the judgment on the property is acquired by the judgment creditor without any consideration and that the assertion of the prior unrecorded mortgage or conveyance against such subsequently docketed judgment would not give to the judgment creditor any claim of being injured, for he has parted with nothing in securing the judgment lien in reliance upon the apparently valid title of the judg- ment debtor. The equitable doctrine then is that a judg- ment lien will cover only the actual interest of the judgment debtor, and attaches to such interest subject to all the prior equitable claims against such interest.^ This rule, 1 Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 211; Watkins v. Edwards, 23 Texas, 447; Parker v. Foy, 43 Miss. 260; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304; Bishop V. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472 ; 2 Am. Rep. 533 ; Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410; Cox v. Voght, 26 W. Va. 807. 2 Bartley, J., in White v. Denman, 1 Ohio St. 110, 112; Fjnney v. ' Earl of Winchelsea, 1 P. Wms. 277; Legard u. Hodges, 1 Ves. 477; Burn V. Burn, 3 Ves. 573, 582; Lodge v. Tyseley, 4 Sim. 70; Beavan w. Earl of Oxford, 6 De. M. & G. 507, 517, 518; Newlands v. Paynter, 4 My. & Cr. 408; Langton v. Horton, 1 Hare, 549; Everett v. Stone, 3 Story, 446, 455; Briggs v. French, 2 Sumn, 251; Elis u. Tousley, 1 Paige, 280. In re Howe, 1 Paige, 125; White v. Carpenter, 2 Id. 217, 266; Governeur v. Titus, 6 Id. 347; Kiersted v. Avery, 4 /d. 9; Arnolds. Patrick, 6 Id. 310; Morris v. Mowatt, 2 Id. 586, 590; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 165, 207; Hoagland v. Latourette, 1 Green's Ch. 254; Dunlap V. Burnett, 5 Sm. & Mar. 702; Money v. Dorsey, 7 Id. 15; Bank v. Camp- bell, 2 Rich. Eq. 179; Watkins v. Wassell, 15 Ark. 73,94,95; Cover u. Black, 1 Barr. 493; Shryock v. Waggoner, 4 Casey, 430; Hampson v. 807 § 817a THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAKT III. however, has been repudiated by the courts of many of the States in which it is held, that the judgment cred- itor is entitled to priority over other earlier equitable in- terests, on the ground that he does suffer a damage of a legal character in consequence of the recognition of the priority in the earlier equities whenever he goes to the trouble and expe.nse of procuring the judgment lien, and is induced by the apparently unincumbered condition of the debtor's title to rely upon such judgment lien. In accord- ance with this principle it is held in these States, that the judgment lien, docketed subsequently to an unrecorded mortgage, or to the acquisition or of some equitable interest or lien, shall have precedence over such prior equity or inter- est;^ but where the judgment lien is given priority over the Edelen, 2 Har. & Johns. 64; Hackett v. Callender, 32 Vt. 97, 108, 109; Hart V. Parm. & Mecb. Bk. 33 Id. 252; Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205; Baker ■«. Morton, 12 Id. 150; Eicheson v. Richeson, 2 Gratt. 497; Bay ley V. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat, 46, 51; Stevens v. Watson, Abb. App. Dec. 302; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Green), 552; Knell v. Building Assn., 34 Md. 67; Galway v. Malchow, 7 Neb. 285; Jackson v. Dubois, 4 Johns. 216; Schmidt v. Hoyt, 1 Edw. Ch. 662; Thomas c. Kelsey, 30 Barb. 268; Wilder v. Butterfleld, 50 How. Pr. 385; In re How., 1 Paige, 125; Schroeder v. Gurney, 73 N. Y. 430; Moyer v. Hinman, 13 N. Y. 180; 17 Barb. 137; Wilcoxson v. Miller, 49 Gal. 193; Pixley ■!). Huggins, 15 Id. 127; Plant v. Smythe, 45 Id. 161; Hunt u. Watson, 12 Id. 363; Rose v. Maunie, 4 Id. 173; First Nat. Bk. ». Hayzlett, 40 Iowa, 659; Hoy v. Allen, 27 Id. 208; Churchill v. Morse, 23 Id. 229; Evans v. McGlesson, 18 Id. 150; Welton v. Tizzard, 15 Id. 495; Patterson v. Linder, 14 Id. 414; Bell V. Evans, 10 Id. 353; Norton «. Williams, 9 Id. 528; Sappington v. Oes- chili, 49 Mo. 244; Potter v. McDowell, 43 Id. 93; Stillwell v. McDonald, 39 Id. 282; Valentine v. Havener, 20 Id. 133; Apperson K. Budgett, 33 Ark.' 328; Kelly v. Mills, 41 Miss. 267; Eighter v. Forrester, 1 Bush. (Ky.) 278; Morton v. Robards, 4 Dana, 258; Greenleaf v. Edes, Minn. 264; Orth v. Jennings, 8 Blackf. 420; Hempton v. Levy, 1 McCord Ch. 107, 111; Galway v. Mulchow, 7 Neb. 285; Van Thorniley ». Peters, 26 Ohio, St. 471. 1 Corpman v. Baccastow, 84 Pa. St. 363; King v. Portis, 77 N. C. 25; Vat Thoruiley v. Peters, 26 Ohio St. 471 ; White v. Denman, 1 Ohio St. 110, 112, 114; Majham o. Coombs, 14 Ohio, 428; Jackson «. Luce, 7d. 514; Holiday v. Franklin Bk. 16 Id. 533; Guiteau v. Wisely, 47 111. 433; McFadden v. Worthington, 45 Id. 362; Massey v. Wescott, 40 Id. 808 CH. XXir.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 8 1 7a earlier equity, the claim for priority depends upon the want of notice of the prior equity when the lien was acquired. In other words, if when the judgment lien was acquired and the judgment docketed, the judgment creditor knows of the existence of the earlier equitable claim against the property, he cannot claim for his judgment lien any precedence over the prior equity.^ Where, however, the recording laws declare that a judgment lien shall have precedence over the unrecorded mortgage, or a conveyance, the statutory provis- ion must prevail, giving to the judgment lien priority over the unrecorded mortgage even though the judgment ci-ed- itor knew when the judgment was docketed that such unre- corded mortgage existed.^ But whether in any particular State the judgment lien is held to have priority over the prior equity or interest, or not, if the judgment lien should be enforced by execution, and the property sold under such execution to a bona fide purchaser, the legal title in such a purchaser would be taken by him free from the priority of the earlier equity, and such equities could not be enforced 160; Reichert v. MeClure, 23 Id. 516; Barker v. Bell, 37 Ala. 854; Main- waringj). Templeman, 41 Texas, 266; Firebaugh v. Ward, 51 Id. 409; Cav- anaugh V. Peterson, 47 Id. 197; Grace v. Wade, 45 Id. 522; Andrews v. Mathews, 59 Ga. 466; Young «. Devrles, 31 Gratt. 304; Eidson v. Huff, 29 Id. 338; McClure v. Thistle's Exrs. 2 Id. 182; Anderson o. Nagle, 12 W, Va. 98; Uhler v. Hutchinson, 23 Pa. St. 110; Jaqaes v. Weeks, 7 Watts, 261; Hulings v. Guthrie, 4 Burr. 123; Hibberd v. Bovler, 1 Gra;nt's Cas. (Pa.) 266 ; Mallory v. Stodder, 6 Ala. 801 ; Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. ». Led- yard, 8 Id. 866; Pollard v. Cocke, 19 Id. 188. ' Priest V. Elce, 1 Pick. 164; Hart v. Farm. & Mech. Bk., 33 Vt. 252; Hackett v. Callender, 32 Id. 97, 108, 109; Cover v. Black, 1 Barr. 493; O'Eourke v. O'Connor, 39 Cai. 442; Brlttou's Appeal, 9 Wright, 172; Mel- Ion's Appeal, 8 Casey, 121; Lawrence v. Stratton, 6 Cush. 163, 167; God- dard v. Prentice, 17 Conn. 546; Cox v. Milner, 23 111. 476; Ogden v. Haven, 24 Id. 57; Dixon v. Doe, 1 Sm. & Mar. 70; Ayres v. Duprey, 27 Texas, 593; Wyatt?;. Stewart, 34 Ala. 716, 721; Burt v. Cassety, 12 Ala. 734; Wallis v. Rhea, 10 Id. 451; 12 Id. 646; Garwood v. Garwood, 4 Halst, 193. 2 Guerrant v. Andei'son, 4 Band. 208 ; Davidson ». Cowan, 1 Dev. Eq. 474; Davey v. Littlejohn, 2 Ired. Eq. 495; Mayham v. Coombs, 14 Ohio, 428; Butler v. Maury, 10 Humph. 420; Lillard v. Euckers, 9 Yerg. 64. 809 § 817a THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PART III. against Iho lien in the handsof such a purchaser.^ Where, however, the purchaser under the execution of the judgment takes the land withnoticeof the prior equity, and the judg- ment creditor also loses his precedence, because of his knowl- edge of the existence of the prior equity, or the question arises in a State in which the judgment creditor is denied all claim of priority over the earlier equity, such a purchaser cannot claim to take the legal title from the earlier equita- ble claim. ^ But if the question arose in a State in which the judgment creditor can claim for his lien, priority over the equitable interest of the earlier date, because he does not know of its existence when the judgment lien was secured, then this priority recognized by the law in the judgment creditor in favor of his lien passes to the purchaser, so that the purchaser under the execution of the judgment can claim 1 Orth V. Jennings, 8 Blackf. 420; Roclgers v. Gibson, i Yeates, 111; Heister v. Fortner, 2 Binney, iO; Sieman v. Scliurck, 29 N. Y. 598; Jack- son «. Chamberlain, 8 "Wend. 620, 625; Jackson v. Post, Ibid. 588; 9 Cow. 120; Jackson v. Town, 4 Cow. 599; Governeur v. Titus, 6 Paige, 347; Den v. Richman, 1 Green, 43; Morrison v. Fuok, 23 Pa. St. 421; Stewart v. Freeman, 10 Harris, 120, 123; Kellam u. Janson, 5 Id. 467; Mann's Appeal, 1 Barr. 24; Wilson v. Shioneberger, 10 Casey, 121; Scribner v. Lockwood, 9 Oliio, 184; Paine v. Mooreland, 15 Id. 435; Run- yan v. McClellan, 24 Ind. 163; Elile v. Brown, 31 Wise, 405, 414; Rogers V. Hussey, 36 Iowa, 664; Draper u. Bryson, 26 Mo. 108; Harrison «. Cachelin, 23 Id. 117, 126; Waldo v. Russell, 5 Id. 387; Oliio Life Ins. & T. Co. V. Ledyard, 8 Ala. 866; Ayres v. Dubrey, 27 Texas, 593, 605; Cooper u. Blakey, 10 Ga. 263; Miles v. King, 5 S. C. 146; Gower v. Doheney, 33 Iowa, 36, 39; Halloway v. Planter, 20 Id. 121; Wood ;;. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509; Arnold w. Patrick, 6 Paige, 310, 316; Dickersoa «. Tillinghast, 4 Id. 216; Wright v. Douglass, 10 Barb. 97; Sargent v. Sturm, 23 Cal. 359; Orme ii. Roberts, 32 Texas, 768; Ayres v. Duprey, 27 Id. 693. 2 Ells V. Tousley, 1 Paige, 280; Governeur v. Titus, 6 Id. 347; Morris V. Mowatt, 2 Id. 585, 590; Parks v. Jackson, 11 Wend. 442; Siemon u. Schurck, 29 N. Y. 598; Moyer v. Hinman, 13 Id. 180, and cases cited per Denio, J.; Bank u. Campbell, 2 Rich. Eq. 179; Churchill v. Morse, 23 Iowa, 229; Hoy v. Allen, 27 Id. 208; Chapman v. Coats, 26 Id. 288; O'Rourke v. O'Connor, 39 Cal. 442; Davis v. Ownsby, 14 Mo. 170; Valen- tine V. Havener, 20 Id. 133; Sappington v. Oeschli, 49 Id. 244, 246; Byers V. Engles, 16 Ar'k. 643; Prescott v. Heard, 10 Mass. 60; Ogden v. Haven, 24 111. 67; Ayres v. Duprey, 27 Texas, 593. 810 CH. XXII.] THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. § 8176 priority in iiis character as assignee of the judgment cred- itor, although when he takes the deed to the property he knows of the existence of the prior equitable interest or claina.i § 8176. Of what is record constructive notice. — Not only is the record constructive notice of the recorded deed and its contents, but it will also be notice of all other deeds and their contents, to which reference is made in the recorded deed.^ But it has been held that the record of a deed which describes the subject of the grant in very general terms, as, for example, " all the lands the grantor owns in Louisiana," does not furnish constructive notice of any particular tract.'* The record is constructive notice of the contents of the deed only as they appear upon the record. 1 Jaquesu.Weeks, ZWatts, 261, 270;Uhlerw. Hutchinson, 23Pa. St. (II Harris), 110; Calder b. Chapman, 52 Pa. St. (2 P. F. Sra.) 359, 362; Mas- sey V. Westcott, 40 111. 160; McFadden v. Worthington, 55 Id. 362; Gui- teau V. Wisely, 47 Id. 433; Potter v. McDowell, 33 Mo. 93; Stillwell v. McDonald, 39 Id. 282; Davis v. OwQsby, 14 Id. 170; Greenleaf v. Edes, 2 Mian. 264; Henderson v. Downing, 23 Mis:^. 105; Kelly v. Mills, 41 Id. 267, 273; Fash v. Ravesies, 32 Ala. 451; De Venbeli v. Hamilton, 27 Id. 156; Pollard v. Cocke, 19 Id. 188; Smith v. Jordan, 25 Ga. 687. "■ White V. Foster, 102 Mass. 375; Gitbertu.Peteler, 38 N. Y. 165; Aeer V. Westcott, 46 N. Y. 384 ; Cambridge Valley Bank v. Delano, 48 N. Y. 326; Hamilton v. Nutt, 34 Conn. 501; Baker v. Matcher, 25 Mich. 63; Peters v. Goodrich, 3 Conn. 146; Barbour v. Nichols, 3 R. I. 187; Souder 0. Morrow, 33 Pa. St. 83; Clabaugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill, 354; Grandin «?. Anderson, 15 Ohio St. 286; Kyle v. Thompson, 11 Id. 616; Leiby v. Wolf, 10 Ohio, 83; Doyle v. Stevens, 4 Mich. 87; Bancroft v. Consen, 13 Allen, 50; Orvis v. Newell, 17 Conn. 97; Bush v. Golden, 17 Id. 594; Harrison V. Cachelin, 23 Mo. 117, 127; Mesicku. Sunderland, 6 Cal. 297; George v. Kent, 7 Allen, 16; Hetherington v. Clark, 30 Pa. St. 393; Morris u. Wadsworth, 17 Wend. 103; Thomsons. Wilcox, 7 Lans. 376; Youngs v. Wilson, 27 N. Y. 351; Dimon v. Daan, 15 Id. 49'8; Parkist v. Alexander, 1 Johns. Oh. 894; Humphreys v. Newman, 51 Mo. 40; Hall v. McDuff, 24 Id. 311; Tripe v. Marcy, 39 N. H. 439; Leach v. Beattie, 33 Vt. 195-; Bellas V. Chauncey, 8 Coni. 389; Buchanan v. International Bank, 78 111. 500; Oi^den v. Walters, 12 Kan. 283; McCabe v. Grey, 20 Cal. 509; Den- nis V. Burritt, 6 Id. 670; Montefiore v. Browne, 7 H. L. Cas. 241; Viele V. Judson, 82 N. Y. 32. 3 Greene v. Witherspoon, 37 La. An. 751. 811 § 8176 THE REQUISITES OF A DEED. [PAET III. A mistake of the register in the description of the property, or the amount of the mortgage, will fall upon the holder of the deed.i Such would also be the case where a deed abso- lute on its face was recorded without a defeasance and such deed was intended to operate as a mortgage. A purchaser from such mortgagee would not be charged with notice of any other title than that of an absolute owner. ^ The same rule applies where an absolute conveyance is made to one who was intended to take title as trustee for another.' And in some Slates a failure to index the deed will deprive the record of the constructive notice.* But the absence in the record of some material part of the deed is not conclusive proof of the fact that the defect appears in the original.^ ' Prost V. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. 299 ; Beekman v. Frost, 18 Johns. 544. See ante, sect. 338; Jennings v. Wood, 20 Ohio, 261; Miller v. Bradford, 12 Iowa, 14; Hughes v. Debuam, 8 Jones, 127; Wyatt u. Barwell, 19Ves. 439; Peck 8 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 311 ; Co. Lit. 229 a, Butler's note, 140 ; Dyer «. Sandford, 9 Mete. 395 ; Dudley v. Sumner, 5 Mass. 438. ' 3 "Washb. on Real Prop. 311 ; Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. 895 ; Giles v. Pratl; 2 Hill (S. C.) 439. » 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 312; Hallett u. Collins, 10 How. 174; Hipp*. Hackett, 4 Texas, 20. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 312 ; Finley ii. Simpson, 2 N. J. 811. 820 CH. XXII.] COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEEB. § 826 is, successively, and in respect to his estate thus conveyed, a grantor. There is a technical difference between deeds- poll and deeds of indenture still prevaihng, in respect to the form of action upon the grantee's covenants. In some of the States, where the common-law pleading still prevails, it is held that the action of the grantor's covenant in a deed-poll must be assumpsit, since his, agreement or con- tract is not one under his seal. And no doubt this is the ■correct view.-^ But in the so-called code States, viz., where the common-law pleading has been supplanted by the New York code of procedure, this distinction has passed away with the abolition of all forms of actions. - § 825. Component parts of a deed. — These parts have been divided and named by Lord Coke as follows : the premises, habendum, tenendum, reddendum, condition, war- ranty, and covenants. And although it is advisable, ex abundante cautela, to follow the form and order here pre- scribed, making use of the technical and thoroughly adjudi- cated phraseology, it is not absolutely necessary. If a deed contains all the requisites hereinbefore explained, it will be a good and effective deed, even though the various elements are presented in the most irregular order, and in the most informal language. The premises is the only essential part of a deed for the conveyance of an estate.^ § 826. The premises. — The term, premises, is given to all that part of a deed which precedes the habendum clause, and generally includes the names of the parties, the recitals which may be necessary to an explanation of the deed and ' Goodwni). Gilbert, 9 Mass. 510; Nugent u. Biley, 1 Mete. 117; Ne-well r. Hill, 2 Mete. 180; Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 15 Conn. 431 ; Johnson v. Massy, 45 Vt. 419; Maule v. Weaver, 7 Pa. St. 829. 2 Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavett, 54 N. Y. 34. 3 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 865; Co. Lit. 6 a, 7 a; 4 Kent's Com. 461; Eoe V. Tranmarr, Willes, 682; Staton v. MuUis, 92 N. C. 623. 821 § 827 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PAET III. its operation, the consideration and receipt of the same, the operative words of conveyance, description of the thing granted, and, if it is a deed of indenture, the date.^ But these may appear in other parts of the deed, and will be equally effective. And it has been held that where the premises do not contain the name of the grantee, or even sufficient operative words of conveyance, these may be sup. plied by the habendum? This is but an application of the general principle, already enunciated, that a logical or sys- tematic arrangement of the parts is not essential. All the elements of the premises have been already fully discussed, except the matter of description of land granted, and nothing further need be said here concerning them. We will, therefore, proceed to a discussion of the descrip- tion. §827. Description — General statement. — At -first blush, it would appear easy enough to describe specifically and clearly what is granted, and if extreme caution was ob- served in every case, in framing the description, there would be little need of rules of construction. For a clearly writ- ten description can never be controlled by parol evidence.^ But at times so little precaution is taken, and so many un- certainties and inconsistencies creep in, that resort must be made to established rules of construction in order to ascer- tain the intention of the parties. And in construing a deed, very little attention, if any, is paid to the punctuation of the description.* If a description is hopelessly uncertain, so that the thing granted cannot be ascertained from the deed with any reasonable degree of certainty, the deed will 1 3 Wasbb. on Real Prop. 366. 2 3 Washb. od Real Prop. 366; Staton v. Mullis, 92 N. C. 623; Wajlace V. Crow (Tex.), 1 S. W. 372; post, sect. 844. 3 Broom's Leg. Max. 477; Cole v. Lake Co., 54 N. H. 278; Hannum B. West Chester, 70 Pa. St. 472. ^ 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 397; Doe i;. Martin, 4 T. R. 65; Ewingu. Bur- nett, 11 Pet. 54; Bunn v. Wells, 94 N. C. 67. 822 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 827 be void.i But if it is possible to gatlier the intention from the description by any reasonable rules of construction, it will be enforced,^ it matters not how general the descriptioa mtiy be.^ And innpplying these rules of construction on the assumption, particularly in a deed-poll, that the deed is in the liinguage of the grantor, and he is in fault, if uncer- tainties or inconsistencies arise, the deed is construed most favorably to the grantee. But this is only done when all other rules fail to remove the doubt.* Another fundamen- tal principle is that a rational intention must be sought after. The construction must be reasonable and consistent with common sense. ^ In order to ascertain the intention, it is sometimes necessary that resort should be had to parol evidence. But this can only be done when there is some un- certainty arising outside of the deed. Then parol evidence is admissibleto explain the ambiguities arising in this manner by showing the circumstances surrounding the parties, ex- plaining words of art, and by proof of any other facts which will tend to render certain the intentions of the par- 1 Presbrey v. Presbrey, 1 3 Allen, 283 ; Walters v. Breden, 70 Pa. St. 238 ; Shackleford «. Bailey, 35 III. 391; WofEorcl ». McKinna, 23 Texas, 45; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 381 ; Harrell v. Butler, 92 N. C. 20; Tryon v. Hun- toon, 67 Cal. 325; Cunningham v. Thornton, 28 111. App. 58; Coffey ». Hendricks, 66 Texas, 676; 2 S. W. 47; Blow v. Vauglian, 105 N. C. 198; 19 S. E. 891. 2 Abbott V. Abbott, 51 Me. 582; Bond v. Fay, 12 Allen, 88; Crafts v. Hibbard, 4 Mete. 452; Smith u. Green, 41 Fed. 455; Westmoreland v. Carson, 76 Texas, 619; Smith v. Brown, 66 Texas, 543; 1 S. W. 273; Smith V. Greaves, 15 Lea, 459; Coe v. Ritter, 86 Mo. 277; Prior o. Scott, 87 Mo. 303; Charles v. Patch, 87 Mo. 450; Wabash, etc., R. R. Co. v. McDougal, 113 III. 603; Mann v. State, 116 Ind. 383. 3 Smith V. Westall, 76 Texas, 509; 13 S. W. 540; Witt v. Harlan, 66 Texas; 660, 2 S. W. 41 ; Galb.-aith v. Engleke (Tex.) 1 S. W. 346. * Worthington v. Hylyer, 4 Mass. 205; Clough v. Bowman, 15 N. H. 504; Sanborn v. Clough, 40 N. H. 339; Marshall v. Nlles, 8 Conn. 469; Carroll v. Norwood, 5 Har. & J. 155; Dodge v. Walley, 22 Cal. 228; Vance v. Fore, 24 CaL 446. s Lyman v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 198; Day v. Adams, 42 Vt. 510; Magoon V. Harris, 46 Vt. 271. 823 § 827 COMPONENT PAETS OF A DEED. [PAET III. ties.^ Parol evidence, however, is inadmissible to explain away an ambiguity whicb appears upon the face of the deed, as where the deed shows upon its face that the description applies equally to two lots.^ When the deed contains every- thing necessary for a correct understanding of the intention of the parties, and there is, therefore, no uncertainty or am- biguity, parol evidence cannot control the construction or add to the provisions of the deed.^ Where the deed, upon a reasonable construction, conveys other property, or imposes other restrictions or conditions than were intended by the parties, the courts, more particularly those of equity, are authorized, either by statute or under the general equitable jurisdiction, to reform it, so as to conform to the intention of the parties.^ But the reformation must be necessary to effectuate the intention of the parties. It will not be ordered where the uncertainty may be removed by the application of well-known rules of construction.^ Nor Inshore v. Wilson, 9C1. & Fin. 556; Eaton v. Smith, 20 Pick. 150; Pnt- nam i;. Bond, 100 Mass. 58; Hall v. Davis, 36 N. H. 569; Hildebrand v. Fogle, 20 Ohio, 147; Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 162; Charles ». Patch, 87 Mo. 450; Wabash, etc., E. R. Co. v. McDougal, 113 111. 603; Mack ». Bensley, 63 Wis. 80; Thompson v. S. Cal. M. R. Co., 82 Cal, 497; 23 Pac. 130; Eastman v. St. Anthony, etc., Co., 43 Minn. 60; 44 N. W. 882; Westmoreland v. Carson, 76 Texas, 619; Bollinger Co. v. McDowell, 99 Mo. 632; McKinley v. Smith, 29 111. App. 106. 2 Brandon v. Leddy, 67 Cal. 43. 3 Boudw. Fay, 12 Allen, 88 ; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 489 ; Morrison V. Wilson, 30 Cal. 347 ; Lippett v. Kelly, 46 Vt. 516 ; Gardt v. Brown, 113 111. 475; 55 Am. Rep. 430; Matley v. Long, 71 Md. 585; Holcomb v. Mooney, 13 Or. 513; 11 Pac. 274; Bradish v. Yocum, 130111. 386; 23 N. E. 114. " Metcalf V. Putnam, 9 Allen, 97; Canedy v. Marcy, 14 Gray, 373; Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 317; Adams v. Stevens, 49 Me. 362; Prescott v. Hawkins, 16 N. H. 122; Brown ^.Lamp- hear, 35 Vt. 260; Cramer v. Burton, 60 Barb. 225; Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 N. T. 487; Gray v. Hornbeck, 31 Mo. 400; Use v. Lannsheimer, 76 Texas, 459; Stafford v. Giles (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 1028; McShane v. Main, 62 N. H. 24. « WWte V. White, L. R. 15 Eq. 247; Andrews v. Spurr, 8 Allen, 416; Caldwell V. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 484; Clement v. Toungman, 40 Pa. St. 344; Keene's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 274; Mills v. Lockwood, 42 111. 111. 824 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 828 will a deed be reformed because the parties have raistaken the legal operation of the deed.^ But reformation of instruments is a branch of equity jurisprudence, and does not properly belong to a work on Real Property. Suffice it to say that, until it is reformed, an absolutly defective deed conveys nothing. § 828. Contemporanea exposito est optima et fortis- sima in lege. — In construing deeds, courts endeavor to place themselves in the position of the parties at the time •of the conveyance, in order to ascertain what is intended to be conveyed. For, in describing the property, parties are presumed to refer to its condition at that time, and the meaning of their terms of expression can only be properly understood by a knowledge of their position and that of the property conveyed.^ Thus, where the channel of a stream, running through a tract of land, was changed by the pro- prietor, and he subsequently sold it in parcels to different persons, so that the new channel was completely within the boundaries of one parcel, the grantee of this parcel could 3iot, by restoring the stream to its old channel, inundate the other parcels.^ And if at the time of the conveyance by the government of land bounding on a stream, the stream was declared by act of Congress to be navigable, making the boundary line the low-water mark on the shore, a sub- ^ Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudsoa Iron Co., 107 Mass. 317; Glass v. Hulburt, 102 Mass. ii; Canedy ». Marcy, 13 Gray, 363; Hutehings «. Huggins, 69 111. 32. 2 Diaoklee v. Wilton E. E., 24 U, H. 489 ; Eichardson v. Palmer, 38 N. H. 218; Connery v. Brooke, 73 Pa, St. 84; Adams v. Frothinghara, 3 Mass. 352; Commonwealth u. Eoxberry, 9 Gray, 493; Eider ij. Thompson, 23 Me. 244; Abbott V. Abbott, 51 Me. 581 ; Lane ■;;. Thompson, 43 N. H. 324; Pollard v. Maddox, 28 Ala. 326 ; KarmuUer v. Kratz, 18 Iowa, 366 ; Stanley v. Greene, 12 Cal. 148; Thompson v. Southern Cal. M. E. Co., 82 Cal. 497; 2S Pac. 1.30; Staples v. May (Cal. 1890), 23 Pac. 710. 3 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 384; Roberts v. Eoberts, 65 N. T. 27*5. See, also, Buras v. O'Brieti (La. 1890), 7 So. 632; St. Louis, etc., Ey. Co. v. Eamsey (Ark. 1890), 13 S. W. 931. 825 § 829 COMPONENT PAETS OF A DEED. [PAET III. sequent repeal of the act of Congress can have no effect on the location of the boundary line.^ So, also, if the grant was made of a farm, describing the same, but not particu- larizing what parcels were included under the general de- scription, all parcels will pass by the deed which were at the time of the conveyance used and occupied together.^ Where the description is susceptible of two constructions, the extent of the possession will control." And where, at the time of the conve^-ance, the grantor had, in addition to some lands, a right of entry upon the breach of a condition) and the breach had not yet occurred, the land acquired by a subsequent exercise of the right of entry was held not to pass under a mortgage of all his rights and interests in lands in C* § 829. Falsa deinonstratio non nocet. — It is a general rule of cunstructiou that the deed should be so construed, that the whole deed shall stand and be enforced.^ If this is impossible, and the description contains several elements of description, all of which are necessary to the identifi- cation of the property intended to be conveyed, the deed will be void if no property of the grantor can be found which will correspond with every part of the description.^ But if the intention, as gathered from the deed, does not make it necessary to satisfy all the elements of the descrip- tion, or if parts of the description are inconsistent with other parts, and enough of theni are consistent to identify the property intended by the parties to pass, whatever is repugnant is rejected, and the deed is enforced under this 1 Serrin v. Grefe, 67 Iowa, 196. 2 Bell B. Woodward, 46 N. H. 337. " Booth V. Patte, L. E. 15 App. Cas. 188. * Richardson v. Cambridge, 2 Allen, 118. 5 Walters v. Breden, 70 Pa. St. 238. « 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 400; Brown i>. SaltonstaU, 3 Me. 423; Warren V, Coggswell, 10 Gray, 76. 826 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 829 construction.! Where two inconsistent parts of the de- scription are equally balanced, it has been held that the grantee may choose that which is most favorable to hini.^ The first part of the description will prevail over the last, provided both appear in the granting portion of the deed ; and if one part is written and the other is printed, the written part will prevail.^ A particular description prevails over and limits the application of a general description.* If, therefore, a deed defines with reasonable certainty what is intended to be conveyed, the fact that a portion of the description is not satisfied by the specific property will not invalidate the conveyance. ° But if there are lands in the possession of the grantor which comply with all the partic- ulars of the description, then only such lands will pass by the deed, although it might appear from evidence that other parcels are intended to pass also.* In determining what 1 Corbin v. Healy, 20 Pick. 5U; Bond v. Fay, 8 Allen, 212; Presbrey ». Presbrey, 13 Allen, 283; Do ne v. Wilcutt, 16 Gray, 371; Abbott u. Abbott, 53 Me. 360; Scofleld «. .ockwood, 35 Conn. 428; Law B.Hemp- stead, 10 Conn. 23; Peck v. Millams, 10 N. Y. 532; Bass v. Mitchell, 22 Texas, 285; Scull v. Preiden, 92 N. C. 168; Chadwick v. Carson, 78 Ala. 166; Stevens v. Wait, 112 111. 544; HolstoQ v. Needles, 115111.461; Irving V. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 15; Gerald v. Gerald, 31 S. C. 171; Maguire v. Bissell, 119 Ind. 345; Cake v. Cake, 127 Pa. St. 400; Casler v. Byers, 129 111. 657; Ambs v. Chicago, etc., K. R. Co., 44 Minn. 266. ' 2 jjsty j,_ Baker, 50 Me. 331 ; Melvin v. Proprietors, etc., 8 Mete. 27. See Brandon v. Leddy, 67 Cal. 43. 3 Webb V. Webb, 29 Ala. 606; McNears. McComber, 18 Iowa, 17; Duf- field V. Hue, 129 Pa. St. 94. * Johnson Co. v. Wood, 84 Mo. 489. 5 Parker v. Kane, 22 How. 1; Crosby v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 61; Parks v. Loomis, 6 Gray, 467; Presbrey v. Presbrey, 13 Allen, 283; Jackson v. Clark, 7 Johns. 223; Lush ». Druse, 4 Wend. 313; Morrow !'. Willard, 30 Vt. 1 18 ; Spiller v. Scribner, 36 Vt. 246 ; Johnson v. Simpson, 36 N. H. 91 ; Bosworth V, Sturtevant, 2 Cush. 392; Hathaway v. Juneau, 15 Wis. 264; Fancher v. DeMontegre, 1 Head, 40; Dodge v. Walley, 22 Cal. 224; Weeks n. Martin (1890), 10 N. Y. S. 656; Trentman ». Neff (Ind. 1890), 24 N. E. 895. » Brown v. Saltonstall, 3 Me. 423; Morrell v. Fisher, 4 Exch. 591; "Warren ». Coggswell, 10 Gray, 76; Griffithes u. Penson, 1 H. & Colt. 862; Llewellyn e. Jersey, 11 Mees. & W. 183. 827 § 829a COMPONENT PAETS OF A DEED. [PAKT III. is the falsa demonstratio, which may be I'ejected without invalidating the deed, it must be remembered that a par- ticular or special description will generally control a general or implied description, in whatever order they may come.^ § 829a. Description In conveyances of joint estates. — A tenant cannot, without the consent of his co-tenants, give an absolute title to any part of the estate, described by metes and bonds, equal in value to his undivided share in the joint estate, which will be binding upon his co-ten- ants.^ And some of the courts deny the efficacy of such a conveyance for any purpose, without the consent of the co-tenants. It conveys to the grantee no interest whatso- ever in the general estate.^ But the more rational and equitable theory would seem to be, that such a couveyance would pass whatever was the grantor's proportionate share in that part of the joint estate, and make the grantee a co- tenant in the general estate to the extent of the interest so conveyed. Thus, if one of two equal co-tenants conveys 1 Smiths, strong, 14 Pick. 128; Whiting ». Dewey, 15 Pick. 428; Winn V. Cabot, 18 Pick. 553; Dana v. Middlesex Bank, 10 Mete. 250; Howell v. Saule, 5 Mason, 410; Barney v. Miller, 18 Iowa, 466. But see Moran v. ■Somes (Mass. 1891), 28 N. E. Bep. 152, where It is held that, where a deed conveys " all my right, title and interest," It passes the whole estate of the grantor, which were lour undivided fifths, although the deed described the interest to be three undivided fifths. 2 Brown v. Bailey, 1 Mete. 254; Nichols v. Smith, 22 Pick. 316; Pea- body ii. Minot, 24 Pick. 329; Duncan i). Sylvester, 24 Me. 482; Staniford ■B. FuUerton, 18 Me. 229; Whilton v. WhUton, 38 N. H. 127; Smith v. Knight, 29 N. H. 9; Griswold v. Johnson, 5 Conn. 363; Prim v. Walker, 88 Mo. 97; Jewett's Lessee !;. Stockton, 3 Yerg. 492; Good u. Combs, 28 Texas, 51; McKey v. Welch, 22 Texas, 390; Challefoux v. Ducharme., 4 Wis. 554. " Soutter 1). Porter, 17 Me. 405; Phillips v. Tudor, 10 Gray, 82; Great JFalls Co. V. Worster, 15 N. H. 412; Johnson v. Stevens, ,7 Cash. 431; Cripper nj. Morse, 49 N. Y. 67; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 261; Cox v, Mc- Mullin, 14 Gratt. 84. But where the joint estate consists of several distinct parcels, there is no objection to the reconveyance of one co-ten- ant's interest la one parcel. Butler v. Boys, 23 Mich. 53; 12 Am.Beip. 218; Peabody v. Minot, 24 Pick. 329. a2« CH. XXII. J COaiPONEiST PARTS OF A DEED. § 830 his share in one-half of the joint estate, described by metes and bounds, his grantee would become a co-tenant with the others in an undivided one-fourth of the whole estate.^ For it is undisputed that if the owner of lands grants a speci- fied number of acres in the estate without describing them, his grantee will become a tenant in common with him, his share being covered by the ratio which his number of acres bore to the whole estate.^ The description by metes and bounds may be tteated as surplusage, except for the purpose of determining the grantee's aliquot share in the entire joint estate. If the property has been divided up into town lots, it is clear and beyond dispute, that a co-tenant may by metes and bounds convey his undivided interest in one or more of the lots.^ § 830. The elements of description. — A full and com- plete description gives monuments, courses, and distances, and the quantity of land conveyed. The relative value of them, in determining the boundaries, is in the order given. Monuments control the courses and distances, and both con- trol the quantity of land.* The reason for this order of 1 Reinicker v. Smith, 2 Har. & J. 421; V^hite v. Sayre, 2 Ohio, 302; Treon's Lessee v. Emerick, 6 Ohio, 391 ; Campan v. Godfrey, 18 Mich. 39. See Newtoa v. Home and Drury, 29 "Wis. 531 ; 9 Am. Eep. 616 ; Boylston In-s. Co. V. Davis, 68 N. C. 17; 12 Am. Eep. 624; Holcomb v. Coryell, 11 N. J. Eq. 648; Jewett v. Foster, 14 Gray, 496; Gibbs v. Swift, 12 Cush. 393; Preston v. Kobinson, 24 Vt. 583; Jacksoa v. Livingston, 7 Wend. 136; Wilford «. McKinna, 23 Texas, 45; Scbenck v. Evoy, 24 CaL 110; Eurrh o. Winston, 66 Texas, 521; Charleston C. & C. E. E. v. Leech (S. E. 1890)', 11 S. E. 631; Howse v. Dew (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 239. Contra, Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 III. 391. 2 Jewett V. Eoster, 14 Gray, 496; Gibbs v. Swift, 12 Cush. 393; Pres- ton V. Robinson, 24 Vt. 593; Jackson v. Livingston, 7 Wend. 136; Wof- fordc. McKinna, 23 Texas, 45; Schenck v. Evoy, 24 Cal. 110. Contra, Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 111. 391. 8 Shepherd v. Jernigan, 51 Ark. 275. * Brown v. Huger, 21 How. 305; Powell v. Clark, 5 Mass. 355 Llewellyn v. Jersey, 11 Mees. & W. 183 ; Hall v. Davis, 36 N. H. 669 Jackson v. Diefendorf, 1 Gaines, 493; Mannu. Pearson, 2 Johns. 37 829 § 831 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PAET III. preference lies in the rule of construction, that where there is an inconsistency in the description, that element of de- scription will be followed as to which there is the least like- lihood of a mistake.^ And, generally, the description contains data for the location of all four sides of the tract of land. But where three are given, and there is suflScient description as to their courses and distances to establish the fourthby reasonable intendment, the deed will notbevoid-' §8311 Monuments — Natural and artificial. — There are two kinds of monuments, natural, or those objects which are permanent, and are found upon the land ; and artificial, or those which are placed there for the very purpose of pointing out the boundary. Among the natural objects which may serve as monuments may be mentioned trees, streams, ponds, or lakes, shores and highways; ^ and where reference is made in a deed to artificial monuments which do not then exist, they may be located subsequently by the parties. They will then control the courses and distances, although it may be possible to show by parol evidence that the artificial moimments as erected do not show the true line.* Parol evidence is not admissible to control the Drew V. Swift, 46 N. Y. 207; Hall v. Mayhew, 15 Md. 551 ; Snow v. Chap- man, 1 Root, 528; Murphy v. Campbell, 4 Pa. St. 485; Ufeord v. Wllkins, 33 Iowa, 113; Mackentile v. Savoy, 17 Serg. & R. 164; Dalton v. Rust, 22 Texas, 133; Wright v. Wright, 34 Ala. 194; Commissioners -o. Thomp- son, 4 McCord, 434; Miller v. Cherry, 3 Jones Eq. 29; Miller ». Bentley, 5 Sneed, 671 ; Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 148; Colton v. Seavey, 22 Cal. 496; Coburn v. Coxeter, 51 N. H. 158; Wilder v. Davenport, 58 Vt. 642; Friend v. Friend, 64 Md. 321. 1 Miller w. Cherry, 3 Jones Eq. 39; Melvin v. Proprietors, etc., 5 Mete. 28; Esty v. Baker, 50 Me. 311; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 628. 2 Commonwealth v. Boxbury, 9 Gray, 490. = Flagg D. Thurston, 13 Pick. 159; Bloch v. Pfaff, 101 Mass. 638; Bates v. Tymanson, 13 Wend. 300; Carroll -o. Norwood, 5 Har. & J. 163; Smith V. Murphy, 1 Tayl. 303. ' Kennebec Purchase?;. Tiffany, 1 Me. 219 ; Knowles v. Toothacker, 58 Me. 176; Corning v. Troy Co., 40 N. Y. 208; Makepeace v. Bancroft, 12 Mass. 469 ; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. 261 ; Cleveland «. Flagg, 4 Cush. 830 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PAETS OF A DEED. § 831 boundaries in a deed.^ But if the monuments are lost, or have been moved, or there is doubt as to which of two objects was intended to be the monument, parol evidence is admissible to determine the monument or its location. ^ And the question, where the boundaries are and what is the location of the monuments, is one of fact for the jury.' Natural monuments are higher in value tlian artificial ones, and are always given the preference in the case of an incon- sistency in the description arising from a reference to both.* Where a line is described as running from one monument to another, it is always a straight line between those two points. And if three monuments are referred to as points on the boundary, the line must be straight from one monu- ment to another successively.* Furthermore, if a line is described as running from a given point to a natural object, like a highway or stream, unless the course or length of the line is given, it must be the shortest line drawn from the point to the object, and must, therefore, be at right angle 81; Claney v. Rice, 20 Pick. 62; Hathaway v. Evans, 108 Mass. 270; Lerned v. Morrill, 2 N. H. 197; Rockwell v. Baldwin, 53 111. 22; Purinton V. N. 111. R. R., 46 111. 300; Smitli v. Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433. 1 Parker v. Kane, 22 How. 1; Dean v. Brskine, 18 N. H. 83; Child v. Wells, 13 Pick. 121 ; Frost v. Spaulding, 19 Pick. 445 ; Dodge v. Nichols, 5 Allen, 548; Pride v. Lunt, 19 Me. 115; Spiller v. Scribner, 36 Vt. 247; Clark V. Baird, 9 N. Y. 183; Terry v. Chandler, 16 N. Y. 358; Drew v. Swift, 46 N. Y. 209; McCoy v. Galloway, 3 Ohio, 283. 2 Stone V. Clark, 1 Mete. 378 ; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. 267 ; Frost V. Spauldjng, 19 Pick. 445; Claremont v. Carlton, 2 N. H. 369; Gratz V. Bates, 45 Pa. St. 504; Middleton v. Perry, 2 Bay, 539; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 624; Colton ». Seavey, 22 Cal. 496. 2 Abbott V. Abbott, 51 Me. 581; Opdyke v. Stephens, 28 N. J. L. 90. « Bolton V. Lann, 16 Texas, 96; Ogden v. Porterfield, 34 Pa. St. 196; Falwood V. Graham, 1 Rich. 497; Beahan v. Stapleton, 13 Gray, 427; Feirris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 624; Brown i). Huger, 21 How. 305; Mclver d. Walker, 4 Wheat. 444 ; Newson v. Pryor, 7 Wheat. 7 ; Sheltou u. Maupin, 16 Mo. 124; Daren v. Presberry, 25 Texas, 512. 5 Allen V. Kingsbury, 16 Pick. 235; Jenks v. Morgan, 6 Gray, 448; Hovey ». Sawyer, 5 Allen, 585; Nelsons. Hall, 1 McLean, 519; Caraway V. Chancy, 6 Jones L. 364; Baker v. Talbott, 6 B. Mon. 179; McCoy v. Galloway, 3 Ohio, 382. 831 § 832 ooaiPONENT pakts of a deed. [part iii» with the stream or highway.^ Where the line is described as running " between" two objects, the objects, as well as the land lying between them, are excluded from the grant. So, also, when the description is " from " one object, " to " another.^ § 832. Artificial monuments in tlie United States' sur- veys. — The public lands of the Western Territories, which became the property of the United States government upon the formation of the present Union, were by acts of Con- gress surveyed and divided up into townships, sections, and subdivisions of sections, as has been already explained.* When afterwards these lands were sold to private individ- uals, they were always described by referring to the num- ber of the township, section, and subdivision of the section. The boundaries of these sections and of the quarter and. half sections were marked for the most part by artificial monuments, which constituted the corners of these tractsof land. If, thel-efore, the deed calls for a certain quarter section of a certain section in a certain township, a reference to the maps and field notes of the survey will determine the location of the land, for maps and surveys are generally proper evidence for the establishment of boundaries,* and the United States Statutes make the field notes and plats of the original surveyor the primary and controlling evi- dence of boundary.* These field notes and the plats call 1 Van Gorden v. Jackson, 5 Johns. 474; Bradley v. Wilson, 58 Me. 360; Craig V. Hawtins, 1 Bibb. 61; Hicts v. Coleman, 25 Cal. 142; Caraways. Chancy, 6 Jones L. 364. 2 Bonney u. Morrill, 52 Me. 256; Revere u. Leonard, 1 Mass. 91; Hatch V. Dwight, 17 Mass. 289 ; Carbrey v. "Willis, 7 Allen, 370; Millett v. Fowle, 8 Cush. 150; Wells v. Jackson Iron Co., 48 N. H. 491. ' See ante, sect. 744. * Haring v. Van Houten, 22 N. J. L. 61; Alexander v. Lively, 5 B. Mon. 159; Bruce v. Taylor, 2 J. J. Marsh. 160; Steele o. Taylor, 3 A. K. Marsh. 226; Madison City ■». Hildreth, 2 Ind. 274; Tate v. Gray, 1 Swan, 73; Carmichael ». Trustees, 4 Miss. 84; McClintock t>. Rogers, 1 1 111. 279 . s U. S. Rev. Stat., sect. 2396. " The boundary lines actually run and marked in the surveys returned by the Surveyor-General shall be estab— 832 CH. XXII.J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 832 for artificial monuments to designate the corners of the tract, and when they are found, since artificial monu- ments control distances and courses in government sur- veys as well as in ordinary cases, ^ no difficulty will be experienced in ascertaining the boundaries, except in two cases: First, if the deed calls for natural mon- uments, and the land is described in part by a reference to them ; and secondly, where the descri ption consists in a reference to the township and section, and it is ascertained that one or more of the corners have been lost. In the first case, the general rule' that natural monuments control in the matter of boundary both the artificial monuments and the courses and distances, applies here in its full force, although the plats and field notes would indicate a different location.'' The second case presents a greater difficulty. It is a gen- eral rule of construction that where the natural and artificial monuments cannot be ascertained by any proper evidence, the courses and distances must govern the location of the boundary, and this is also the rule in respect to the lost corners in the government surveys.^ But before the courses and distances can determine the hounAavj , all vieans for ascertaining the location of the lost monuments must first be exhausted. Parol evidence is admissible to establish the location of monuments, and even hearsay evidence and evi- lislied as the proper boundary lines of the sections or subdivisioDS for which they were intended." Bruce v. Taylor, 2 J. J. Marsh. 160 ; Steele V. Taylor, 3 A. K. Marsh. 226; McCIintock v. Rogers, 11 in. 279. 1 Robinson v. Moore, 4 McLean, 279; Esmond v. Tarbox, 7 Me. 61; Hall B. Davis, 36 N. H. 569-; Hunt v. McHenry, Wright, 599 ; 'Bayless v. Rupert, Wright, 634; Bruckner v. Lawrence, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 19; Cli- mer v. Wallace, 28 Mo. 556. 2 Brown v. Hager, 21 How. 305; Mclver v. Walker, 4 Wheat. 444; Newsom v,. Pryor, 7 Wheat. 7; Shelton v. Maupin, 16 Mo. 124; Duren v. Presberry, 25 Texas, 512; East Omaha Land Co. v. Jeffreys, 4& Fed. Rep. 386; s.o. 134 U. S. 178. « Heaton v, Hodges, 14 Me. 66; Budd v. Brooke, 2 Gill, 198; Bruck. ner v. Lawrence, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 19 ; Calvert v. Fitzgerald, 6 Litt, 391. 53 833 § 832 COJIPONEKT FARTS OF A DEED. [PAET III. dence of general reputation are admissible in such cases. ^ But in the case of government or public lauds, as a general rule, the courts and the parties rely chiefly upon the surveys and plats returned by the Surveyor-General for the evidence of boundary, and where the corners are lost and cannot be established by parol evidence, the surveys and plats only give the courses and distances. If the surveys were accu- rate and the courses and distances given in the field notes corresponded exactly with the actual location of corners, a resort to these courses and distances would do complete justice to all the parties interested in the ascertainment of the boundary. But, as a matter of fact, the chains used in making the measurements were stretched by constant use, so that they were in most cases much longer than the stand- ard chain, thus making the courses and distances call for less land than was actually included within the established corners. The Supreme Court of Missouri, relying upon the rule that courses and distances control the boundary when the monuments are lost, has held that where a corner is lost the surveyor must measure from the known corner on the eastern line of the township or section the distance called for by the plat and field notes, and the corner must be es- tablished at that distance, the surplus of land being given to the western section or quarter section.^ This is contrary to the provisions of the United States Statutes, which must govern in all disputes as to the boundaries of government lands. It is provided by statute that " all the corners marked in the surveys, returned by the Surveyor-General, shall be established as the proper corners of sections or subdivisions 1 Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. 341; Jackson v. McCall, 10 Johns. 377; Lay v. Neville, 25 Cal. 545; Smith v. Shackelford, 9 Dana. 452; McCoy v. Galloway, 3 Ohio, 283; Nixon «. Porter, 34 Miss. 697; Smith v. Prewitt, 1 A. K. Marsh. 158; Morton v. Folger, 15 Cal. 275; Stroud u. Springfield, 28 Texas, 649; Yates v. Shaw, 24 111. 367. 2 Knight V. Elliott, 57 Mo. S22; Vaughn v. Tate, 64 Mo. 491; Major v. "Watson, 73 Mo. 665. And this seems also to be the position of the court of Virginia upon a parallel case. Overton t?. Devisson, 1 Gratt. 211. 834 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 8B3 of sections, which they would intend to designate; and the corners of half and quarter sections not marked on the sur- veys shall be placed as nearly as possible equidistant from two corners which stand on the same line." This statutory provision clearly makes the field notes the proper and the best means of ascertaining lost corners, and the interpre- tation of the field notes must be governed largely, if not exclusively, by the principles of civil engineering. The object being to ascertain the exact location of a lost corner, it is necessary and the United States Statutes re- quire it, that the errors in the measurements should be noted. If, therefore, the courses and distances fall below the actual amount of land included in the two contiguous sections or subdivisions of sections, between which the boundary is to be ascertained, the surplus of land should be divided be- tween the two tracts of land in proportion to the respective lengths of their lines in the plats. ^ § 833. Non-navigable streams. — Generally, where land is bounded by a stream which is not navigable, the boundary line is the center line of the stream, tHeJihcm aquce; and the line changes its course with the natural and gradual change in the current.^ But it does not always follow that tlie thread of the stream will be the boundary line, because the stream is referred to in the deed. If the stream is mentioned as the boundary in general terms, or the land is described as " bounding on " or " running along " a river, i This rule is recognized and adopted in Jones v. Kimble, 19 Wis. 429, and constitutes one of the printed instructions to the United States deputy and county surveyors ; and these instructions are by statute made a part of every contract for surveying land. Sect. 2399, TJ. S. Eev. Stat. 2 Morrison v. Keen, 3 Me. 474; Hatch v. Dvs'ight, 17 Mass. 289; Peo- ple V. Canal Appraisers, 13 Wend. 355; Commissioners v. Kempshall, 26 Wend. 404; People v. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195; Morgan v. Reading, 3 Smed. & M. 366; Browne v. Kennedy, 5 Har. & J. 195; Hayes v. Bowman, 1 Eand. 417; Lynch v. Allen, 4 Dev. & B. 62; State v. Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461; Arnold v. Elmore, 16 Wis. 514; Love v. White, 20 Wis. 432. 835 § 834 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PART HI. the stream will be held to be the moDument and the thread of the stream is the boundary line. And this is true, al- though the deed describes the line on the stream as extend- ing from one object to another, both of which are on the shore; as, for example, "bounding on" the stream and " extending from " one tree ou the bank to another. The termini of the boundary line are ascertained by drawing lines at right angles with the shore from these objects to the center of the stream.^ But if the land is described as bounding on the bank or shore of the stream, then the low- water mark on the banks will be the boundary. The par- ticular reference to the bank excludes the stream.^ Where the stream or its bank is the boundary line, it follows its meanderings so that if the distance is given it is ascertained by reducing the irregular lines of the shore to a straight line.^ § 834. Navigable streams. — Where land is bounded by a navigable stream, strictly so-called, i. e., where the tide ebbs and iiows, the boundary line is the high-water mark on the shore.* But in the States where the large rivers of 1 LuntD. Holland, 14 Mass. 150; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cash. 97; Cold Springs Iron Works v. Tolland, 9 Cush. 492; Newhall v. Iresou, 13 Gray, 262; Railroad v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall, 286; Luce v. Carley,24 Wend. 451; Varick v. Smith, 9 Paige Ch. 547; Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9; Robinson v. White, 42 Me. 218; Newton v. Eddy, 23 Vt. 319; Cox o. Freedley, 33 Pa. St. 129: McCuUoch v. Aten, 2 Ohio, 425; Norcross ». Griffiths, 65 Wis. 699. 2 Bradford v. Cressey, 45 Me. 9; Child v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369; Halsey v. McCormick, 13 N. Y. 296; Babcock v. Utter, 1 Abb. Pr. 27; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349; Daniels v. Cheshire R. R., 20 N. H. 85; Martin v. Nance, 3 Head, 650; Watson «. Peters, 26 Mich. 516; Litchfield v. Fer- guson, 141 Mass. 97; Carter v. Chesapeake, etc., B. B. Co., 26 W. Va. 644; 53 Am. Rep. 116. 3 CalbB. Stribling, 1 Bibb. 122; Hicks J7. Coleman, 25Cal. 142; People ». Henderson, 40 Cal. 32. •• Canal Commrs. v. The People, 5 Wend. 423; Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. iil'; East Haven v. Hemingway, 7 Conn. 186; Niles u. Patch, 13. Gray, 254 ; Stewart v. Fitch, 30 N. J. L. 20 ; Middletoa v. Pritchard, 4 111. 520. 836 ■CH. XXir.j COMPONENT PAETS OF A DEED. § 834 this country are held to be navigable, although having no tide-water, the boundary line is held on those rivers to be at low-water mark.^ But in both cases the riparian owner has, as appurtenant to his ownership, the right to erect and maintain wharfs or piers, subject to the governmental con- trol necessary for the protection of the public.^ The same rule applies to land bounded by the sea or by the arms of the sea. The boundary line is the high-water mark, and what is called the shore or beach is the property of the State. ^ In Massachusetts, by statute, the common law has been changed, and now riparian owners on navigable rivers and arms of the sea own up to the low-water mark,* ufiless the land is described as bounding 07i the beach, when the high-water mark becomes the boundary line.^ In determin- ing the exact location of either of the low or high-water mark, reference is always had to the ordinary or medium rise and fall of the water.^ 1 Stover V. Jack, 60 Pa. St. 339 ; Wood v. Appal, 63 Pa. St. 221 ; Wain- 'wright V. McCullough, 63 Pa. St. 66; Ryan v. Brown, 18 Micli. 196; Mar- tin V. Evansville, 32 Ind. 85; Ensminger v. People, 47 111. 384; People v. Canal Commrs. 33 N. Y. 461; Edder v. Burrus, 6 Humph. 367; Martin v. Nance, 3 Head, 650. 2 Ensminger v. Davis, 47 HI. 384 ; Eyan v. Brown, 18 Mich. 196; Yates 17. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497; Weber u. Harbor Commrs., 18 Wall. 64. For a discussion of what is a navigable stream, and for the distinction Tsetween public, navigable and non-navigable stream, see post, sect. 835. ' Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass. 435; Commonwealth v. Koxbury, 9 Gray, 492; Niles v. Patch, 13 Gray, 254; Pollard v. Hogan, 3 How. 230; Good- title V. Kibbe, 9 How. 477; Hodge v. Boothby, 48 Me. 71; Cortelyou ». Van Brundt, 2 Johns. 362 ; Ledyard v. Ten Eyck, 36 Barb. 125 ; Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382; Dana «. Jackson St. Wharf, 31 Cal. 120. ^ Boston V. Richardson, 105 Mass. 353; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 168; Valentine v. Piper, 22 Pick. 94. -" Litchfield v. Ferguson, 141 Mass. 97. * Stover o. Jack, 60 Pa. St. 339; Tinnicum Fishing Co. ■». Carter, 61 Pa. St. 21; Wood v. Appal, 63 Pa. St. 221; Commonwealth o. Alger, 7 Cush. 63 ; Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray, 451 ; Martin v. O'Brien, 32 -Miss. 21; City of Galveston ». Menard, 23 Texas, 349; Teschemacher ». Thompson, 18 Cal. 21 ; Nixon v. Walter, 41 N. J. Eq. 103. 837 § 835 COMPONENT PAKTS OF A DEED. [PART III. § 835. What Is a navigable stream. — Perhaps there is not a more difficult question to answer in the law of real property. The English common-law rule was that all streams, in which the tide ebbed and flowed, were navigable streams, and all others were non-navigable.^ In England this is not, as a matter of fact, the arbitrary rule, which it would be if applied without qualification to the streams of this country. With the exception of the Thames, above tide-water, there are no important streams in England which are practically and actually navigable, except those in which the tide ebbs and flows ; and there are no tide- water streams of any importiince which are not actually navigable. But in the United States the stituation is altogether different. Here we have fresh-water streams, which are navigable, and salt-water streams of great value which are not navigable. The application of the common- law rule to this country would, therefore, result in nothing but absurd conclusions. The courts of this country have been discussing the problem for many years and have come to different conclusions on the various branches or subdi- visions of the question. On only one point is there an ab- solute agreement, viz. : that the common law rule does not govern such questions in the United States, so far as the right of the public to navigate the streams is concerned. That is, the courts hold uniformly that where the streams are sufficiently deep and wide to float boats, used in the in- terests of commerce and agriculture, the public has a right to use them as highways.^ But in whom is the title of the 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 413 ; People v. Tibbetts, 19 N.Y. 523 ; Com- monwealth V. Chapin, 6 Pick. 199. 2 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; The Montello, 20 "Wall. 439; Spring V. Russell, 7 Me. 273; Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9; Ingraham v. Wil- kinson, 4 Pick. 268; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; The Canal Com-, mrs. u. People, 5 Wend. 423; People «. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195; Palmers. Mulligan, 3 Caines, 315; Claremont v. Carlton, 2 N. H. 369; O'Fallon v. Daggett, 4 Mo. 343; Middleton v. Pritchard, 4 111. 560; Morgan v. Read- ing, 3 Smed. & M. 366; Cates v. Wadlington, 1 McCord, 580; Gavit v. 838 CH. XXII.] COMPONENT PAKTS OF A DEED. § 835 soil of the river's bed, or in wtiat rivers does tlie State owa the title to the bed, is differently decided in different courts. The courts are unanimous in holding that ordinarily, where the tide ebbs and flows, the title to the bed of the stream is in the State. ^ But the State does not own the soil or bed of every creek in which the tide ebbs and flows. In order that the title to the soil of such creeks may be claimed by the State, the creeks must be practically navigable.^ But in respect to the title to the beds of fresh water navigable streams the courts are divided. A number of the courts have held that the fresh water streams are governed by the common-law rule, in respect to the title to the soil under navigable streams, and that the title to the beds of fresh water streams is in the State. ^ But the Supreme Court of Mississippi, in a very able and learned opinion, drew a dis- tinction between public and navigable rivers. It was there asserted that the principle, that the title to the soil of navi- gable rivers, i. e., rivers in which the tide ebbs and flows, Chambers, 3 Ohio, 495; Blanchard v. Porter, 11 Ohio, '138; Home u. Richards, Call, 441; Slirunlju. ScIiuyMll Co., 14 Serg. &R. 71; McManus V, Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1; Comrars. etc., v. Withers, 29 Miss. 29; Char- leston S, Ey. Co. V. Johnson, 74 Ga. 306. But a stream is non-navigable by the public in which logs can be floated only at high water or during a freshet. Lewis v. Coffee Co., 77 Ala. 190; 54 Am. Rep. 55. 1 Commonwealth v. Chapin, 5 Pick. 199 ; People v. Tibbetts, 19 N. Y. 523; Smith v. Levinus, 8 N. Y. 472; Keyport Steamboat Co. v. Farmers' Transp. Co., 18 N. 'J. Eq. 13 ; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369 ; Flanagan V. Philadelphia, 42 Pa. St. 219; State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22 S. C. 60; State V. Pinckney, 22 S. C. 484. 2 Rowe V. Granite Bridge Corp., 21 Pick. 344; Glover v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 211. See State v. Gilmanton, 14 N. H. 467; Wilson v. Forbes, 2 Dev. L. 30; Am. River, etc., Co. v. Amsden, 6 Cal. 443; Wilson v. Welch, 12 Greg. 353. 3 Barney v. Keokuk, 94 TJ. S. 324 ; Carson v. Blazer, 2 Binn. 475 ; Shrunk V. Schuylkill Co., 14 Serg. & R. 71; McManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1; Stover V. Jack, 60 Pa. St. 339; Wainwright ». McCullough, 63 Pa. St. 66; Martin v. Evansville, 23-Ind. 85; Peopie v. Canal Commrs., 33 N. Y. 461; Bullock V. Wilson, 2 Port. 436; Martin v. Nance, 3 Head, 650; Wlison v. Forbes, 2 Dev. L. 30; Goodwin v. Thompson, 15 Lea, 209; 54 Am Rep. 41D. 839 § 835 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PAET in. was in the State, was derived from international law. Tidal waters are the highways of nations, and very properly the title to the beds of such streams was vested in the State. But where the navigable river is a fresh water stream, although a sound policy would require a grant to the public of a right of way over it, there is no reason why a distinc- tion should be made between them and non-navigable streams, in respect to the location of the title to the soil. It was, therefore, held that the public have a right of way over fresh water streams which can be navigated, but that the title to the bed is in the riparito owners, and the bound- ary line is the Jtluni aquce of the stream.^ It is so essential that there should be uniformity in the adjudications on this subject that the author is induced to offer the following sug- gestions, which will probably point out a common meeting- ground for variant courts, and which seem, also, to be consistent with reason and the necessities of life. Only those streams will be navigable streams which can be actually navigated, whether the tide ebbs or flows in them or not. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that those rivers which, from their location, constitute the boundaries of States, and which are used, or may he adapted for use, in interstate and foreign commerce, are navigable streams of the United States.^ Let that be a controlling principle, and declare the title to the bed of such streams to be in the riparian States, in conformity with the decisions of the 1 Steamboat Magnolia v. Marshall, 39 Miss. 109. The rule that the title to the beds of those rivers is In the riparian owners is supported by the following authorities: Canal Appraisers v. People, 17 "Wend. 695; In- graham u. Wilkins, 4 Pick. 268; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 63; People V. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195; Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Caiues, 315; Clare- mont V. Carlton, 2 N. H. 369; O'Fallon v. Daggett, 4 Mo. 343; Morgan v. Beading, 3 Smed. & M. 366; Blanchard v. Porter, 11 Ohio, 138; Rhodes v. Otis, 33 Ala. 578; Berry v. Snyder, 3 Bush, 266; Walker v. Public Works, 16 Ohio, 640; Ryan «. Brown, 18 Mich. 196; Easm'inger v. People, 47 111. 584; Norcross d. Griffiths, 65 Wis. 599. 2 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; The Montello, 11 Wall. 411. 840 CH. XXII.] COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. ' § 836 United States Supreme Court. Those streams might very properly be classed among the highways of nations, for the States in this connection are to be considered as separate and independent bodies politic. But the in(ra-territorial streams cannot be called international highways, and, there- fore, the title to the soil of such streams should be vested in the riparian owners, subject to the public easement of navigation. § 836. Ponds and lakes. — If the pond or lake is a nat- ural object, the boundary line is along the edge at low water mark.^ If the pond is artificial, the boundary is through its center.^ And if a natural pond or lake is raised by arti- ficial means by a dam or trench, the boundary line will continue to be at low water mark of the pond in its natural state, and the land which was subsequently left bare by the removal of the obstructions, would be the property of the adjoining riparian owner.' The conversion of afresh water pond into a salt one by an artificial trench or channel from the sea will not change the boundary. But the boundary changes with the natural and ordinary changes of the low water mark.* 1 Waterman ». Johnson, 13 Pick. 261; West Eoxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen, 167; Nelson u. Butterfleld, 21 Me. 229; Manton u. Blake, 62 Me. 38 ; Canal Commrs. v. People, 6 Wend. 446 ; Wheeler v. Spluola, 54 N. Y. 377; Jakeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 323; Austin v. Rutland E. R., 45 Vt. 215; Primm v. Walker, 38 Mo. 99. 2 Bradley v. Rice, 13 Me. 198; Lowell ». Robinson, 16 Me. 357; Water- man u. Johnson, 13 Pick. 261 ; Phinney v. Watts, 9 Gray, 269 ; Wheeler v. Spinola, 64 N. Y. 377. 3 Hathom v. Stinson, 12 Me. 183; Bradley v. Rice, 13 Me. 200; Water- man V. Johnson, 13 Pick. 261. But later decisions in these States have qualified the position assumed in the cases just cited to this extent: that unless there is something in the deed to support the presumption that the grantor had in mind the natural state of the pond, when he was -describing the land, the boundary line will be the low water mark of the pond at the time of the conveyance. Wood v. Kelley, 30 Me. 47; Paine ^. Woods, 108 Mass. 170. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 417; Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377. 841 § 837 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PART III. § 837. Highways. — Where land is bounded by a high- way, the Slime rules of construction apply, as in the case of non-navigable streams. If the land is described as " bound- ing on," " running along," the highway, and the like, the boundary line is the thread or center of the way, although the dimensions of the last would exclude the highway. Aud when there is any doubt as to the intention of the parties, the presumption is always strong in favor of the center of the way being the boundary. i But if the land is described as bounding by the side of the street, or the intention to exclude the street is clearly manifested in some other man- ner, then the boundary line will be the nearest line of the street or highway.^ The boundary will not extend to the center of the highway, if the grantor only owns to the line of the way.'"' And likewise, if a proprietor lays out several lots, all fronting on a proposed park, the grantees of the several lots will only own to the exterior line of the park, and not to the center.^ If the land is described as bound- 1 Berridge v. Ward, 10 C. B. (n. s.) 400; Johnson v. Anderson, 18 Me. 76; Cottle v. Young, 59 Me. 105; O'Linda v. Lothrop, 21 Pick. 298; Parker v. Framinghara, 8 Mi-tc. 267; Pisher v. Smith, 9 Gray, 441; Har- ris V. Elliott, 10 Pet. 53; Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57; Morrow y. Wil- lard, 30 Vt. 118; White v. Godfrey, 97 Mass. 47; Wallace v. Fee, 50 N. Y. 694; Milhan v. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 624; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. 454; Sherman v. McKeon, 38 N. Y. 271; Child v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369; Read v. Leeds, 19 Conn. 187; Winter v. Peterson, 24 N. J. L. 527; Paul V. Carver, 24 Pa. St. 207; Cox «. Freedley, 33 Pa. St. 124; Witter v. Harvey, 1 McCord, 67; Trustees v. Louder, 8 Bush, 680; Canal Trustees V. Havens, 11 111. 557; Kimball v. Kenosha, 4 Wis. 333; Weisbrod u. C. & N. W. R. E., 18 Wis. 43; Dubuque v. Maloney, 8 Iowa, 458. 2 Salisbury u. G. N. Railway Co., 5 C. B. (n. s.) 174; Sibley «. Holden, 10 Pick. 249; Smith v. Slocomb, 9 Gray, 36; Brainard u. Boston, etc., E. R., 12 Gray, 410; Morrows. Willard, 30 Vt. 118; Hoboken Land' Co. V. Kerrigan, 80 N. J. L. 16; Hamlin v. Pairpoint Mfg. Co., 141 Mass. 51. 3 Brainard v. Boston, etc., R. E., 12 Gray, 410; Church v. Meeker, 34 Conn. 426; Ducham u. Williams, 37 N. Y. 251; Vail b. Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.), 12 N. E. Kep. 607. ■■ Perrin v. N. Y. Cent. E. R., 40 Barb. 65; Hanson v. Campbell. 20 Md.223. 842 CH. XXII. J COMPOENiNT PARTS OF A DEED. § 838 ing on a public street or highway or park, the right to have it isept open passes to the grantee as an appurtenant ease- ment.^ But if it is a private way, a right of way will be acquired by the grantee only upon the adjoining lands of the grantor.^ If the grantor does not own the land, no covenant will be implied from the reference to a street for the purpose of description.' Where a highway or street is referred to as the boundary line, the actual line, as it is laid down, is to be taken as the line of the street.* And although encroachments upon the highway by the adjoining owners are not legalized by the lapse of time, yet if a fence > has been standing for twenty years upon the highway as it was originally laid out, the fence will be considered the true line if the real boundary cannot be ascertained by rec- ord.^ And if the road or street is subsequently aban- doned, the adjoining owners will then hold the land over which the highway extended, free from the public ease- ment.^ § 838. Walls, fences, trees, etc. — When walls, fences, trees, and the like, are referred to as monuments, if they ' Cox V. James, 59 Barb. 144; 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 422, 423; Len- nig V. Ocean City Assn., 41 N. J. Eq. 606; Re Pearl St., Ill Pa. St. 565; Presbyterian Church v. Kellar, 39 Mo. App. 441. 2 Smith V. Howdon, 14 C. B. (n. s.) 398; Fisher v. Smith, 9 Gray, 444; Winslowu. King, 14 Gray, 323; White v. Godfrey, 97 Mass. 472; Stark V. Coma, 105 Mass. 330; Lewis v. Beattie, 105 Mass. 410; Falls v. Reis, 74 Pa. St. 439. 3 Roberts v. Karr, 1 Taunt. 495; Uowev. Alger, 4 Allen, 200; Brainard V. Boston, etc., R. E., 12 Gray, 410; White u. Flannigan, 1 Ifd. 540; Hanson v. Campbell, 20 Md. 232. * Bradstreet v. Dunham, 65 Iowa, 248. « Hallenbeck v. Rowley, 8 Allen, 475; Fisher v. Smith, 9 Gray, 441; Lozier v. N. T. Cent. R. R., 42 Barb. 468; Blssell v. N. Y. Cent. R. R., 23 N. Y. 61; Cross 0. Morristown, 18 N. J. Eq. 305. 6 Banks v. Osden, 2 Wall. 57; People v. Laws, 22 How. Pr. 115; Wal- lace V. Fee, 50 N. Y. 694; Weisbrod & C. N. W. R. R., 18 Wis. 43; Pres- byterian Church V. Kellar, 39 Mo. App. 441. 843 § 839 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PART III. are of considerable thickness or width, the boundary hne is always in the center of the monument, as has been seen to be the case with streams and highways.' § 839. Courses and distances. — The next element of description in the order of preference is the admeasurement of distances and the given courses of the boundary lines. Where courses and distances are given in a deed, conveying a city lot of comparatively small dimensions, they are greatly relied upon in determining the boundaries. And where there are no monuments, parol evidence will not be permitted to vary them. Nothing but monuments can con- trol courses and distances.^ The courses and distances will be the absolutely determining element in the absence of monuments, although the admeasurements are given as so many feet, " more or less." * But a survey is so liable to be erroneous through some defect in the instmment, or the carelessness of the surveyor, that whenever monuments are given the monuments control the courses and distances, although the monuments would take in more land than what is called for by the survey.* And where the land is de- scribed by another's land, the latter tract of land is a mon- ument of description, and the true line of his land will ^ Bradford v. Cressey, 46 Me. 9; Boston v. Richardsoii, 13 Allen, 154; Warner u. Southworth, 6 Conn. 471; Child ». Starr, 4 Hill, 369. 2 Drewu. Swift, 46 N. Y. 209; Chadbourne v. Mason, 48 Me. 391; Bag- ley V. Morrill, 46 Vt. 94; Friend v. Friend, 64 Md. 321; Breneiser v. Davis (Pa. 1890), 19 Atl. 433. 3 Flags V. Thurston, 13 Pick. 145; Blaney u. Rice, 20 Pick. 62; Block V. Pfaff, 101 Mass. 538; Cherry v. Slade, 3 Murph. 82; Welch v. Phillips, 1 McCord, 215. * White V. Williatns, 48 N. Y. 344; Drew v. Swift, 46 N. Y. 207; Schmitz V. Schmitz, 19 Wis. 210; Cronin v. Richardson, 8 AUeu, 423; Brown u. Huger, 21 How. 305; Haynes v. Jackson, 59 Me. 386; Murphy V. Campbell, 4 Pa. St. 485; Lodge v. Barnett, 46 Pa. St. 484; Colton v. Seavey, 22 Cal. 496;. Miller v. Cherry, 3 Jones, 29; Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 207; Frost v. Spaulding, 19 Pick. 445; Evansville v. Page, 23 Ind. 627. But see contra, Danzien v. Boyd, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 398. 844 CH. XXII.] COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 840 control the courses and distances given in the deed.^ Bat the thing or object referred to must, in order to serve as a monument of description, be referred to in the deed as such. The reservation of the use of a well which is de- scribed as being " on the west line of the land," does not make the well a monument for locating the boundary.^ When the course is described as " northerly," " southerly," etc., the line is always understood as "due" north, or south. ■ But reference is always made to the magnetic meridian in determining the direction of the boundary lines.' § 840. Quantity. — The quantity of land conveyed is sometimes given ; but where there is no covenant as to quantity this element of description is seldom resorted to in determining the boundaries, and is under no circumstances permitted to control the courses and distances or the mQnu- ments,* unless these other elements of description lose in any case their superior value through ambiguities and uncertainties, when the quantity is referred to in order to give certainty to the description.^ One-half a certain tract of land, means one-half of a quantity of land and 1 Peaslee v. Gee, 19 N. Y. 273; Bailey v. "White, 41 N. H. 343; Parku. Pratt, 38 Vt. 652. ' Maguire v. Sturtevant, 140 Mass. 258. -" Brandt w. Ogden, 1 Johns. Gas. 158; Gordon, v. Jackson, 5 Johns. 473; Jackson v. Eeeves, 3 Gaines, 295; Wells v. Company, 47 N. H. 235; Bosworth V. Danzien, 25 Gal. 296. * Mann v. Pearson, 2 Johns. 37 ; Jackson v. Defendorff, 1 Gaines, 493 ; Powell V. Clark, 5 Mass. 355; Snow v. Chapman, 1 Root, 528; Commrs. ». Thompson, 4 McCord, 434; Hall v. Mahew, 15 Md.551; Millers. Bentley, 5 Sneed,671; Wright ». Wright, 34 Ala. 194; Dntton w. Kust, 22 Texas, 133; Ufford V. Wilkms, 33 Iowa, 113; Ward v. Grotty, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 103; Stanley v. Green, 12 Gal. 148; Llewellyn v. Jersey, 11 Mees. & W. 183; Hodges V. Rowing, 58 Conn. 12; 18 Atl. 979; Glutea. N. Y., etc., E. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 267; 24 N. C. 317. 5 Moran v. Lezotte, 54 Mich. 83; Hall v. Shotwell, 66 Gal. 379; Jone^ ». Pashby, 62 Mich. 614 ; 29 N. W. 374 ; Jones v. Motley (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W.432; Davis v. Hess (Mo. 1891), 15 S. W. 324. 845 § 841 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PART III. cannot be considered as a description by courses and distances. 1 § 841. Reference to other deeds, maps, etc., for descrip- tion. — If, instead of containing the description of tiie land conveyed, the deed refers to other deeds, the description of the latter deed will by such reference become a part of the former, and has the same effect as if it had been inserted in the subsequent deed.^ It is not necessary that the deed referred to be recorded, although if the deed referred to is described as being recorded, no unrecorded deed will answer to supply the description of the premises.^ But the refer- ence to another deed will not be permitted to control the description actually contained in the subsequent deed, so as to exclude a lot or parcel of land described as part of the subject of conveyance, and not mentioned in the deed re- ferred to.* In the same manner, where a reference in the deed is made to plans, maps, and the like, for the monu- ments, courses and distance, the maps and plans become a part of the deed of conveyance, and supply the description omitted in the deed.' And one map may be supplemented by • Hartford Iron Mine Co. v. Cambria Min. Co. (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 351. 2 Kniglit V. Dyer, 57 Me. 176; Allen v. Bates, 6 Pick. 460; Foss v. Crisp, 20 Pick. 121; Allen ti. Tatt, 6 Gray, 552; Perry v. Binney, 103 Mass. 158; LippittM. Kelly, 46 Vt. 523; Jeuks v. Ward, 4 Mich. 404; Vance v. Fore, 24 Cal. 44t; Roilriguez v. Hayes, 76 Te.xas, 223; O'Herrin v. Brooks (Miss. 1890), 6 So. 844; Miller v. Topeka Land Co. (Kan. 1890), 24 Pac. 420; McAfee v. Arline, 83 Ga. 645; 10 S. E. 441. 3 Simmons v. Johnson, 14 Wis. 526; Caldwell v. Center, 30 Cal. 543. ^ Whitney v. Dewey, 15 Pick. 434; Needham v. Judson, 101 Mass. 161. 5 Kennebec Purchase v. Tiffany, 1 Me. 219; Thomas v. Patten, 13 Me. 329; Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch, 48; Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 207; Farnsworth v. Taylor, 9 Gray, 162; Stetson v. Daw, 16 Gray, 374; Cham- berlain i». Bradley, 101 Mass. 191; Fcn; v. Union Sugar Co., 109 Mass. 292; Birmingham v. Anderson, 48 Pa. St. 253; McCausland u. Fleming, 63 Pa. St. 36; Spiller v. Scribner, 36 Vt. 247; Ferris u. Coover, 10 Cal. 622; Heffernan v. Otsego Water Power Co. (Mich. 1890), 43 N. W. 1096; s. c. 44 N. W. 1151; O'Herrin v. Brooks (Miss. 1890), 6 So. 844; Cullen v. 846 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PAKTS OF A DEED. § 842 a reference to some priormap, to which the latter map consti- tutes an addition. In determining the location of the land, both maps maybe resorted to.^ But if the boundaries can be ascertained without reference to the maps or plans, they need not be produced in evidence. The boundary may be estab- lished by any other competent evidence.^ § 842. Appurtenants. — Whatever belongs to the thing granted as parcel thereof will pass with it, though it is not specifically referred to. Thus, houses, window-blinds, doors, mines, crops, and whatever else constitutes a part of the realty, will pass with the grant of the land, unless ex- pressly reserved. •'* It is also the general rule, with very little qualification, that whatever is appendant or appur- tenant to the thing granted will pass with it to the grantee as an appurtenant. All easements attached to the land granted as the dominant estate are appurtenant.* And whether a certain right is appurtenant, depends upon the condition of the property at the time of the conveyance, Sprigg . Currier, 98 Mass. 501; Webster v. Patter, 105 Mass. 414; Whitney v. Olney, 3 Mason, 282; Davis v. Handy, 37 N. H. 65; Thompson o. Banks,- 43 N. H. 540 ; Mixer v. Beed, 25 Vt. 254; Voorhies v. Bursbard, 55 N. Y. 102; Blaine's Lessee v. Chambers, 1 Serg. & E. 169; Swartzo. Swartz, 4r Pa. St. 353 ; Murphy v. Campbell, 4 Pa. St. 480; Avon Co. v. Andrews, 30^ Conn. 476; Wilson v. Hunter, 17 Wis. 687; Bacon v. Bowdoin, 22 Pick. 401; Webber u. Eastern E. E., 2 Mete. 147; Blake v. Clark, 6 Me. 436; Moore v. Fletcher, 16 Me. 66; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. 447; Kid- dle V. Littlefleld, 53 N. H. 508; Kimbell v. Eodgers (Ala. 1890), 7 So. 241.- See contra, Hodgens v. Powell (Ark. 1890), 11 S.. W. 574. 3 Stetson V. Daw, 16 Gray, 373; Cox v. James, 45 N. Y. 562; Munn v. Worrall, 63 N. Y. 46; Bartholomevr v. Edwards, 1 Honst. 25; Jamaica Pond V. Chandler, 9 Allen, 164; Leavitt v. Towle, 8 N. H. 97; Graves v. Amoskeag Co., 44 N. H. 464; Peck v. Smith, 1 Conn. 103; Owen v. Field, 102 Mass. 104; Curtis v. Norton, 58 Mich. 411; Cluett v. Sheppard (lil 1890), 23 N.E. 589. 848 CH. XXII. J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 843 of a road does not pass as appurtenant to the grantee, sim- ply because the claim was not awarded before the transfer of the property.^ § 843. Exception and reservation. — An exception to a grant withdraws from the operation of the conveyance some part or parcel of the thing which is granted, and which but for the exception would have passed to the grantee under the general description. The part excepted is already in existence, and is said to remain in the grantor. The grant has no effect upon it. A reservation is the creation, in be- half of the grantor, of some new right issuing outof thething granted, usually an incorporeal hereditament, something which did not exist, as an independent right, before the grant. 2 Sometimes the terms exception and reservation are used synonymously, but the distinction above given is proper and essential. A reservation is in the nature of a grant to 1 King V. St, Patrick's Cathedral, 50 N. Y. Supr. 406. 2 Greenleaf ». Birth, 6 Pet. 302; Pettee v. Hawes, 13 Pick. 323; Hurd v. Curtis, 7 Mete. 110; Dyer v. Santford, 9 Mete. 395; Stockbridge Iron Co. V. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 321; Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591; BIchardson v. Palmer, 38 N. H. 212; Emerson v. Mooney, 50 N. H. 316; Bridger v. Pierson, 45 N. Y. 601; Westpoiht Co. v. Reymert, 45 N. Y. 707; Munn V. Worrall, 53 N. Y. 46; "Whitaker v. Brown, 46 Pa. St. 197; Ker- nmller v. Krotz, 18 Iowa, 357; Bray v. Hussey, 83 Me. 329; Behymer v. Odell, 31 111. App. 350; Wood v. Boyd (Mass.), 13 N. E. Eep. 476; Week- land V. Cunningham (Pa.), 7 Atl. Rep. 148; Kincaid v. McGowan (Ky.), 4 S. W. Rep. 802; King v. Wells, 94 N. C. 344; Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Heck, 15 Lea, 497; Jones «. Delassus, 84 Mo. 541; Truett u. Adams, 66 Cal. 218; Bradley v. Tittabawassee Boom Co. (Mich. 1890), 46 N. W. 24; MayoB. Newhoff (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 837; Gould v. Howe (III. 1890), 23 N. E. 602 ; Atkinson v. Sinnott (Miss. 1890) , 7 So. 289 ; Grand Tower, etc., Co. V. Gill, 11 111. 541; City of New York v. Law, 125 N. Y. 380; Culter v. Tuft, 3 Pick. 272, 278; Doe v. Lock, 4 Nev. & M. 807; Pettee «. Hawes, 13 Pick. 323, 326; Hurd v. Curtis, 7 Met. 110; 3 Wasb. on Real Prop. (4th ed.) 440; Shep. Touch. 80; Craig v. Wells, 11 Co. 126 Mass. 196; Moulton V. Trafton, 64 Me. 218; State v. Wilson, 42 Me. 9; Ives v. Van Auken, 34 Barb. 566 ; Bridger v. Pierson, 1 Lans. 481 ; Whitaker v. Brown, 46 Pa. St. 197; Munn v. Worrall, 53 N. Y. 44; Stockbridge Iron Co. v, Hudson Iron Co., 106 Mass. 290. 54 849 § 843 COMPONENT PAKTS OF A DEED. [pAKT III. the grantor, and therefore requires the same words of limit- ation as in the direct grant to the grantee. But an exception requires no words of limitation. ^ Both reservations and ex- ceptions are lobe distinguished from conditions, which limit the grantee's use of the land. Such a condition does not give to the grantor any right which he may assign to another. ^ A reservation can only be made to the grantor, and must issue out of the land granted. It cannot be reserved to a stranger or out of another estate, although an attempted reservation out of another's estate may operate as an inde- pendent grant to the grantor in a deed of indenture executed by both parties.^ The reservation properly appears in the reddendum clause of the deed, while the exception is prop- erly incorporated in the premises, and constitutes a part of the description. But this is a mere matter of form, and is not essential or important in determining whether a clause creates an exception or a reservation.* If an exception is repugnant to the original grant, it is void. Thus, if there 1 Seymour v Courtenay, 5 Burr. 2814; Clapp v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; Jamaica Pond a. Chandler, 9 Allen, 170; Putnam v. Tuttle, 10 Gray, 48; Curtis V. Gardner, 13 Mete. 461; Wbite v. Foster, 102 Mass. 378; Stock- bridge Iron Co. V. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 321; Keeler v. Wood, 30 Vt. 242; Emerson v. Mooney, 50 N. H. 316; Bean v. Colman, 44 N. H. 542; Hornbeck v. Westbrook, 9 Johns. 73; Wheeler v. Brown, 47 Pa. St. 197; Smith v. Ladd, 41 Me. 314; Randall v. Randall, 59 Me. 339; Bean v. French, 140 Mass. 229. 2 Westmoreland etc., Nat. Gas. Co. v. De Witt, 130 Pa. St. 235. See Bray v. Hussey, 83 Me. 329; Stillwell v. St. L., etc.,Ry. Co., 39 Mo. App. 221. " Dand v. Kingscote, 6 Mees. &W 174; Pettee v. Hawes, 13 Pick. 322; Uyeri). Sanford, 9 Mete. 395; Corning v. Troy Iron Co., 40 N. Y. 209; Bridger ». Pierson, 45 N. Y. 601 ; Westpoint Iron Co. v. Reymert, 45 N. Y. 707; Hill v. Lord, 48 Me. 95; Hall v. Hall (Miss.), 5 So. 523; Wetmore V. Fiske, 15 R. I. 354; 6 Atl. 375; Herbert v. Pue (Md. 1890), 20 Atl. 182; Fibher v. Laack (Wis. 1890), 45 N. W. 104; Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Met. 395; Hornbeck D. Westbrook, 9 Johns. 74; Petition of Young, 11 R.I. 636; Bridger v. Pierson, 1 Lans. 481 ; Illinois R. R. Co. v. Indiana R. R. Co., 85 111. 211; West Point Iron Co. u. Reymert, 45 N. Y. 703. And see Bridger v. Pierson, 45 N. Y. 601; Brossart v. Corlett, 27 Iowa, 288. » Gage V. Barnes (N. H.), 9 Atl. 545. 850 Cil. XXII. J COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. § 844 be a specific grant of twenty acres of land, the exception of one acre will be repugnant and therefore void. But if the grant is of a tract of land and the quantity is mentioned only incidentally, an exception of one or two acres is not repugnant, since the two elements of the description can be reconciled so that both can take effect.^ And where a part or paicel of the land granted is excepted from the grantor right reserved to the grantor, not only that specific right or estate remains in the grantor, but every other right which is appurtenant thereto, and which is necessary to the rea- sonable enjoyment of the same.^ But where it is shown that the grantor in excepting a part of the land only in- tended to except an easement, such as a right of way over the excepted parcel, the title to the soil of the excepted parcel is held to pass to the grantee, subject only to the easement.^ And if the grantor's estate in the land excepted is a rever- sion or remainder, such reversion or remainder will b6 excluded from the grant, to the same extent as if it had been an estate in possession.* It is also possible to except different interests in the same property from the opera- tion of the gratit, when such intention is made plain.' § 844. Habendum. — The habendum is the clause which in a deed follows the words " to have and to hold," and which defines the quantity of interesj; or the estate which the grantee is to have in the property granted. What are the words of limitation usually employed in limiting estates, 1 Shep. Touch. 79; Cutler v. Tufts, 3 Pick. 272; Sprague v. Snow, 4 Pick. 54; McAfee v. Arline, 83 Ga. 645; 10 S. E. 602; Koenighelra ». Miles, 67 Texas, 113; 2 S W- 81; Brown v. Ritkaid, 107 N. C. 639. 2 Dand v. Kingscote, 6 Mees. & W. 174; Howard v. "Wadsworth, 3 Me. 471; Sanborn v. Hoyt, 24 Me. 118; Pettee v. Hawes, 13 Pick. 322; Allen v. Scott, 21 Pick. 25; Noble v. 111. Cemt. E. R. Co., Ill 111. 437; McBrownj). Dalton, 70 Cal. 89; 11 Pac. 583. * Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 398; 45 N. W. 958. * Kimball v. Withington, 141 Mass. 376. s Burwell v. Snow, 107 N. C. 82; Price v. King, 44 Kan. 639. 851 § 844 COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEED. [PAET III. have been already given in the preceding chapters on the different estates, and need not be repeated here. The habendum, although properly constituting an independent clause in a deed, is not absolutely necessary. The estate granted may be limited in the premises, and the habendum altogether omitted.^ And so unimportant is thehabendum, that if it is repugnant to the limitations appearing in the premises it will have no effect; an absolutely repugnant habendum always yields to the terms of the premises.^ But if by any fair and reasonable construction the premises and habendum may be reconciled that both can stand, then effect will be given to both. If, therefore, the limitation in the premises is in general terms, as to A. and his heirs gener- ally, and the habendum limits the estate to A. and the heirs of his body, since the habendum is not necessarily contra- dictory of the premises, it will have its proper effect, and the estate granted will be an estate-tail.^ But if the prem- ises contain a specific limitation, and is followed by a more general limitation in the habendum, the latter limitation cannot enlarge the estate granted by the premises.* It has 1 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 366, 367, 436; Co. Lit. 6 a; Kenworthy b. Tullis, 3 Ind. 96. 2 Flagg V. Eames, 40 Vt. ?3; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 118; Tyler V. Moore, 42 Pa. St. 376; Wallers v. Breden, 70 Pa. St. 237; Eatliffe v. Marrs, 87 Ky. 26; Smith v. Smith (Mich.), 40 N. W. Eep. 21; Nightingale V. Hidden, 7 R. I. 118; Walters v. Breden, 70 Pa. St. 237; 4 Cruise, 272; Eiggin V. Love, 72 111. 653; Carson v. McCaslin, 60 Ind. 337. 3 Berry v. Billings, 44 Me. 423; Sumner u. Wilson, 8 Mass. 162; Jamaica Pond v. Chandler, 9 Allen, 168; Ford v. Flint, 40 Vt. 382; Man- ning u. Smith, 6 Conn. 292; Moss ^. Sheldon, 3 Watts & S. 162; Mont- gotnory «. Sturdivant, 41 Cal. 290; Jamaica Pond v. Chandler, 9 Allen, 168; Co. Lit. 6 a.; Sumner u. Williams, 8 Mass. 162, 174; Berry ». Bill- ings, 44 Me. 423; 1 Wood oa Convej'ancing, 224; Lee v. Tuclier, 55 Ga. 9; Riggin u. Love, 72 111. 553; SPrest. Abst. Tit. 43. See Carson v. Mc- Caslin, 60 Ind. 334; Jackson v. Ireland, 3 Wend. 99; Corbin v. Healey, 20 Pick. 514. I * Shep. Touch. 76; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 E. I. 118; Walters ti. Breden, 70 Pa. St. 237; 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 439; Whitby v. Duffy (Pa, 1890), 19 Atl. 1065. 8&2 CH. XXir.] COMPONENT PARTS OF A DEKD. § 845 however been held that a fee simple has been conveyed, where the premises granted the land to A. and her children and assigns forever, and the habendum read " to A. and her heirs and assigns forever." ^ The habendum cannot serve to pass any other parcels of land than those which are . Downing, 105 N. C. 20; Ricks v. Pulliam, 94 N. C. 225. 856 •CH. XXII. J COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 850 soon as made, and the grantee, and no one else, may at once bring an action for the breach.^ If the grantor has posses- sion at the time, but holds adversely to the owner of the paramount title, it has been generally held that the mere existence of an outstanding title does not constitute a breach of the covenant. But whether such adverse possession and defeasible seisin are a sufficient compliance with the obliga- tion of the covenant, has met with a different construction by the different courts. It has been held in some, perhaps most of the States, that the covenant of lawful seisin is sat- isfied by the possession of actual seisin though it is tor- tiously acquired, and that a subsequent eviction of the tenant constitutes no breach of the covenant of seisin.^ If this be the proper construction, then a covenant of seisin, or of lawful seisin, is broken, if at all, as soon as it is made, and, in conformity with the general common-law rule in respect to the non-assignability of broken covenants, cannot pass 1 Pollard V. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 430; Bartholomew v. Candee, 14 Pick. 170; Slater v. Kawson, 1 Mete. 450; Garfield v. Williains, 2 Vt. 327 Mitchell V. Warner, 6 Conn. 497; Greenby v. Wilcocks, 2 Johns. 1 Dickinson v. Hoomes, 8 Gratt. 397; Backus v. McCoy, 3 Ohio, 218 Devore v. Sunderland, 17 Ohio, 60. 2 Greenby v. Wilcox, 2 Johns. 1; Withy v. Munford, 5 Cow. 137; Bed- doe i>. Wadsworth, 21 Wend. 124; Marston ??. Hobbs, 2 Mass. 433; Kay- mond o. Raymond, 10 Gush. 134; Clark v. Swift, 3 Mete. 390; Moore v. Merrill, 17 N. H. 79 ; Griffin v. Fairbrother, 10 Me. 95; Wilson u. Widen- ham, 51 Me. 567; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 497; Wilson v. Cochrane, 46 Pa. St. 229; Eedwine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 314; Birney v. Hann, 3 A. K. Marsh. 324; Wheaton v. East, 5 Terg. 41; Eichard v. Brent, 59 111. 45; 14 Am. Rep. 1; Dale v. Shively, 8 Kan. 276; Salmon v. Vallejo, 41 Cal. 481; Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Mass. 439; 3 Am. Dec. 61; Cornell v. Jackson, 3 Custi. 509; Chapel v. BuU, 17 Mass. 219; Follett v. Grant, 6 Allen, 175; Wait V. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217; 16 Am. Dec. 391; Raymond v. Raymond, 10 Cush. 134; Griffin v. Fairbrother, 1 Fairf. 59; Wheeler v. Hatch, 3 Fairf. 389; Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260; 37 Am. Dec. 49; Boothby v. Hathaway, 20 Me. 255; Cushman v. Blanchard, 2 Greenl. 268; 11 Am. Dec. 76; Wilson v. Widenham, 51 Me. 567; Ballard v. Child, 34 Me. 355; Backus V. McCoy, 3 Ohio, 211; 17 Am. Dec. 585; Watts v. Parker, 27 111. 224, 229; Kirkendall v. Mitchell, 3 McLean, 145; Twambley v. Henley, 4 Mass. 439; Bearce v. Jackson, 4 Mass. 408; Scott v. Twiss, 4 Neb. 133. 857 § 850 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PART III. to the assignees of the grantee. If the covenant is broken, the grantee has nothing which he can convey.^ But it is maintained by the courts of England, and some of the United States, that a covenant of lawful seisin is both present and future in its operation, that if the grantor has the actual seisin it is not immediately broken, but is subsequently broken if the grantee or his assigns are evicted by the as- sertion of the paramount title. Being future in its opera- tion, it is held in those States to pass to the assignee with a grant of the estate.^ The failure to distinguish between a covenant of lawful seisin and of indefeasible seisin in the earlier cases no doubt gave rise to this variance of judicial OiJinion. The better, and what is deemed to be the Ameri- can, doctrine is that the covenant of lawful seisin does not covenant for the conveyance of an indefeasible estate, and is, therefore, not broken by a subsequent eviction of the grantee. To hold that the covenant of seisin means an in- defeasible seisin would give to that covenant the same ex- 1 Eedwine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 311; Ross v. Turner, 7 Ark. 132, and other cases cited in note C8). 2 Kingdon?;. Nottle, 1 Maule & S. 355; Richardson u. Dorr, 5 Vt. 210; Martin v. Balser, 5 Blackf. 232; Coleman v. Lyman, 42 Ind. 289; Backus V. McCoy, 3 Ohio, 218; Great Western, etc., Co. v. Saas, 24 Ohio St. 542; Parker ». Brown, 15 N. H. 176; Partridge v. Hatch, 18 N. H.498; Brandt V. Foster, 5 Iowa, 294; Schofleld v. Homestead Co., 32 Iowa, 317; 7 Am. Kep. 197; Catling. Hurlburt, 3 Vt. 407, C. J. Hutchinson; Richardson ». Dorr, 5 Vt. 21 ; Catlin v. Hurlburt, 3 Vt. 407; MiUs v. Catlln, 22 Vt, 1C6, Lockewood u. Sturdevant, 6 Conn. 385; Parker v. Brown, 15 N. H. 186, overruling Willard v. Twitchell, 1 N. H. 178; Breck w. Young, 11 N. H. *91; Pringle v. Written, 1 Bay, 256; 1 Am. Dec. 612; Kincald v. Brittaln, 5Sneed, 119; Pollard u. D wight, 4 Cranch, 430; McCarty v. Leggett, 3 Hill, 134; Greenby ». Wilcocks, 2 Johns. 1; 8 Am. Dec. 379; Brandt »• Poster, 5 Clarke, 287; Mott v. Palmer, 1 Comst. 564; Morris v. Phelps, 5 Johns. 49; Abbott v. Allen, 14 Johns. 248; Fitch v. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 161; Fitzhugh u. Coghan, 2 Marsh. J. J. 430; 19 Am. Dec. 140; Coit o McEeynolds, 2 Rob. TN. Y.) 655; Hastings v. Webber, 2 Vt. 407; Martin V. Baker, 5 Blackf. 232; Thomas v. Perry, 1 Peters C. C. 57; Woods v. North, 6 Humph. 409 ; 44 Am. Dec. 312. See Lindsey o. Veasy, 62 Ala. 421; Matteson «. Vaughn,^^ Mich. 373; Parkers. Brown, 15 N. H. 186, C. J. Parker. \ 858 CH. XXII.] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 851 tensive operation as the covenant of warranty. Every- where in the United States, if the grantorv expressly or impliedly covenants that he is seised of an indefeasible estate, it is a future covenant and runs with the laud. Any one who holds under the covenantee may sue on the covenant, whenever he has been evicted by the para- mount title. ^ § 851 . What facts constitute a breach. — The covenant of seisin is defined to be an assurance that he has the very estate, ' both in quantity and quality, which he professes to convey.^ Soif the grantor expressly conveys only the lands, " whereof/ he was seised on " a certain day, the covenant of seisin is not broken if other lands fall under the general description', J of which he did not have the seisin.^ Therefore, any out-v standing right or title which diminishes the quality or quan- tity of the technical seisin will be a breach of the covenant. It will be broken if the estate is less in duration or quantity than what is described.* So, also, if the estate described is not, to any extent, the property of the grantor.^ The covenant is also broken where the land conveyed has upon it fences, buildings, and other erections belonging to other 1 Garflald ». Williams, 2 Vt. 328; Preston v. Trueman, 4 Mass. 627; Smith u. Strong, 14 Pick. 123; Raymond v. Raymond, 10 Gush. 134; Ab- bott V. Allen, 14 Johns. 248; Stanard u. Eldndije, 16 Johns. 254; Loclt- wood 0. Sturdevant, 6 Coun. 373; Bender v. Fromberger, 4 Dall 436; Wilson V. Forbes, 2 Dev. 30; Kinnaid v. Brittain, 5 Sneed, 123; Collier t?. Gamble, 10 Mo. 467; Magwire v. Riggan, 44 Mo. 512; Allen v. Kennedy, 91 Mo. 324; 2 S. W. 142. 2 Howell u. Richards, 11 East, 641; Pecare v. Chouteau, 13 Mo. 527. 3 Thomas v. Perry, Pet. C. Ct. 49. * Downer v. Smith, 38 Vt, 468; Liadley v. Dakln, 13 Ind. 388; Phipps V. Tarpley, 24 Miss. 597; Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496; Brandts. Foster, 6Iowa, 294; Wagner u. Van Nostrand, 19 Iowa, 422; Mott«u. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564; Wilson ». Forbes, 2 Dev. 35; Wilder i;. Ireland, 8 Jones L. 90; Sedgwick v. Hollenback, 7 Johns. 376; Wheeler v. Hatch, 12 Me. 389; Comstock V. Comstock, 23 Conn. 352. « Wheelcock m. Thayer, 16' Pick. 68; Basford v. Pearson, 9 Allen, 389; Bacon v. Lincoln, 4 Cush. 210; Morrison v. McArthur, 43 Me. 567. 859 § 852 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAET III. persons, if there is no restraining clause in the deed.^ But, on the other hand, easements, the exercise of which doea not affect the technical seisin of the grantee,- such as aright of way, a public highway, or railroad, will not constitute a breach of the covenant.^ An outstanding judgment, mort- gage, or right of dower, does not constitute a breach of the covenant, and in the case of a mortgage, it does not matter whether the mortgage is construed to be a conveyance or only a lien.* But if the grantee is himself seised, he will be estopped from setting up his seisin in an action for the breach of the covenant of seisin.^ § 852. Covenants against Incumbrances. — This cove- nant is intended to provide security against the assertion of " every right to, or interest in the land, which may subsist in third persons, but consistent with the passing of the fee by the conveyance."' The same contrariety of opinion exists as to the character of covenants against incumbrances as was discovered in regard to the character of covenants of seisin, viz. : whether the covenant is one inprcbsenti, broken, 1 Mott V. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564; Tifft v. Horton, 53 N. T. 377; Powers v. Dennison, 30 Vt. 752; West v. Stewart, 7 Pa. St. 122; Van Wagner u. Van Norstrand, 19 Iowa, 427. 2 Whitbeck v. Cook, 15 Johns. 483; Mills v. Catlin, 22 Vt. 98; Lewis v. Jones, 1 Pa. St. 336; Fitzhngh v. Croghan, 2 J. J. Marsh. 429; Vaughn v. Stuzaker, 16 Ind. 340; Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496; 11 Am. Et-p. 426. But It has been held to be broken by an outstanding right to use the water of a spring. Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 324; Clark ». Conroe, 38 Vt. 469. And by a right to restrain the damming of water. Traster v. Nelson, 29 Ind. 96; Walker v. Wilson, 13 Wis. 522; Hall v. Gale, 14 Wis. 65. 3 Sedgwick V. HoUenback, 7 Johns. 376; Stanard v. Eldridge, 16 Johns. 254; Lewis ». Lewis, 5 Eich. L. 12; Massey v. Craine, 1 McCord, 489 ; Tuite ». Miller, 10 Ohio, 383 ; Eeasoner v. Edmundson, 5 Ind. 394. But see Voorhis v. Forsythe, 4 Biss. 409. * Fitch V. Baldwin, 17 Johns. 161; Furness u. Williams, 11 111. 229. « 2 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 242; Prescott v. Trueman, 4 Mass. 627; Gary «. Daniels, 8 Mete. 482; Bronson o. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 527. 860 CH. XXII.] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 852 if at all, as soon as it is made, and, therefore, does not pass to the grantee's assigns; or whether it is a future covenant, and, therefore, enforcible by whoever is injured by the in- cumbrance. The generally prevailing doctrine in this coun- try is that it is a covenant in prcesenti, and does not run with the land.'^ But in some of the States of this country it is held to be a covenant in futuro, and, therefore, one running with the land. The covenant is broken when the outstanding right is enforced.^ Probably this variance of opinion, as in the case of covenants of seisin, originated in a failure to note carefully the distinction between a covenant that the estate is free from incumbrances, and a covenant that the grantee shall enjoy the estate free from incum- brances. The latter is practically a covenant for quiet en- jpyment, and being future in character, passes with the land to the grantee's assigns.^ The grantee or his assignee may recover whatever loss he may have sustained by the enforce- ment of the incumbrance, and where the covenant takes the form of an obligation to discharge incumbrances, the right of action accrues immediately upon the covenantor's failure 1 Clark V. Swift, 3 Meto. 392; Thayer v. Clemence, 22 Pick. 490; Whitney v. Dinmore, 6 Cush. 127; Runnels v. Webster, 59 Me. 488; Russ 1!. Perry, 49 N. H. 547; Potter v. Taylor, 6 Vt. 676; Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. L. 139; Garrison v. Sanford, 12 N. J. L. 261; Funk ». Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. 109; Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. St. 317; Frink v. Bellis, 33 Ind. 135; Funk v. Cresswell, 5 Clarke Ch. 62; Pillsbury v. Mitchell, 5 Wis. 17; Guerini). Smith, 62 Mich. 369; 28 N. W. 906. See Richard v. Bent, 69 111. 38; 14 Am. Rep. 1. 2 Foote V. Burnett, 10 Ohio, 317. See Sprague v. Baker, 17 Mass. 586; McCrady v. Brisbane, 1 Nott & M. 104. In some of the States, although the courts take the position that the covenant against incum- brance is a covenant in prcesenti, they hold that it runs with the land, and will support an action by the second or third grantee under the cove- nantee. Kradler v. Sharp, 36 111. 236; Richard v. Bent, 59 111. 38; 14* Am. Rep. 1; Winningham v. Pennock, 36 Mo. App. 688. " RawleCov.92; Lethbridge v. Mytton, 2 B. & Ad. 772; Hall». Deane, 13 Johns. 105; Greene v. Creighton, 7 R. I. 1; Hutchins v. Moody, 30 Vt. 658; Carter v. Denman, 23 N. J. L. 273; Grice v. Scarborough, 2 Spears, 649 ; Anderson v. Knox, 20 Ala. 156. 861 § 853 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAET in. to perform.^ If it be an ordinary covenant against incum- brances, the grantee can only obtain nominal damages, un- less he can show that he has suffered an actual loss. If the incumbrance be a mortgage or other future claim, the dam- ages will be nominal, unless the mortgage or other lien is enforced before the action on the covenant is instituted. But if the incumbrance is a pre-existing easement, substan- tial damages may be recovered at any lime.^ § 853. What circamstances constitute a breach of cove- nant against incumbrances. — The following may be men- tioned as the more prominent examples of incumbrances, the existence of which will constitute a breach of the covenant, supplementing them by the statement that there are others, and that every outstanding right which comes under the definition of an incumbrance above given would be a breach of the covenant : An inchoate right of dower ; ' a judgment lien ; * an outstanding mortgage ; ^ taxes and assessments, when ascertained and determined ;* an out- 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 464; Gardner v. Niles, 16 Me. 280; Jennings V. Morton, 35 Me. 309; Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 N. Y. 550; Booth o. Starr, 1 Conn. 249; Lathrop v. Atwood, 21 Conn. 123; Dorsey v. Dashiell, 1 Md. 204; Hogan's Exrs. •». Calvert, 21 Ala. 199. 2 Whitney v. Dinsmore, 6 Cush. 124; Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 321; Ardesco Oil Co. v. N. A. Mining Co., 66 Pa. St. 375; Kichard v. Bent, 69 111. 38; 14 Am. Rep. 1. ' Shearer v. Ranger, 22 Pick. 447; Jenks v. Ward, 4 Mete. 412; Fletchers. State Bank, 37 N. H. 397; McAlpine v. Woodrufi, 11 Ohio St. 120. But see Bigelow v. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 198; Bostwick v. Williams, 36 111. 69. * Jenkins v. Hopkins, 8 Pick. 346; Hall v. Dean, 13 Johns. 105. 5 Bean v. Mayo, 5 Me. 94; Freeman v. Foster, 55 Me. 508; Brooks v. Moody, 25 Ark. 452 ; Lively v. Rice, 150 Mass. 171 ; 22 N. E. 888. " Rundell v. Lakey, 40 N. Y. 514 ; Barlow v. St. Nicholas Bank, 63 N. Y. 399; Cochrane v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29; Hill v. Bacon, 110 Mass. 388; Pierce V. Brew, 43 Vt. 292; Long v. Moler, 5 Ohio St. 271; Almy v. Hunt, 48 111. 45; lagalls v. Cook, 21 Iowa, 560; Peters v. Myers, 22 Wis. 602; Cadmus V. Fagan, 47 N. J. L. 549; People ■». Gilon, 2i Abb. N. C. 125; 9 N. Y. S. 563 ; Hartshorn v. Cleveland (N. J. 1890) , 9 Atl. 974 ; Harper v. Dowdney, 47 Hun, 227. But see Hartshorn v. Cleveland, supra. 862 CH. XXII. J COVENANTS IN DEKDS. § 853 standing lease in possession;^ conditions and covenants, restricting the use of premises.^ And it may be stated tiiat pre-existing easements upon the land will constitute breaches of the covenant against incumbrances. Among them may be mentioned railroads, private rights of way, rights to arti- ficial water-courses, to cut trees, to mine, to maintain dams and aqueducts, etc.^ Although it has been denied in New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin,^ the prevailing doctrine is that the existence of a public or highway over the land is a breach of the covenant, even though the grantee knew of its existence.^ Any one of these circumstances will consti- tute a breach of the covenant, even though the grantee is aware of its existence when he took the deed and paid the consideration.^ 1 Galeu. Edwards, 52 Me. 360; Batchelder v. Sturgis, 3 Gush. 201; Weld V. Traip, 14 Gray, 330; Porter v. Bradley, 7 R. I. 538; Cross v. Noble, 67 Pa. St. 77 ; Grice v. Scarborough, 2 Spears, 649. 2 Plymouth v. Carver, 16 Pick. 183; Parish v. Whitney, 3 Gray, 616; Bronsoni). Coffin, 108 Mass. 175; Burbank «. Pillsbury, 48 N. H. 476; Kellogg V. Robinson, 6 Vt. 276; Foster v. Foster, 62 N. H. 46. 3 Spurr V. Andrews, 6 Allen, 420 ; Prescott v. White, 21 Pick. 341 ; Lamb V. Danforth, 59 Me. 322; 8 Am. Rep. 426; Brooks v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 639; 10 Am. Rep. 545; Russ v. Steele, 40 Vt. 310; Smith u. Sprague,40 Vt. 310; Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. St. 319 ; Wilson v. Cochrane, 46 Pa. St. 233 ; Mitchells. Warner, 5 Conn. 497; Kutz v. McCune, 22 Wis. 628; Burk v. Hill, 48 Ind. 52; 17 Am. Rep. 731; Barlow v. McKinley, 24 Iowa, 70; Beach o. Miller, 51111.206; 2 Am. Rep. 290; Kellogg o.Malin, 50 Mo. 496; 11 Am. Rep. 426. - Whitbeck v. Cook, 16 Johns. 483; Patterson v. Arthur, 9 Watts, 162; Wilson V. Cochrane, 46 Pa. St. 229 ; Kutz v. McCune, 22 Wis. 628. " Haynes v. Young, 36 Me. 667; Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 322; 8 Am. Rep. 426 ; Kellogg v. Ingersoll, 2 Mass. 101 ; Parish v. Whitney, 3 Gray, 516; Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt. 739; Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 422; Burk V. Hill, 48 Ind. 62; 17 Am. Rep. 731; Beach v. Miller, 51 111. 206; 2 Am. Rep. 290; Kellogg v. Malin, 60 Mo. 496; 11 Am. Rep. 426. 6 Hoovey v. Newton, 7 Pick. 29; Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. 68; Funk V. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. 112; Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 431; Long i;. Moler, 5 Ohio St. 271; Medler v. Hiatt, 8 Ind. 171; Snyder v. Lane, 10 Ind. 424; Beach v. Miller, 61 111. 206; 2 Am. Rep. 290; Dunn v. White, 1 Ala. 645; Kineaid». Brittain, 5 Sneed, 119. Contra, Hutz o. McCune, 22 Wis. 628. 863 § 855 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PART III. § 854. Covenant for quiet enjoyment. — This covenant is "an assurance against the consequences of a defective title, and of any disturbances thereupon." ^ The covenant for quiet enjoyment is in common use in England, and in the United States it is commonly met with in leases. But in the ordinary conveyance of freeholds it is almost altogether superseded by the covenant of warranty, from which it can- not be materially distinguished.^ The operation of the two covenants being almost identical, an exhaustive statement will not be needed here. It suffices to say, that nothing but actual or constructive^viction, by the assertion of the paramount title, will constitute a breach of this covenant.* J § 855. Covenant off warranty. — As has been stated in the preceding paragraph, covenants for quiet enjoyment and of warranty are prac'tically identical in their operation. An attempt has been made to distinguish them by the statement that the former relates to the possession and the covenant is broken by an eviction of lawful right ; while the covenant of warranty relates to the title, and requires the eviction to hehj paramount t\i\& as well as by lawful right, in order to constitute a breach.* But since an eviction can be lawful only under a paramount title, it is difficult to see in what this supposed difference lies. The same acts which will 1 Howells V. Richards, 11 East, 633. 2 Eawle Gov. 125. 3 Smith V. Shepatd, 15 Pick. 147; Drew v. Towle, 30 N. H. 537; Russ V. Steele, 40 Vt. 315; Sterling v. Peet, 14 Conn. 254; Cowdrey v. Coit, 44 N. Y. 382; 4 Am. Rep. 690; Ross v. Dysart, 33 Pa. St. 452; Hand v. Arm- strong, 34 Ga. 232; Murphy v. Price, 48 Mo. 250; Moore v. Vail, 17 III. 190; Johnson v. Nyce, 17 Ohio, 66; Clark v. Lineberger, 44 Ind. 223; Pence v. Duval, 9 B. Mon. 49; Thomas v. Stickle, 32 Iowa, 76; McGaryc. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360; 2 Am. Rep. 456; Scrivner v. Smith, 100 N. Y. 471; 53 Am. Rep. 224; Hayes v. Ferguson, 15 Lea, 1; Morgan v. Henderson, 2 Wash. 367; McAlester v. Landers, 70 Cal. 79; 11 Pac. 505. See anJe, sects. 187, 195, 196. * Fowler v. Poling, 6 Barb. 165 ; Wheeler v. Wayne Co. (111. 1890) , 24- N. E. 625. ,864 CH. XXIi. ] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 855 constitute a breach of one covenant will be a breach of the other also. In order that the covenants may be broken, there must be an actual or constructive eviction of the whole or a part of the premises. ^ But the grantee need not resist the claim of the contestant until he has been evicted by process of law. He may voluntarily yield the possession upon demand of the owner of the paramount title,2ot pur- chase the outstanding title from the adverse claimant.* But he does this at his peril, and the burden of proof in a sub- sequent action on the covenant lies on him to show, that the title to which he yielded possession was really the para- mount title.* A judgment in ejectment is a breach of the / covenant, and the grantee need not wait to be actually evicted.* But in all these cases the covenant is not broken by 1 West V. Stewart, 7 Pa. St. 122 ; Fnnk v. Cresswell, 5 Iowa, 88 ; Mott », Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564; Beebe «. Swartwout, 8 111. 179; Bostwlck u. Will- lams, 36 111. 69; Bayer v. Schultze, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 212; Barry ». Guild, 28 111. App. 39. In South Carolina and elsewhere the existence of a paramount title in a third person is sufficient, without eviction, to con- stitute a breach of the covenant. Blggus v. Bradley, 1 McCord, 500; Mackey v. Collins, 2 Nott & M. 186; Clapp v. Herdman, 25 111. App. 609. 2 Knepper v. Kurtz, 58 Pa. St. 484; Clarke v. McAnulty, 3 Serg. & R. 364; Sprague k. Baker, 17 Mass. 686 ; .Hamilton v. Cutts, 4 Mass. 349; Oilman v. Haven, 11 Cush. 330; Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Hill, 643; Kel- logg V. Piatt, 33 N. J. 828 ; Loomis v. Bedell, 11 N. H. 73 ; Peck v. Hens- ley, 20 Texas, 673; Claycomb v. Munger, 51 111. 376; McGary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360; 2 Am. Eep. 466; Lambert v. Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. 284; Holliday v. Menifee, 30 Mo. App. 207. Contra, Ferris v. Harshea, Mart. & Y. 62. 2 Eversole v. Early (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. 897; Petrie v. Folz, 54 N. Y. Super. 223. < Stone V. Hooker, 9 Cow. 164; Smith v. Shepard, 16 Pick. 147; Clark ■ ». McAnulty, 3 Serg. & K. 364; Crance v. CoUenbaugh, 47 Ind. 256; Lam- bert V. Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. 284. ■= Loughran v. Eoss, 46 N. Y. 792; Cowdrey v. Coit, 44 N. Y. 382; 4 Am. Eep. 690; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499; Gleason ». Smith, 41 Vt. 293; Eincaid v. Brittain, 5 Sneed, 124; Hannah v. Henderson, 4 Ind. 174; Hale V. New Orleans, 13 La. An. 499; King v. Kerr's Admrs., 5 Ohio, 168; Norton v. Jackson, 5 Cal. 263; Williams v. Weatherbee, 1 Ark. 233; Collier 'd. Cowger, 52 Ark. 322; 12 S. W. 702; Brown v. Allen, 10 N. Y. S, 714. 66 865 § 855 COVENANTS IX DEEDS. [PART III. eviction, unless under a lawful and paramount title. ^ And there will be do breach of the covenant, if land is confiscated ii^i the exercise of the right of eminent domain. ^^ It matters not what may be the nature of the paramount claim. If it is paramount, and the enforcement of it will take a portion, or the whole of the land conveyed, or will diminish the value of it by restricting the enjoyment of it, the assertion of the claim will be a breach of the covenant. Therefore, an outstanding right to an easement, conditions restraining the use of the land, a mortgage or other lien, a wife's or widow's dower, and the like, will constitute a breach of the covenant of warrant}', when they are enforced.^ But if the covenant is signed by two or three joint tenants or tenants in common, it is not broken by the assertion of a paramount title to an undivided third by the purchaser from the third co-tenant, where the third co-tenant had been expected to join in the conveyance but had refused.* The covenant of each covenantor is held in such case to be several. ' Gleason v. Smith, 41 Vt. 296. See Memmert v. McKean, 112 Pa. St. 315. 2 BrowQ V. Jackson, 3 Wheat. 452; Blanchard v. Brooks, 12 Pick. 47; Sweet v. BrowD, 12 Mete. 17^; Raymond v. Raymond, 10 Cush. 132; Hall V. Chaftee, 14 N. H. 215; Peck v. Jones, 70 Pa. St. 83; Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. 510; Doe v. Dowdall, 3 Houst. 380; "White v. Brokaw, 14 Ohio St. 344; Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 474; Kimball v. Temple, 25 Cal. 452. 3 Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 324; 8 Am. Rep. 426; Haynes v. Young, 36 Me. 561; Day v. Adams, 42 Vt. 510; Russ v. Steele, 40 Vt. 310; Harlow d. Thomas, 15 Pick. 66; Tuft v. Adams, 8 Pick. 547; White v. Whitney, 3 Mete. 81; Estahrook v. Smith, 6 Gray, 572; Cowdry u. Coit, 44 N. Y. 382; 4 Am. Rep. 690. But see Hendricks u. Stark, 37 N. Y. 106; Janes r. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1; 6 Am. Rep. 300; Hill v. Bacon, 110 Mass. 388; Flynu V. Williams, 1 Ired. L. 509; Southerland v. Stout, 68 N. C. 446; Moore v. Vail, 17 HI. 185. But see Memmert v. McKeen, 112 Pa. St. 315. But an incumbrance, which the grantee undertakes to pay, will not work a breach o£ the covenant. Stebbinsu. Hall, 29 Barb. 524; Belmontc. Coman, 2.'N. Y. 438; Gage v. Brewster, 31 N. Y. 221; Trotter v. Hughes, 2 Vt. 74: Allen V. Lee, 1 Ind. 58; Pitman v. Conner, 27 Ind. 337. ( 1 Redding v. Lamb (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. 997. 866 CH. XXII.] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 857 § 856. The character of the covenant of warranty. — The covenant of warranty in its present character is a modern covenant of title, and is an adaptation of an old English covenant to American wants. It is now the most common covenant of title, and the only one in general use. This is a personal "obligation, binding the warrantor and his personal representatives, to war- rant and defend the title of the covenantee against ad- verse claims, and binds his heirs and devisees only when they are expressly mentioned, and then only to the extent of the assets received by them from the warrantor. And as a personal covenant, it may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.^ *The right of action is not affected by a fail- ure to record the conveyance and covenant.^ If the cov- enant is broken, as will be more fully explained in a subsequent paragraph, the covenantee is entitled to an action for damages against the covenantor.' But a different remedy was provided in the case of § 857. The feudal warranty — Of which the modern war- ranty is a descendant. The feudal warranty grew out of the relation of lord and vassal. Upon receiving the homage of the vassal the lord pledged himself to warrant and defend the title to the vassal's lands, and provide him with others of equal value if he were ousted of his lands by a paramount title. If the vassal or tenant was evicted he could call upon the lord for some more lands, as compensation for those which he had lost. But there was no action for damages.* 1 Cole (7, Raymond, 9 Gray, 17; Holden v. Fletcher, 6 Curtis, 235; Emerson v. Proprs., etc., 1 Mass. 464; Townsend v. Morris, 6 Cow. 126; Dobbins v. Brown, 12 Pa. St. 75 ; Caldwell v. Kirkpatrick, 6 Ala. 60; Will- iams V. Wetherbee, 1 Ark. 233; Athens v. Nale, 25 111. 198; Bostwlck v. Williams, 36 111. 70; Wheeler u. Wayne Co. (HL' 1890), 24 N. E. 625; Sine V. Fox, 33 W. Va. 521; 11 S. E. 218. 2 Boyer v. Amet, 41 L. An. 721; 6 So. 734. " See post, sect. 861. * 3 Washb. on Keal Prop. 468. 867 § 858 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [fART III. The ancient feudal warranty has long since become obso- lete, and has been replaced by the personal covenant above described.^ In only one respect does the modern covenant bear any very close and striking resemblance to the feudal warranty; and that is, in its operation as an estoppel, to bind an after-acquired title in the hands of the warrantor andprivies, and prevent its enforcement against the grantee. Wherever a grantor undertakes to convey an estate to which he has no title, if the deed contains a covenant of warranty, he is estopped from setting up an adverse title which he has subsequently acquired. And this is the case, even though the grantee has ' by his deed acquired neither title nor pos- session. The grantee may maintain ejectm'ent against the grantor so soon as he has acquired the title and possession. Or, if the grantor has only acquired the title and the land is in possession of a third person, he may maintain an equi- table suit for a conveyance of the newly acquired title. ^ The heirs are bound by the covenant of warranty as an estop- pel, in respect to the lands acquired by descent from the ancestor who warranted, but are not estopped from setting up an adverse title acquired by purchase, although they will be liable in an action on the covenant to the extent of the property received by them from the ancestor.* § 858. Special and limited covenants of title — Xixceptions to operation of covenant. — So far only 1 Co. Lit. 384 a, Butler's note, 332; Marston u. Hobbs, 2 Mass. 432; Gore V. Brazier, 3 Mass. 523; Townsend v. Morris, 6 Cow. 126; Caldwell u. Kirkpatriclj, 6 Ala. 60; 4 Kent's Com. 472; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 468, 469. 2 Terrettu. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 63; Allen ». Sayward, 5 Me. 231; Bates v. Norcross, 17Pick. 144; White ij. Patten, 24 Pick. 324; Jackson «. Murray, 12 Johns. 201 ; Jackson v. Stevens, 13 Johns. 316 ; Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260 ; Cotton v. Ward, 3 B. Mon, 304 ; Jones v. King, 26 111. 388 ; ICing v. Gil- son, 32 111. 353; Hope v. Stone, 10 Minn. 141. See, also, anfe, sects. 727-731. 3 Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 412; Potter v. Potter, 1 E. I. 43; Bates v. Norcross, 17 Pick. 14 ; Cole v. Raymond, 9 Gray, 217 ; Torrey v. Minor, 1 Smed. & M. Ch. 489. 868 CH. XXII.] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 858 general covenants of warranty have been referred to ; that is, covenants in which the grantor covenants to warrant and defend the title against the lawful adverse claims of all per- sons whomsoever. But the covenant need not always be general. It may be specially limited to the actions and claims of certain persons. Thus, a covenant against all persous claiming by, through, or under the grantor is a special covenant, and a paramount title against the grantor, not created by himself, is no breach of the covenant. And if the grantor, after conveying with special warranty, in which he only covenants against any defects in the title re- sulting from his past transactions, acquires the paramount title, he may set it up against his grantees and assigns. He is not estopped by this special warranty.^ In the same manner the operation of the covenant of warranty may be limited by the description of the subject-matter of the con- veyance. Thus, if a deed purports to convey in terms the right, title and interest of the grantor to the land described, instead of conveying in terms the land itself, a general cov- nant of warranty will be limited to that right or interest, and will not be broken by the enforcement of a paramount title outstanding against the grantor at the time of the con- veyance.^ But this position is assailed, and not without good grounds, by other authorities.* Mr. Washburn says: " Nor is it easy to see what the office or purpose of a cov- 1 Davenport v. Lamb, 13 Wall. 418; Allen v. Sayward, 5 Me. 221; Jackson v. Peck, 4 Wend. 300; Woodcock v. Bennet, 1 Cow. 711; Jack- son V. Wlnslow, 9 Cow. 13; Comstock v. Smith, 13 Pick. 116; Trull v. Eastman, 3 Mete. 124. 2 Brown v. Jackson, 3 Wheat. 453; Van Rensselaer «. Kearney, 11 How. 325; Sweet v. Brown, 12 Mete. 175; Raymond v. Raymond, 10 Cash. 132; Hoxie v. Finney, 16 Gray, 332; Blodgett v. Hildreth, lOStMass. 488; Bates u. Foster, 59 Me. 155; Freeman v. Foster, 55 Me. 508; McNeer ». Comber, 18 Iowa, 14; Williamson v. Test, 24 Iowa, 139; White «. Bro- caw, 14 Ohio St. 344; Adams v. Koss, 30 N. J. L. 510; Hope v. Stone, 10 Minn. 152; Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 474. 3 Loomis V. Bedel, 11 N. H. 74; Mills v. Catlin, 22 Vt. 104; Funk v. Cresswell, 6 Iowa, 66; Rowe v. Heath, 23 Texas, 614. 869 § 858 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PART III. enant of warranty can be when whatever is granted infalli- bly passes, and can never be lawfully diverted by any future lawful act or right of any one. The grantor cannot reclaim or disturb what he has expressly granted; nor could any one acquire any right to disturb his grantee by any deed which the grantor might subsequently make." ^ Exceptions can be and are often made to the operation of the other convenauts, of seisin and against incumbrance.^ Another important question connected with the present subject, and one involving at times considerable doubt, is whether an e xception in the operation of one of two or more covenants in a deed will be extended to others, so as to restrict their operation. Thus, if a deed contains a covenant against in- cumbrances, except as to a certain mortgage, followed by a general covenant of warranty, will that exception apply to the warranty, so that foreclosure under that mortgage will not constitute a breach of the covenant of warranty? This question is always determined by ascertaining the declared or implied intention of the grantor. If the two covenants are given in the same connection, and from that close con- nection it can be implied that the parties intended the ex- ception to apply to both covenants, both will be treated as special covenants. While, on the contrary, the latter covenant will be general and unaffected by the exception, if there does not appear on the deed to be any intimate con- nection between the two covenants and the exception. In Howells V. Richards the court say: "He (the gr;intor) might from motives of prudence, be unwilling to subject himself to a suit for the existence of an incumbrance, which he is willing to covenant shall never be suffered to disturb his orantee." Where the exception expressly refers to the covenant of seisin or against incumbrances, the presump- i 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 477. 2 Lively v. Rice, 150 Mass. 171; 22 N. E. 888; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610; King v. Kilbride, 58 Conn. 109; 19 Atl. 519. 870 CH. XXII.J COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 859 tion is very strong that it does not apply to the covenants for quiet enjoyment or of warranty. ^ § 859. Implied covenants. — At common law the oper- ative word " give" in a deed of feoffment raised by impli- cation of law a covenant of warranty during the life of the grantor.^ And so also is there an implied warranty in the old technical conveyance exchange.^ So also are there im- lied covenants in leases.* But, as a general rule, .in the conveyance of freehold estates in. this country there are no implied covenants, since- the deeds ia couimoa use are those which operate under the Statute of Uses, and they do not raise covenants by implication.^ But in a number of the States, notably Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri and Pennsylvania, stat- utes have been enacted whereby the "operative words," " grant, bargain and sell," imply general covenants of seisin, against incumbrances, and of warranty or quiet enjoyment. The statutes vary somewhat as to details, but are similar in general effect.^ Whether these statutory covenants are 1 Howells V. Richards, 11 East, 634; Smith v. Compton, 3 B & Ad. 198; Sumner v. Williams, 8 Mass. 162 ; Estabrook v. Smith, 6 Gray, 572 ; Cornell v. Jackson, 3 Gush. 606; Punk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & K. 109; Alexander v. Schreiber, 10 Mo. 460; Kowe v. Heath, 23 Texas, 614; King V. Kilbride, 58 Conn. 109 ; 19 Atl. 519. 2 Kent V. Wei ch, 7 Johns. 258 ; Erost o. Raymond, 2 Caines, 188. 3 Dean v. Shelly, 57 Pa. St. 427 ; Bixler v. Sayler, 68 Pa. St. 148. But this was the case only with the technical conveyance, called exchange. There was no implied covenant of title, if the exchange was effected by means of mutual deeds of bargain and sale. Gamble v. McClure, 69 Pa. St. 284. * See ante, sects. 187-190. 5 Allen B. Sayward, 5 Me. 227; Bates v. Foster, 59 Me. 157; Sanford V. Travers, 40 N. Y. 140; Ricket i). Dickens, 1 Murph. 343; De Wolf v. Hayden, 24 111. 529; Walk. Am. Law, 381 ; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 489. « 4 Kent's Cora. 473; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 489, 490; Gratz v. Ewalt, 2Binn. 95; Funk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. 109; Roebuck v. Dupuy, 2 Ala. 538; Latnam v. Morgan, 1 Sraed. & M. Ch. 611; Alexander v. Schreiber, 10 Mo. 460; Dickson v. Desire, 23 Mo. 151; Chambers v. Smith, 23 Mo. 174; Funk v. Cresswell, 5 Iowa, 62; Brown v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 871 § 860 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAKT III. restrained in their operation by tlie assertion of a special express covenant, is not clearly determined. There can, of course, be in a deed both express and implied covenants, and both can stand if they are consistent. But if they are inconsistent, the natural rule would be that the im- plied covenant would yield to the express covenant. l And although this rule seems to be supported by the authorities in the abstract, it is difficult at times to reconcile their decis- ions in the particular case with the rule above stated.^ The safest course, in making a conveyance with special cove- nants, is to use different operative words from those which by statute imply covenants of title. Thus, it has been held under the Missouri statute that covenants are not implied in a deed where the grantor " bargains, sells, releases,- quit- claims, and conveys." ^ § 860. Who may maintain actions on covenants of a war- ranty. — Like covenants of quiet enjoyment, until a breach has been committed, a covenant of warranty runs with the land into the hands of the assignee and heirs, and may be sued upon by the assignee or heir who is in possession when the breach occurs, whether the alienation is voluntary or involuntary. After a breach there can be no assignment at common law, and it is still universally true that the cove- nant then ceases to run with the land.* But in order that a (Iowa), 527; Prettyman u. Wilkey, 19 111. 249; King v. Gilson, 32 111. 363. 1 Frontin v. Small, 2 Ld. Eaym. 419; Merrill v. Frame, 4 Taunt. 329; Line u. Stevenson, 5 Bing. N. C. 183; Schlencber v. Moxsy, 3 B. & C. 792 ; Dennett v. Atlierton, L. K. 7 Q. B. 316. 2 See Hawk v. McCuUough, 21 111. 221 ; Alexander v. Schreiber, 10 Mo. 460; Funk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. 109; Brown v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene (Iowa), which seems to oppose tlie doctrine that the express covenant will exclude the implied covenant, while Weems v. McCaughan, 7 Smed. & M. 422, supports the rule. 3 Gibson v. Chouteau, 39 Mo. 566; Valle v. Clemens, 18 Mo. 486. * Htird V. Curtis, 19 Pick. 459; Slater v. Rawson, 1 Mete. 450; White «. Whitney, Mete. 81; Withy v. Mumford, 5 Cow. 137; Ford ». Wals- 872 OH. XXII.] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 860 covenant may run with the land to assignees, the grantee must by the conveyance acquire the actual or constructive seisin. If at the time of the conveyance the grantor had neither title nor seisin, nothing passes by the deed, and the covenant remains in the grantee, and cannot be enforced by an assignee.^ For actual adverse possession under a paramount title at the time of conveyance is itself a breach of the covenant.^ This lack of seisin does not prevent the covenant from operating as an estoppel upon the subse- quently acquired title. ^ The covenant of warrant}' can be and is impliedly apportioned between the assignees by a conveyance of parts or portions of the land, to which the covenant is attached, to different gnintees. They each have a several and independent action-upon the covenant in respect to their portion of the land.* The assignee in pos- session at the time of the breach is generally the only per- son who can maintain an action upon the covenant. ° When worth, 19 Wend. 334; Booth v. Starr, 1 Conn. 244; Chase v. Weston, 12 N. H. 413; Moore v. Merrill, 17 N. H. 81; Kellogg v. Robinson, 6 Vt. 279; Chaumont v. Forsythe, 2 Pa. St. 507; Dickinson v. Hoomes, 8 Gratt. 353; Lawrence v. Senter, 4 Sneed, 52; Redwine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 311; Brown v. Metz, 33 111. 339; Devin v. Hendershott, 32 Iowa, 192; Preiss V. LePoidevin, 19 Abb. N. C. 123; Allen v. Kennedy, 91 Mo. 324; 2 S. W, 142. ^ Slater v. Eawson, 1 Mete. 450; Bartholomew v. Candee, 14 Pick. 167 Beddoe v. Wadsworth, 21 Wend. 120; GriflBn v. Fairbrother, 10 Me. 91 Barkeru. Brown, 15 N. H. 176; Overfleld v. Christie, 7 Serg. & R. 177 Dickipson v. Hoomes, 8 Gratt. 353; Devore v. Sunderland, 17 Ohio, 218 Pitzhugh V. Croghan, 2 J. J. Marsh. 429. But see Wead v. Larkiu, 54 111. 489-, Van Court v. Moore, 26 Mo. 92; Allen v. Kennedy, 91 Mo. 324; 2 S. W. 142. 2 Moore v. Vail, 17 111. 185. » McCasker v McEvery, 9. R. I. 528; Wead v. Larkin, .64 111. 489; Van Court V. Moore, 26 Mo. 92. * 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 470; Kane v. Sanger, 14 Johns. 89; Dickin- son V. Hoomes, 8 Gratt. 353. ^ Bickford v. Page, 2 Mass. 455; Wheeler v. Sohier, 3 Cush. 219; Kane v. Sanger, 4 Johns. 89; Ford v. Walsworth, 19 Wend. 334; Griffln V. Fairbrother, 10 Me. 81; Chase v. Weston, 12 N. H. 413; Thompson v. Sanders, 5 B. Mon. 357. 873 § 860 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAET III. his immediate grantor also warranted the land to him, the assignee may bring suit on either or both of the covenants, but of course can have but one recovery. ^ But where there are successive covenants of warranty, given by suc- -cessive grantors, under certain circumstances an exception arises to the general rule just stated, that the assignee in possession is the only person who can maintain an action for the breach of the covenant. Thus, if the assignee brings suit, as he may, against any one of the covenantors but the first or earliest, and recovers of him, this cove- nantor is remitted to his right to be indemnified by the prior covenantors, and may maintain action upon their cove- nants. But such covenantor can only establish his right to institute the suit by showing, that the claims of the subse- quent assignees have been satisfied in fuU.^ And in order that the prior covenantor may be bound by the judgment against the intermediate covenantor, it is now generally recognized that tlie latter may vouch in his prior cove- nantors, and if they fail to defend the title and eviction fol- lows, they cannot in the subsequent suit against themselves set up the defense that the eviction was not under a para- mount title.' The notice of the pendency of the suit, 1 Withy V. Mumford, 5 Cow. 137; DeChaumont v. Forsythe, 2 Pa. St. 507; Markland v. Crump, 1 Dev. & B. 95; Davis v. Judd, 6 Wis. 85. 2 Withy ». Mumford, 5 Cow. 137; Suydam m. Jones, 10 Wend. 185; Thompson v. Shattuck, 2 Mete. 618; Wheeler v. Sohier, 3 Gush. 222; Booth V. Starr, 1 Conu. 244; Markland v. Crump, 1 Dev. & B. 94; Red- wine V. Brown, 10 Ga. 311; Thompson v. Sanders, 5 B. Mon. 357. 2 Chamberlain J). Preble, 11 Allen, 373; Boston ». Worthington, 10 Gray, 498; Meirittu. Morse, 108 Mass. 276; Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 N. Y. 487; Cooper V. Watson, 10 Wend. 205 ; Andrews v. Davison, 17 N. H. 416; Little- ton ^.Richardson, 34 N. H. 187; Turner v. Goodrich, 26 Vt. 708; Smith v. Sprague, 40 Vt. 43 ; Hiues v. Allen, 34 Conn. 195 ; Chapman v. Holmes, 10 N. J. L. 20; Paulw. Witman, 3 Watts & S. 409; Martin v. Cowles, 2 Dev. & B. 101 ; Gregg v. Richardson, 25 Ga. 570; King v. Kerr, 5 Ohio, 154; White B.Williams, 13 Texas, 258; St. Lous v. Bissell, 46 Mo. 157; Boyd u. Whitfield, 19 Ark. 469; McConnell v. Downs, 48 111.271; Claycomb v. Hunger, 51 111. 377; Wendell v. North, 24 Wis. 223; Somers v. Schmidt, 24 Wis. 417; 1 Am. Rep. 191. 874 CH. XXII. J COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 861 in order to be effectual in binding the prior covenantors, must be certain and unequivocal. But it need not be made a matter of record. A verlial or written notice dehors the court, or the voluntary appearance of the prior covenantor in the suit will be sufficient. ^ ^ § 861. Damages, what, may be recovered. — If the action is on tiie covenant of seisin, and the covenant is satisfied by the transfer of the actual, though tortious, seisin, and broken, if at all, by the want of seisin at the time of con- veyance, the measure of damages is the consideration paid, if the consideration can be ascertained, and if not, the value of the land at the time of conveyance. And in determining the consideration, parol evidence is admissible to contradict and control the statement of consideration in the deed.^ If the grantor subsequently acquires the paramount title before his grantee has been evicted by the adverse holder of the title, inasmuch as the grantee acquires in certain cases the benefit of that title under the doctt:ine of estoppel, the grantee can then obtain only nominal damages. But full damages are recoverable, if eviction has taken place before the grantor's acquisition of the superior title. ^ And so also, if the covenant of seisin be construed- as covenanting for an indefeasible seisin, and the grantor at the time of the conveyance has a tortious seisin, only nominal damages may 1 Chamberlain v. Preble, 11 Allen, 373; Littleton v. Richardson, 34 N. H. 187; Miner v. Clark, 15 Wend. 427; Andrews v. Gillespie, 47 N. Y. 487; Paul v. Witman, 3 Watts & S. 410; Crisfleld v. Storr, 36 Md. 129 ; Somers v. Schmidt, 24 Wis. 417; 1 Am. Rep. 191. ' Bingham ». Weiderwax, 1 N. Y. 514; Morris v. Phelps, 5 Johns. 49; Tucker v. Clarke, 2 Sandf. Ch. 96; Smith v. Strong, 14 Pick. 128 ; Hodges ■0. Thayer, 110 Mass. 286; Cornell v. Jackson, 3 Cush. 506; Catlin v. Hurl- bnrt, 3 Vt. 403; Patridge v. Hatch, 18 N. H. 498; Lee?;. Dean, 3 Whart. 331; Beauplan v. McKeen, 28 Pa. St. 124; Farmers' Bank v. Glenn, 68 N. C. 35; Cox V. Strode, 2 Bibb, 277; Lacey v. Marnan, 37 Ind. 168; Kincaid V. Brittain, 5 Sneed, 123; Rich v. Johnson, 2 Pinney, 88; Dale ». Shive- ley, 8 Kan. 276; Lambert u. Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. 284. 3 Baxter «;. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260; Blanchard v. Ellis, 1 Gray, 195; King V. Gilson, 32 111. 356. 875 § 861 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAET III. be recovered, unless the grantee has been actually evicted, or has incurred expense in purchasing the paramount title, when in one case the consideration, and in the second case the expenses, will be the measure of damages, as in suits on the covenant against incumbrances.^ In the action on the covenant against incumbrances the measure of damages varies with circumstances. If the covenant is merely broken by the existence of the incumbrances, and the grantee re- mains undisturbed in his possession, as would lie the case with an outstanding mortsfage, nominal damages can alone be recovered.^ But if the incumbrance is of a permanent nature, as an existing easement, and the enjoyment of the land is diminished by the exercise of the easement, the measure of damages will be the loss in the value of the property, which is occasioned by the enforcement and ex- ercise of the easement.^ If the incumbrance be an outstand- ing mortgage, or an attachment or execution or municipal assessment, the purchaser need not wait for the enforce- ment of these liens ; he may proceed at once to satisfy them, and then recover of the grantor on his covenant against incumbrances the expenses incurred in extinguishing the mortgage or removing the attachment,* provided the sum so 1 Whiting V. Dewey, 15 Pick. 428 ; Catlln v. Hurlburt, 3 Vt. 403 ; Nor- man V. Winch, 65 Iowa, 263; Conrad v. Druids Grand Grove, 60 Wis. 258; Holladay v. Menefee, 30 Mo. App. 207. 2 Wyman v. Ballard, 12 Mass. 304; Tufts v. Adams, 8 Pick. 547; Funk V. Voneida, 11 Serg. & E. 112. " Haynes v. Young, 36 Me. 557; Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 322; 8 Am. Eep. 42G; Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. 66; Batchelder v. Sturgis, 3 Cnsh. 301; Foster v. Foster, 62 N. H. 46; Smith «. Davis (Kan. 1890), 24 Pac. 428. * Delavergne v. Morris, 7 Johns. 358; Estabrooku. Smith, 6 Gray, 572; Johnson v. Collins, 115 Mass. 892; Morrison v. Underwood, 20 N. H. "369; Funk V. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. 113; Foote v. Burnett, 10 Ohio, 317; Stambaugh o. Smith, 23 Ohio St. 584; Reasoner u. Edmundson, 5 Ind. 393; Richard v. Bent, 59 111. 38; 14 Am. Rep. 1; St. Louis v. Bissell, 46 Mo. 157; Eaton v. Lyman, 30 Wis. 41; Petrie v. Folz, 64 N. Y. Super. 223; Hartshorn v. Cleveland (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. 974; Collier v. Cowger, 52 Ark. 322; 12 S. W. 702; Bradshaw v. Crosby (Mass. 1890), 24 N. E. 47. 876 CH. XXII.] COVENANTS IN DEEDS. § 861 paid does not exceed the purchase price of the land : or if he is evicted before suit is brought on the covenant, he may recover the consideration paid with interest. ^ And where damages are recovered in satisfaction of the breach of the covenant of seisin, or against incumbrances, by an actual eviction, the grantor is remitted to -his title to the land, and the grantee is estopped from claiming any rights in the same under his deed.^ The courts, although uniform in their decisions as to the measure of damages in actions upon the covenants of seisin and against incumbrances, are divided as to the proper rule to be applied to the covenants for quiet enjoyment and of warranty. The majority of the courts, following the principle of the ancient feudal war- ranty, hold that the true measure of damages is the consid- eration paid, and interest to date of eviction or of the judgment. Such is the rule in England, the United States courts, and in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylva- nia, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.^ But in Connec- ticut, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts the covenant is treated as one of indemnity, and the measure of damages is' 1 Chapel V. Bull, 17 Mass. 213 ; Blanchard v. Ellis, 1 Gray, 195 ; Lam- bert ». Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. 284. 2 Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34; Blanchard v. Ellis, 1 Gray, 195; Parker u. Brown, 15 N. H. 176; Kincaid v. Brittain, 5 Sneed, 124. 3 Foster v. Thompson, 41 N. H. 379; Lewis v. Campbell, 8 Taunt. 715; Mack V. Patchin, 42 N, Y, 167; 1 Am. Eep. 506; McGary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360; Crisfleld v. Storr, 36 Md. 150; Wilhelm v. Fimple, 31 Iowa, 187; Wade V. Comstock, 11 Ohio St. 82; Cox v. Henry, 32 Pa. St. 19; Terry ». Diabenstatt, 68 Pa. St. 400; Hopkins v. Lee, 4 Wheat. 118; Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 190; Williams v. Beekman, 2 Dev. 483; Davis v. Smith, 5 Ga. 285; Dickson v. Desire, 23 Mo. 166; Pence v. Dnval, 9 B. Mon. 49; Brandts. Foster, 5 Iowa, 298; Burton v. Reed, 20 Ind. 93; Lambert v. Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. 284; Boyer v. Amet, 41 La. An. 721; 6 So. 734; Collier v. Cowger, 52 Ark. 322; 12 S. W. 702; McGuffey v. Humes, 85 Tenn. 26; IS. W. 506. Interest is not recoverable if a judgment for mesne profits has not been recovered of the covenantee. Collier v. Cow- gill, 52 Ark. 322; 12 S. W. 702. 877 § 862 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAKT III. taken to be the value of the land at the time of eviction. ^ If the outstanding title is bought in, the price paid for the same is the true measure of damages for the breach of the warranty.^ In the case of breach of any one of the cove- nants of title, the covenantee can recover as damages all costs which are. assessed against the covenantee as defend- ant of the title to the land.^ But he cannot recover the costs of a suit which resulted in his favor. ^ § 862. What covenants run with the land. — In order that a covenant may run with the land, and bind the assignees, it must bear an intimate relation with and concern the estates or lands conveyed. It runs with the land, so as to bind the covenantor's assignees, when the performance of it is ex- pressly or by implication made a charge upon the land.^ 1 Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 322; 8 Am. Eep. 426; Downer v. Smith, 38 Vt. 464; Horsford v. Wright, Kirby, 3; Bigelow v. Jones, 4 Mass. 512; Smith I!. Strong, 14 Pick. 128; Bledsoe v. Beiler, 66 Texas, 487; 1 S. W. 164. I 2 Petrle v. Folz, 544fN. Y. Super. Ct. 223; Clapp v. Herdman, 25 111. App. 509. , ' 3 McAlester v. Landers, 70 Cal. 79; 11 Pac. 505. ' * Smiths. Parsons, 33 W. Va. 6+4; 11 S. E. 68. 5 Thus, for example, covenants of rent, or for the payment of any other sum which is made a charge upon the land. Hurst v. Kodney, 1 Wash. 375; Sandwith v. De Silver, 1 Browne (Pa.), 221; Astor v. Mil- ler, 2 Paige, 68; Van Rensselaer v. Deunison, 85 N. V. 393; Worthington V. Hewes, 19 Ohio St. 67; Goudy v. Goudy, Wright (Ohio), 410; Thomas V. Von KapH, 6 Gill & J. 372; Wooliscroft u. Norton, 15 Wis. 198; Con- duit V. Ross, 102 Ind. 166; Martin v. Martin (Kan. 1890), 24 Pac. iii. See ante, sect. 190. Covenants, not to use the land, or only to use it, in the specified manner. Barron v. Richards, 3 Edw. Ch. 96; «. c. 8 Paige, 351; St. Andrews Church Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 512; Winfield «. Henning, 21 N. J. L. 188; Jeter v. Glenn, 9 Rich. L. 374 ; Thomas v. Poole, 7 Gray, 83; Clement «. Burtis (N. Y. 1890), 24 N. E. 1013; Graves v. Deterling, 120 N. Y. 447; 24 N. E. 655. See ante, sect. 603. A covenant to main- tain fences, or other structures, or to permit the enjoyment of any other easement. Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175; Duffy v. N. Y., etc., R. E., 2 Hill, 496; Brewer v. Marshall, 18 N. J. Eq. 337; Norfleet v. Cromwell, 64 N. C. 1 ; Walsh v. Barton, 24 Ohio St. 28; Easter v. Little Miami R. E., 14 Ohio St. 48; Dorsey v. St. Louis, etc., E. R., 58 111. 65; Nye v. Hoyle, 878 CH. XXII, J OOVENAMTS IN DEEDS. § 863 On the other hand, the covenants will run with the land so as to be enforceable by the successive assignees of the land, when the performance of the covenant affects the value of the land. Thus, covenants for quiet enjoyment, and of warranty, run with the land.^ So also a covenant that the grantor shall not erect and maintain structures upon an ad- joining lot, or erect another mill-site on some stream.^ In order that a covenant may run with the land there must be a privity of estate between the covenantor and covenantee.^ And it can only be assigned with the land.* Where the land consists of several parcels, or the land is divided up into parcels, and they are conveyed to different grantees, the covenant is divided up among them, and each may sue or be sued on his portion of the covenant.^ § 863. When breach of covenant works a forfeiture of estate. — The breach of a covenant running with the land will not of itself work a forfeiture of the estate, to which it is annexed. The breach only gives rise to a personal action for damages on the covenant, or an equitable action, for its enforcement. But it may by express limitation be made to 120 N. Y. 195; 24 N. E. 1; Pittsburg, etc.,,R. K. Co. v. Eeno, 22 111. App. 470; s. c. 123 111. 273; 14 N. E. 105; Midland Ry. Co. v. Fisher (Ind. 18905, 24 N. E- 756, 758; Avery v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. R. Co. (N. Y. 1890), 24 N. E. 20, 24. Covenant for improvements. Bailey ». Richard- son, 66 Cal. 416. But an executory covenaut to erect a party-wall will not run with the land, so as to bind the assignees of the covenantor. Cole V. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; 13 Am. Rep. 611. See Miller v. Noonan, 83 Mo. 343. 1 Wilder v. Davenport, 58 Vt. 642. ^ Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510; Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. 136; Dailey v. Beck, Bright, 107; Brew v. Van Denman, 6 Heisk. '433. To the same effect see Norcross v. James, 140 Mass. 188; Maxon ». Lane, 102 Ind. 364. s Morse v. Aldrich, 19 Piclf. 449 ; Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444 ; 13 Am. Eep. 611 ; Kirkpatrick v. Peshine, 24 N. J. Bq. 206. * Wilson V. Wiedenham, 51 Me. 566; Randolph v. Kinney, 3 Rand. 394. Nesbit V. Brown, r Dev. Eq. 30; Martin v. Gordon, 24 Ga. 533. ^ Astor V. Miller, 2 Paige, 68; Johnson v. Blydenburg, 31 N. Y. 427. 879 § 863 COVENANTS IN DEEDS. [PAET III. operate as a condition as well as a covenant. In such a case, the breach of the covenant is the breach of a condi- tion subsequent, and the grantor may re-enter. Where the forms of expression usual in the creation of a condition, such as " on condition," " provided always," and the like, are employed, nothing further is needed to give the cove- nant the character and force of a condition. But generally, if other words are used, it is necessary that the covenant should contain a clause of forfeiture, or the reservation of a right of entry upon the breach of the covenant, in order that the breach may work a forfeiture of the estate. ^ 1 Eawson v. Uxbridge, 7 Allen, 125 ; Chapin v. Harris, 8 Allen, 594 ; Ayer V. Emery, 14 Alien, 69; Packard v. Ames, 10 Gray, 325; Moore v. Pitts, 53 N. Y. 85; Waiters v. Breden, 70 Pa. St. 235; Supervisors, etc., v. Patter- son, 56 lil. 119; Board, etc., v. Trustees, etc., 63 111. 204; Warren v. Meyer, 22 Iowa, 551. See Parsons v. Miller, 18 Wend. 564; Emerson v. Simpson, 43 N. H. 475; Sliaron Iron Co. v. Erie, 41 Pa. St. 341; Gadberry to. Siieppard, 27 Miss. ?03. See, also, ante, sect. 272, n. 880 CHAP TEE XXIII. TITLE BY DEVISE. Section 872. Definition and historical outline. 873. By wliat law are devises governed. 874. The requisites of a valid will. 875. A sufficient writing. 876. "What signing is necessary. 877. Proper attestation, what is. 878. "Who are competent witnesses. 879. "Who may prepare the will — Holographs. 880. "What property may be devised. 881. A competent testator, who is. 882. "Who may be devisees — What assent necessary. 882a. Devisee incapacitated by murder of testator. 883. Devisee and devise must be clearly defined — Parol evi- dence. 884. Devisees of charitable uses. 885. Lapsed devises — "What becomes of them. 886. Revocation of wills. 886a. Joint or mutual wills. 887. Revocation by destruction of will. 887a. Effect of alterations of will after execution. '888. Revocation by marriage and issue. 889. Revocation by alteration or exchange of property. 890. Revocation by subsequent will or codicil. 890a. Defective will confirmed by codicil. 891. Contingent wills. 892. Probate of will. 893. Agreement^ as to testamentary disposition of property. § 872. Definition and historical outline. — A title by (Revise is that titJe to lands whicli is created by will. The term " devise" is properly applicable only to real estate. The transfer by will of personal property, or of chattel interests in real property, is called a bequest. A will is an instrument of conveyance, by which the testator undertakes to direct the disposition of his property after his death. 56 881 § 872 TITLE BV DEVISE. [PAKT III. It has always been possible at common law to make a testa- mentary disposition of personal property. Under the Saxon laws lands were devisable as freely as they were alienable ; but upon the Conquest of England by the Normans, the same policy which dictated the deprivation of the right of alienation called for the abolition of the right to dispose of lands by will. Accordingly, lands could not, after the Nor- man Conquest, be devised. But upon the introduction of the doctrine of uses means were discovered, whereby such a disposition could be made. It will be remembered that, in formulating the law of uses, courts of equity only adopted those rules governing legal estates which were conformable to the policy of the court in respect to uses. Hence they declared that uses were devisable, although the legal estates which supported them were not. When the Statute of Uses was passed the use became united to the legal estate, and this mode of devising lands was taken away. But in con- nection with uses there had been developed the doctrine of powers, whereby one could convey lands to the use of whom- ever the grantor should appoint by will. The appointee would take, not by force of the will, but under the deed of conveyance.! ^mj after the passage of the Statute of Uses, as soon as he was appointed by the will -of the grantor, the use thereby created and vesting in him was immediately ex- ecuted by the statute, and he acquired the legal est;ite as effectually as if the lands could have been devised directly to him. Mr. Washburn states that the effect of the Statute of Uses " was to destroy the power of devising lands by the way of uses; and they accordingly became, undevisable, and remained so until the Statute of Wills." ^ This is true, so far as the power to devise a vested use is concerned. But a power of appointment by will was not affected by' the statute. The use created by the exercise of the power is ^ See ante, sect. 559. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 601, 502. 882 CH. XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 873 contingent until the power is exercised, and hence the stat- ute could not operate upon it, so as to destroy the power to make a devise in this way. At any rate, such a disposition could be made before the Statute of Uses, and it has uni- versally been recognii;ed as an effective mode of disposition since the Statute of Wills, and independent of the latter statute. Futhermore, no reason has been, or can be, as- signed why it was not just as effective between the enact- ments of the Statute of Uses and the Statute of Wills, which was enacted in the 32 and 34 Hen. VIII., which ex- pressly enabled the proprietors of lands to dispose of their legal estates, without resorting to the indirect mode of creat- ing a power of appointment. The effect of this Statute of Wills, and of similar ones passed in the different States of the American Union, constitutes the subject of this chapter. § 873. By what law are devises g'overned — Lilie all other legal questions arising in respect to the rights in, or issuing out of, lauds, the legality and effect of devises are governed by the law of the place where the land is situated, thelex loci rei sitce. In determining, therefore, the validity of a will of real property, the place where the will happens to be made is of no importance. The provisions of the lex loci rei alone govern.^ And if an invalid will is executed before the enactment of a law which makes such wills valid, and the testator dies subsequent to such enactment, the 1 Story Confl. Laws, sect. 474; 4 Kent's Com. 513; 1 Eedf. on VCiUs, 387; Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565; XJ. S. v. Crosby, 7 Cranch, 115; Potter V. Titcorab, 22 Me. 300; Moultrie u. Hunt, 23 N. Y. 394; Bascom v. Al- bertson, 34 N. Y. 584; Cutter v. Davenport, 1 Pick. 81; Morrison v. Campbell, 2 Eand. 209; Halman v. Hopkins, 27 Texas, 38; Swearingen v. Morris, 14 Ohio St. 424; Johnson v. Copeland, 35 Ala. 521; Varner v. Bevil, 17 Ala. 286; VyUliams v. Saunders, 5 Coldw. 60;. Applegate v. Smith, 31 Mo. 166; Richards v. Miller, 62 111. 417; Cornelison v. Brown- ing, 10 B. Mon. 425; Thieband v. Sebastian, 10 Ind. 454; Morris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226. "^ § 875 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. latest enactment will govern the validity of the will.^ But in respect to the interpretation of a will, since the object of all efforts at interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the testator, it seems to be the established rule that the law of the domicile in force at the making of the will will gov- ern, unless the testator appears to have hud the provisions of the lex loci in miud.^ The lex loci rei sitae governs chattel interests in lauds as well as in real estate. Leaseholds are, therefore, governed by that law.^ § 874. Tlie requisites of a valid will. — The following may be mentioned as the principal requisites of a will: A sufficient writing, proper attestation, subject-matter, a competent testator, a competent devisee. § 875. A sufficient writing — The statute 32 Hen. VIII. empowers the holders of lands to dispose of them by their last will and testament in writing. No particular form of instrument is prescribed, and none is required, provided the words and forms of expression used sufficiently indicate the intention to make a will, and describe clearly the prop- erty upon which the will is to operate and the person to whom it shall go.^ A will is valid, if properly signed and attested, although it is written in a language which the tes- tator did not understand.^ Words of transfer are of course needed in order to indicate the intention of disposing of the property. But while it is proper and customary to em- ploy the verbs "devise," in the case of real property, " bequeath " in the case of personal propert}^ and " give " in the case of either kiud of property, yet these words have 1 Learned's Estate, 70 Cal. 140; II Pac. 587. 8 2 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 671; Story on Confl., sect. 479 h. 3 Thompson v. Adv.-Gen., 12 CI. & Fin. (H. L. Cas. 1); Freke v. Car- berry, L. R. 16 Eq. 461. * Knox's Appeal, 131 Pa. St. 220; 18 Atl. 1021; Fellman's Admr. ». Landls, 131 Pa. St. 573; 18 Atl. 941. « Walter's Will, 64 Wis. 487; 54 Am. Rep. 640. In, re Graham's Will, 109 N. Y. S. 122. 884 CH. XXIII.J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 875 no technical signification, and any other words of transfer, such as that the property shall "go" or "be divided among," certain persons will be equally effective. ^ And it has been held to be a good devise by implication in the ab- sence of any words of direct transfer or gift, where the will makes no other disposition of the property, and provides by a codicil for a limitation over, on failure of issue of his children, of the estate " above devised to them." ^ Indeed, an instrument in the form of a deed, has been held to oper- ate as a will. ^ The same instrument may be held to' be partly a deed and in other respects a will.* The presump- tion, however, is against an instrument, in form a deed, operating as a will. Where it appears to have been the intention that the instrument shall operate as a deed, it cannot take efiect as a will, although it may be absolutely void as a deed. And it is incumbent upon the party claim- ing under the instrument to show that it was executed animo testandi.^ The intention may be ascertained either, when 1 Keaney u. Keauey (Md. 1890), 18 Atl. Rep. 1105. 2 Ferguson w. Thomasson (Ky. 1888), 9 S. W. Rep. 7U. " Manly v. Lakin, 1 Hagg. 130; Henderson v. Farbridge, 1 Russ. 479; 35. 8 Kell V. Charmer, 23 Beav. 195; Lucas v. James, 7 Hare, 419; Myers V. Vanderbilt, 84 Pa. St. 510; Philbrick v. Spangler, 15 La. An. 46; Knox's Appeal, 131 Pa. St. 220; 18 Atl. 1020. < In re Adams, L. R. 2 P. & D. 367. 886 CH. XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 876 writing, and did not make it necessary for the testator ta sign or to seal the instrument. And, although it may be customary in some localities to seal a will, it has never been considered a requisite to the validity of the will, and is not necessary except in Vermont and New Hampshire. ^ But the Statute of Frauds of Chas. II., and the American Statutes of Wills generally, provide that the will shall be signed or subscribed by the testator. If the statute requires it to be signed, the signature of the testater in any part of the instrument will be a siiffi:ient signins:. But if the statute requires it to be subscribed, the testator must sign his name at the bottom or end of the will.^ If the testator is unable to write he may make his mark, and this mark alone will be a proper signing of the will, although it is customary for some one, usually an attesting witness, to write his name around or about the mark.^ In Missouri, if the name is written' by some one, it must be an attesting witness, and the attestation clause must contain a state- ment that the testator's name was signed at his request.* In the same manner some one may guide his hand in writing his name or making his mark, when he is too weak from disease to write without assistance, and he requests such assistance.^ The courts go still further and hold that 1 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 507. See Avery v. Pixley, i Mass. 469 ; Piatt V. McCullough, 1 McLean, 69; Williams v. Burnett, Wright, 63; Pad- field V. Padflelfl, 72 111. 322. 2 Warwick v. Warwick (Va. 1890), 10 S. E. 843; In re Dagler's Will, 47 Hun, 127; Frazier's Estate, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 306. 3 Taylor v. Dening, 3 Nev. & P. 228; s. c. nom. Baker v. Dening, 8 Ad. Ell. 94; Stevens v. Van Cleve, 4 Wash. C. Ct. 262; Van Hanswyck «. Wiese, 44 Barb. 494; Jackson v. Jackson, 39 N. Y. 153; Maine v. Ryder, 84 Pa. St. 217; St. Louis Hospital v. Williams, 19 Mo. 609. < McGt-e V. Porter, 14 Mo. 611 ; St. Louis Hospital v. Williams, 19 Mo. 609; Norlhcutt v. Northcult, 20 Mo. 266. ^ Wilson V. Beddard, 12 Sim. 28; Sprague v. Luther, 8 R. I. 252; Nickerson v. Buck, 12 Cush. 332; Jackson v. Van Duysen, 5 Johns. 144; Chaffee «. Baptist M. C, 10 Paige Ch. 85; Flannery's Will, 24 Pa. St. 502; Cozzen's Will, 61 Pa. St. 196; Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 115; 887 § 877 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PAET III. where the testator, through his feebleness, is unable to handle the pen, he may request another to sign his name for him, and such signature will be a good signing of the will, without any mark by the testator. ^ § 877. Proper attestation, what is. — The English Stat- ute of Frauds required the execution of the will to be attested and subscribed by three or four competent and credible witnesses. This general provision is adopted in all the States, but the number of witnesses required varies. In Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hamp- shire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont, three wit- nesses are required ; while two are sufficient in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Dakota, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Min- nesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, N-evada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.^ Witnesses to a will are required to do more than witnesses to a deed. The latter are only called upon to witness the execution of the deed. But witnesses to a will are made judges of the competency of the testator, and in any subse- quent litigation over the will, involving the question of the capacity of the testator, they are in effect expert witnesses, and can give their opinion of the testator's mental capacity.^ Smith V. Dolby, 4 Har. 350; Ray v. Hill, 3 Strobh. 297; Upchnrcli v. Upchurch, 16 B. Mon. 102. 1 Assay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. St. 21 ; Main v. Eyder, 34 Pa. St. 217 ; Robins -B. Coryell, 27 Barb. 550; Vernon v. Kirt, 30 Pa. St. 218; Eosser v. Franklin, 6 Gratt. 2; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 29 Ala. 538; Will of Cor- nelius, 14 Aril. 675; Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292; McGee o. Porter, 14 Mo. 611; Simpson v. Simpson, 27 Mo. 288; Will of Jenkins, 43 Wis. 610; Poole w. Buftum, 3 Oreg. 438. 2 1 Jarm. Wills (5th. Am. ed.), 198, Am. note. 3 1 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 440; Field's Appeal, 36 Conn. 277; Whitenack V. Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq. 9; Heyward v. Hazard, 1 Bay, 335; Withinton o. Withinton, 7 Mo. 589. 888 •CH. XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 877 It is, therefore, generally held that the testator must publish his will, i. e., declare to the witnesses that the instru- ment before them is his last will and testament, and with- out some such declaration the will will be void.^ To make a valid publication, the will must at the time be complete in all its parts. ^ Although the testator need not sign in the presence of the witnesses,^ they must sign in his presence.* What is a sufficient "presence" is governed largely by the circumstances. In determining this question, there 1 See Cilleyj). CUley, 34 Me. 162; Ela o. Edwards, 16 Gray, 91; Swett ». Boardman, 1 Mass. 258; Brihckerhoff v. Eemsen, 26 Wend. 325 Eutherford v. Rutherford, 1 Deuio, 33; Gilbert v. Kqox, 52 N. Y. 125 Transue v. Brown, 31 Pa. St. 92; Compton v. Mitton, 12 N. J. L. 70 Combs V. Jolly, 3 N. J. Eq. 625; Sutton v. Sutton, 5 Harr. 459; Beane v. Yerby, 12 Gratt. 239; Verdier v. Verdier, 8 Rich. 135; Upchurch v. Up- cliurcli, 16 B. Mon. 1)2; Eaudebaugh v. Shelly, 6 Ohio St. 307; Brown V. McAllister, 34 Ind. 375; Dickie v. Carter, 42 111. 376; Cravens v Fal- coner, 28 Mo. 19; Rogers ». Diamond, 13 Ark. 474; Buntin v. Johnson, 28 La. An. 796; Porteus v. Holm, 4 Dera. 14; In re Dale's Will, 56 Hun, 169; 9 N. Y. S. 396; Luper v Wertz (Or. 1890), 23 Pac. 850. In Georgia and Pennsylvania there seems to be no necessity of a publication. Webb V. Fleming, 30 Ga. 808; Loy v. Kennedy, I Watts & S. 396. But see Transue v. Brown, supra. 2 Barnes v. Syester, 14 Md. 507; Waller v. Waller, I Gratt. 454; Jones V. Jones, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 266; Chisholm's Heirs v. Ben, 7 B. Mon. 408. ^ Provided he acknowledges his signature and requests them to at- test it. Smith V. Codron, 2 Ves. 455; Tilden v. Tilden, 13 Gray, 103; Mic^erson v. Buck, 12 Cush. 332; Adams v. Field, 21 Vt. 256; Tarrant ■». Ware, 25 N. Y. 425; Baskin v. Baskin, 36 N. Y. 416; Compton v. Mitton, 12 N. J. L. 70; Will oi Alspaugh, 23 N. J. Eq. 507; l^oy v. Kennedy, I Watts & S. .396; Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 115; Rosser v. Franklin, 6 Gratt. 1; Tucker v. Oxner, 12 Rich. L. 141; Thompson v. Davitte, 59 Ga. 472; Turner v. Cook, 36 Ind. 129; Upchurch v. Upchurch, 16 B. Mon. 102; Allison v. Allison, 46 111. 61; Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292; Buckhouti;. Fisher, 4 Dem. 277; Welch ». Adams, 63 N. H. 344; In re Van Geiaon's Will, 47 Hun, 5; In re Simmons Will (1890), N. Y. S. 352. * Roberts v. Welch, 46 Vt. 164; Tappan v. Davidson, 27 N. J. Eq. 459; Lucas V. Parsons, 24 Ga. 640; Parramore v. Taylor, II Gratt. 220; Wat- son V. Hipes, 32 Miss. 451; Hill v. Barge, 12 Ala. 687; Cravens v. Falconer, 28 Mo. 19. Contra, Lyon v. Smith, 11 Barb. 124; Carroll v. Norton, 3 Biadf. 291; Abraham v. Wilkins, 17 Ark. 292. 889 § 877 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART HI. are only two elements to be considered: First, were the witnesses at tbe lime of signing so situated that the testa- tor could see them ; and secondly, was he in a conscious state. It is not necessaiy that the testator should actually see the signing, if he was in a position to see it if he wanted to.i Not only is this true, but if the testator is blind, the will will be properly attested if the witnesses when signing were in such a position, that the testator could have seen them if he had had his sight. ^ And it is not even necessary that the testator should be in the same room with the wit- nesses. Attestation in a difJ'ereut room, although pre- sumptively bad, will be good if the testator could see the performance of the act of attestation.^ And in some of the States it is also required that the witnesses shall sign in the presence of each other.* But the general rule is that they may sign at different times, and not in the pres- ence of each other, provided they all sign in the presence of the testator.^ It is usual for the will to contain an 1 Boldry v. Parris, 2 Cush. 433 ; Edelen v. Hardy, 7 Harr. & J. 1 ; Nock o. Nock, 10 Gratt. 106; Bynum B. Bynum, 11 Ired. L, 632; Reynolds c. Reynokls, 1 Speers, 253; Wright v. Lewis, 5 Rich. 212; Lamb ». Girt- man, 33 Ga. 289; Hill v. Barge, 12 Ala. 687; Rucker v. Lambdin, 12 Smed. & M. 230; Watson v. Pipes, 32 Miss. 451; Howard's Will, 5 B. Mod. 199; Ambree v. Weishaar, 74 lU. 109; Walker v. Walker (Miss.), 7 So. 491. 2 iQ re Piercy, 1 Robt. 278; Lewis v. Lewis, 6 Serg. & R. 489; Weir v. Fi'zgerald, 2 Bradf. 42; Wampler v. Wampler, 9 Md. 540; Reynolds;;. Reynolds, 1 Speers, 253. 3 Newton v. Clarke, 3 Curt. 320; Lamb u. Girtman, 33 Ga. 289. See also Sprasue v. Luther, 8 R. I. 252; Neil v. Neil, 1 Leigh, 6; Ru-sell v. Falls, 3 Harr. and McH. 457; Brooks v. Duffell, 23 Ga. 441; Graham v. Graham, 10 Ired. L. 210 ; Watson v. Pipes, 32 Miss. 451 ; Howard's Will, 5 B. Mon. 199; Ambree v. Weishaar, 74 HI. 109; Gallagher u. Kilkeary, 29 111. App. 415. In one case attestation in a different house was held to be sufficient, the testator being in a position to see the act. Casson v. Dode, 1 Bro. C. C. 99. See Cook v. Winchester (Mich. 1890), 46 N. W. 106. * Blanchard v. Blanchard, 32 Vt. 62. ^ Gaylor's Appeal, 43 Conn. 82; Cravens v. Falconer, 28 Mo. 19; Flinn ». Owen, 58 111. Ill; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26 Ala. 535; Welch v. 890 CH. XXIII. ] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 877 attestation clause, containing a declaration of all the acts done in compliance with the statute, and which are neces- sary to the valid execution of a will. No particular form, expression or words are necessary to constitute an attes- tation, and even if the attestation clause is omitted altogether the will will be good, for the meaning of the wit- nesses' signatures may be established by parol evidence.^ But it is always advisable to insert a full and complete at- testation clause, for the declarations in the clause as to the proper execution of the will raise a presumption that the will was properly executed, and throws the burden of proof to the contrary upon the party contesting the will.^ Gen"- erally the witnesses must sign below the attestation clause at the end of the will, and in New York and Kentucky this is required by statute.^ But the common law does not require the witnesses to sign in any particular place.* If the will has not been properly attested it is, of course, inoperative. But where a codicil is subsequently executed, properly attested, confirming the prior defect- ive will expressly or by implication, it will cure the defect, and make the will operative from the date of the codicil.* Adams, 63 N. H. 344; Johnson v. Johnson, 106 Ind. 475; 55 Am. Eep. 762; Grubbs v. Marshall (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 447; Powtucket ». Ballon, 15 E. I. 58. ^ Hands v. James, Comyn, 531; Brice ?). Smith, Willes, 1; Hitch v. Wells, 10 Beav. 84; Fry's Will, 2 K. I. 88; Cla o. Edwards, 16 Gray, 91; Chaffee v. Baptist M. C, 10 Paige, 85; Leaycraft v. Simmon'i, 3 Bradf. 35; Lucas v. Parsons, 24 Ga. 640. See contra, Griffith v. Griffith, 5 B. Mon. 511. And see, generally, Osborne. Cook, 11 Cush. 532; Jackson v. Jackson 39 N. Y. 153; Fatheree v. Lawrence, 33 Miss. 585. 2 Tappen u. Davidson, 27 N. J. Eq. 459. s Coffin V. Coffin, 23 N. Y. 9; Peck v. Gary, 27 N. Y. 9. < In re Chamney, 1 Kobt. 757; Roberts v. Phillips, 4 Ell. & Bl. 460; Murray u. Murphy, 39 Miss. 214. Franks v. Chapman, 64 Texas, 159. » Anderson v. Anderson, L. R. 13 Eq. 381; Mooers v. White, 6 Johns. Ch. 360; VanCortlandt u. Kip, 1 Hill, 590; Wikoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 281; Harvey v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 587. See post, sect. 890. 891 § 878 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PAET III. § 878. Who are competent witnesses. — Some of the State statutes require the witnesses to be credible, and the others that they shall be competent. But the two words in this connection are used synonymously, and the same gen- eral rules govern in all the States. ^ The meaning of this requirement is that the witnesses must be so circumstanced, that their testimony in a court of justice will be competent to establish the validity of the will. The three principal causes of incompetency are mental imbecility, arising either from insanity or tender age, the commission of crime, and the possession of an interest in the operation of the will. The first two causes are governed by the general rules of evidence, and are explained in all treatises upon the law of evidence, and will need no special elucidation here. The most common cause of incompetency in re- spect to wills is that of interest. The common-law or old English statutory rule is that if a witness to the will is interested in it as a legatee or devisee, the will is void.^ But now in most of the States it is provided by stat- ute that in such cases the will will be good, but the devise or legacy to the witness will be void. , In some of the States the devise is declared absolutely void,^ but generally the devise is void only when there is not a sufficient number of witnesses without the disqualified witness.* In others of the States there is this further qualification, that where the devisee receives no more by the will than he would have 1 In re Noble's Estate, 22 111. App. 535. 2 Giddlngs v. Turgeon, 58 Vt. 706; Elliott v. Brent, 6 Mackey, 98. 3 Such is the law in Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, North Car- olina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio and Oregon. 1 Jar. on Wills (5th Am. ed.), 189 Am. note. * This is the rule in Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Virginia, Vermont, "Wisconsin, Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Dakota, Connecticut, Colorado, Caliiornia, West Virginia and Arkansas. 1 Jar. on Wilts (5th Am. ed.), 189, Am. note. In New York the same rule has b^een adopted by the courts. Cromwell V. Woolly, 1 Abb. Pr. 442. 892 CH. XXIII.j TITLE BY DEVISE. § 878 been entitled to as heir if the testator had died intestate, he is a competent witness. This rule is either laid down by statute, or is a consequence of the rule that where a devisee is heir at law of the testator, and is not benefited by the will, he takes as heir and not as devisee.^ It is held in some of the States that a witness, incompetent on account of in- terest, may become competent by making an assignment or release of his interest.^ Not only is the witness incompe- tent where he is himself a devisee, but he or she is likewise incompetent where his wife or her husband, respectively, is a devisee.^ But, although a different rule is observed in some of the States,* it is generally held that an executor or trustee is not thereby incapacitated from actipg as a witness to the will which appoints him.^ If the witness is compe- tent at the time of the attestation, it will not invalidate the attestation if he subsequently becomes incompetent from any cause. He is only required to be competent when he 1 Jackson v. Denniston, 4 Johns. 311 ; Starr v. Sta,rr, 2 Root, 363; For- tune V. Buck, 23 Conn. 1 ; Ackless v. Seekright, Breese, 76 ; Croft v. Croft, 4 Gratt. 103; Moore v. McWUllams, 3 Rich. Eq. 10; Cannon v. Setzler, 6 Rich. 471; Rucker v. Lambdin, 12 Smed. & M. 230; Graham v. O'Fallon, 4 Mo. 601. 2 Kem V. Soxman, 16 Serg. & R. 315; Hans v. Palmer, 21 Pa. St. 296; Deakins v. HoUis, 7 Gill & J. 311; Shaffer v. Corbett, 3 Harr. & McH. 513; Mixon V. Armstrong, 38 Texas, 296. Contra, Allison v. Allison, 4 Hawks, 141. s "Winslow ». Kimball, 26 Me. 493; Sullivan ». Sullivan, 106 Mass. 474; Jackson v. Woods, I Johns. 163; Hule v. Gunter, 3 Jones L. 441; Bray- field V. Brayfield, 3 Harr & J. 208. ' Gilbert v. Gilbert, 23 Ala. 529; Davis v. Rogers, 1 Housl. 44. But see Hawley v. Brown, 1 Root, 494; Vansant i;. Boileau, 1 Binn. 444; Gun- ter V. Gunter, 3 Jones L. 441 ; Filson v. Filson, 3 Strobh. 288. * Milay v. Wiley, 46 Me. 230; Wyman v. Symmes, 10 Allen, 153; Eichardson v. Richardson, 35 Vt. 238; Stewart v. Harriman, 56 N. H. 25; Comstock V. Hadlyme, 8 Conn. 254; McDonough v. Loughlin, 20 Barb. 238; Frew v. Clark, 80 Pa. St. 170; Dorsey v. Warfleld, 7 Md. 65; Over- ton V. Overton, 4 Dev. & B. 197; Noble v. Burnett, 10 Rich. 505; Meyer V, Fogg, 7 Fla. 292; Kelly v. Miller, 39 Miss. 17; Orndoff ». Hummer, 12 B. Mon. 619; Murphy v. Murphy, 24 Mo. 526; Peralta v. Castro, 6 Gal. 354. 893 § 880 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. attests the will.^ A codicil, being nothing more than a sup- plementary will, in order to be valid, requires the same for- mality of attestation.^ § 879. Who may prepare the will — Holographs. — As a general proposition, there is no restriction as to the person who may prepare and write the will, the testator or some other person at his request. When the will is in the testator's own handwriting it is called a holograph, and in Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana it is provided by statute that no witnesses are required to attest such wills.' A will drawn up by the devisee will, nevertheless, be good. But a sus- picion is cast iipon the validity of the will, and it requires stronger evidence in such cases to rebut the charge of undue influence. If the testator is of feeble mind at the time, and is notoriously under the influence of this devisee, the will would in ordinary cases be overthrown, unless the strongest proof of fair dealing was established in support of the will.* § 880. What property may be devised. — It may be stated as a general proposition that every interest in lands except a mere possibility may be the subject of devise. 1 Patten v. Tallman, 27 Me. 17; Amory v. Pellowes, 5 Mass. 219; Sears V. Dillingham, 12 Mass. 358; McLean v. Barnard, 1 Root, 462; Higgins o. Carlton, 28 Md. 115; Deakins v. Hollis, 7 Gill & J. 311; Gill's Will, 2 Dana, 447 ; Eucker v. Lambdin, 12 gmed. & M. 230 ; Mixon v. Armstrong, 38 Texas, 296. 2 Garcia y Perea v. Barela (N. M. 1890), 23 Pac. 766. 3 1 Jar. on Wills t5th Am. ed.), 200, Am. note. See Harrison o. Bur- gess, 1 Hawks, 384; Brown v. Beaver, 3 Jones L. 516; Succession of EhrenlDerg, 21 La. An. 280; Hannah «. Peak, 2 B. Mon. 133; Hocker v- Hocker, 4 Gratt. 277; Crutcher v. Crutcher, 11 Humph. 877; Anderson ti. Pryor, 10 Sraed. & M. 620; Brown v. Eaton, 91 N. C. 26; Skerrett's Estate, 67 C:il. 58. ' Barr v. Buttin, 1 Curt. 637; Ingraham v. Wyatt, 1 Hagg. 388; Dela- fleld V. Parrish, 25 N. Y. 9; Taylor v. Gardiner, 33 N. Y. 559; Day v. Day, 3 N. J Eq. 549; Cramer y. Crumbaugh, 3 Md. 491; Beall ». Mann, 5 Ga. 456; Harvey v. SuUens, 46 Mo. 147; Sterling v. Sterling, 64 Md. 138. 894 CH. XXIII. J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 881 This would include incorporeal as well as corporeal heredit- aments, estates in expectancy, contingent remainders, where the contingency does not rest upon the uncertainty of the remainder-man, and possibilities coupled with an interest, such as a right of entry to defeat an estate upon condition, where it is attached to some reversionary interest. ^ In Massachusetts a right of entry in an estate upon condition may be devised, whether the grantor has a reversionary interest or not. And the right will sometimes pass to the devisee under a residuary devise without special mention.^ It was once the English law, and at an early day the law in this country, that the will could oilly convey the real prop- erty owned by the testator at the time when the will was executed. But now in England and in most of the States this rule has been changed by statute, so that a residuary or general devise will convey whatever property the testator owned at the time of his death.' § 881. A competent testator, who is. — All persons are competent to dispose of their property by will who do not come under one of the three classes of persons under disa- bilitj'. The three classes are infants, /ewies covert, and per- sons of insane mind. These persons are expressly excluded by the old English Statute of Wills, and they are either ' 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 662; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 522, 523; 4 Kent's Com. 511, 513; Hayclen v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. 528; Brigham v. Shattuck, 10 Pick. 306; Austin v. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 215; Steel V. Cook, 1 Mete. 281; Den v. Manners, 20 N. J. L. 142; Soutliardv. Central R. R. Co., 26 N. J. L. 13; Kean v. Roe, 2 Harr. 112. * Hayden v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. 528 ; Austin v. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 215. 3 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 509. This is the statute law in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Ten- nessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. 1 Jar. on Wills (5th Am. ed.), 602, 603, Am. note. Hopper's Estate, 66 Cal. 80. 895 § 881 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PAET IH. expressly excluded by the American Statutes, or by impli- cation, unless the statutes expressly direct otherwise. The general rule in regard to infants is that they cannot make a devise of real property until they are twenty-one years of age. But, in some of the States, females of the age of eighteen are by statute declared to be competent to make a will.^ Although, under the English Statute of Wills and the earlier American statutes, a married woman was not allowed to make a will of hex property, yet her property could be settled to her use and to the use of her appointee by will. Her appointee would take the legal estate by the operation of the Statute of Uses upon her appointment. In England, and in all the States, she could make a will of equitable estates if the power was expressly reserved to her, and in some of the States, as well as in England, it was not necessary to reserve the power. She possessed it as a nat- ural incident of her separate estate.^ In the United States the later tendency of legislation is to free married women from all disability in respect to the management of their property. In some States there is the broad rule of law established, that a married woman shall have in respect to her pi'operty all the powers of disposition and management of a single woman. Of course, in those States she can make a will of her legal as well as her equitable estates, and bar whatever contingent interests her husband may have in her property, including his tenancy by the curtesy.' But in some of those States where she has not an absolute estate in her real property she cannot make a will which will bar her husband's curtesy, but in every other way her will will 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 510; Wells v. Seely, 47 Hun, 109. 2 See ante, sect. 469, note. 5 3 Washb. ouEealProp. 610. See "Van Wert v. Benedict, 1 Bradf- 114; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 61 Pa. St. 401; Johnson v. Sharp, 4 Coldw. 45; Mosser v. Mosser's Bxrs., 32 Ala. 551; Allen v. Little, 5 Ohio, 65; In re Fuller, 79 111. 99. But see Cooke's Appeal, 132 Pa. St. 533; 1» Atl. 274. 896 CH. XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 881 convey a good title to the devisee.^ In respect to what degree of sanity is necessary to make a competent testator, it is difficult to make any concise and comprehensive state- ment which will apply to every case which may arise; and a detailed presentation of the law would require more space than could be given on the subject in an elementary treatise on real property. The inquiry in all such cases, is : Had the testator at the time of the execution of the will suffi- cient mental capacity to make a will, not whether he was sane or insane.^ " He must, undoubtedly, retain sufficient active memory, to collect in his mind, without prompting, particulars or elements of the business to be transacted, and to hold them in his mind a sufficient length of time to perceive at least their more obvious relations to each other, and to be able to form some rational judgment in relation to these." * If a man has sufficient mental capacity to'manage his business, he is presumably competent to make a will. But this is not a sure and invariably reliable test. A man may be perfectly sane in every respect except one point ; yet if his mental capacity to make that particular will is affected by the monomania, the will will be void.* Or, on the other hand, one may be insane on every other matter, and rational enough to make a will; and although 1 Silsby V. Bullock, 10 Allen, 94; Burroughs v. Nutting, 105 Mass. 228; Vreeland v. Ryno, 26 N. J. Eq. 160; Beals v. Storm, 26 N. J. Eq. 372. 2 Eorman's Will, 54 Barb. 274; Hopper's Will, 33 N. T. 619; Parish ■Will Case, 25 N. Y. 9; McClintock v. Curd, 32 Mo. 411 ; Brown v. Mitch- ell 75 Texas, 9; 12 S. W. 606; In re Voorhis, 9 N. Y. S. 201. » Ch. J. Eedfleld in Converse v. Converse, 21 Vt. 170; Jackson v. Har- din, 83 Mo. 175; Rule v. Maupin, 84 Mo. 587; Delany v. Salina, 34 Kan. 532; Bosleyt). McGough, 115 111. 11; Shaver o. McCarthy, 110 Pa. St. 339; 5 Atl. 614; Prather v. McClelland, 76 Texas, 574; 13 S. W. 543. 4 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 512; Hopper's "Will, 33 N. Y. 619; Alexan- der's Will, 27 N. J. Eq. 463; Townshend v. Townshend, 7 Gill, 10; Lucas V. Parsons, 27 Ga. 593; Benson v. Beazley, 34 Texas, 191; Morse v. Scott, 4 Dem. 607; Prather v. McClelland, 76 Texas, 574; 13 S. W. 543; In re White's "Will (N. Y. 1890), 24N. E. 935; "Williams' Exr. v. "William (Ky. 1890), 13 S. W. 250. 57 897 § 881 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART HI. it woald be difficult in such cases to establish the sanity of the testator, yet if it was proven, the validity would not be affected by the testator's insanity on other subjects. ^ And so, if the testator is only suffering from a monomania which has no bearing upon her judgment and capacity to make the will, the validity will not be affected thereby.^ Thus, the subsequent suicide of the testator raises no pre- sumption aginst the validity of the will.' Where the will is properly executed and probated, the burden of proof of the testator's mental condition is on the contestant who must rebut the presumption in favor of the testator's san- ity.* Somewhat similar to the effect of insanity of tes- tator on the validity of the will, is that of the exertion of undue influence over the testator in the construction of his will. The influence must be something more than power- ful or overruling through the force of argument. In order to invalidate the will, it must either rest upon fraudulent misrepresentations or it must amount to duress.^ 1 A most remarkable case is that of Cartwright v. Cartwright, 1 Phill. 90, where the testatrix, having been violently insane for some time, was permitted to write a will, and her hands were untied for that purpose. The will was so extremely rational in its terms and provisions that the court held it to have been made In a lucid interval. See Bitner v. Bitner, 65 Pa. St. 347; Lucas v. Parsons, 27 Ga. 593; Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 456; In re Voorhis, 9 N. Y. S. 201 ; In re Lockwood, 8 N. Y. S. 345. 2 Coghlau V. Coghlan, 1 Phill. 120; Weir's Will, 9 Dana, 434. 3 Burrows v. Burrough, 1 Hagg. 109; Brooks v. Barrett, 7 Pick. 94; Duflleld V. Morrows, 2 Harr. 375. ■i Fee V. Taylor, 83 Ky. 259-; Pendla^ v. Eaton, 130 111. 69; 22 N.'E. 853; Wilbur v. Wilbur, 12 111. 392. But see contra, Jones v. Roberts, 37 Mo. App. 163. 15 See Re Pemberton, 40 N. J. Eq. 520; Stirling v. Stirling, G4 Md. 138; Sunderland v. Hood, 84 Mo. 293; Bridwell v. Swank, 84 Mo. 455; Bush V. Bush, 87 Mo. 480; In Re Moon's Will (1890), 8 N. Y. S. 86; Bonse's Will, 18 111. App. 433; Parsons v. Parsous, 66 Iowa, 754; Schofield v. Walker, 58 Mich. 96; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 63 Wis. 162; In re Mitch- ell's Estate, 43 Minn. 73; 44 N. W. 885; Bledsoe's Exr. v. Bledsoe (Ky.), 1 S. W. 10; Jones v. Roberts, 37 Mo. App. 163; Dumont o. Dumont, 46 N. J. Eq. 223; 19 Atl. 467; In re White's Will (N. Y. 1890), 24 N. E. 935; Kaul V. Brown (R. I. 1890), 20 Atl. 10; Grove v. Spiker(Md. 1890), 20 898 CH. XXm.J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 882 § 882. Wlio may be devisees — What assent necessary. — Any person may be a devisee, including married women, infants, and corporations, which are not prohibited from taking real estate by devise. Except in Pennsylvania, the Statute of Mortmain has never been recognized in this coun- try as the coaimon law. But in New York, and perhaps in other States, corporations can take by devise only within the limits prescribed by statute. ^ A devise in proesenti takes effect immediately after the death of the testator. It is necessary that the devisee should then be in esse, in order that he may take at all.^ This is the general rule, but two notable exceptions are now very generally recognized. It is now generally held that a devise to an unborn child en ventra sa mere will be good, and the vesting will be post- poned until its birth. ^ A devise to an unincorporated so- ciety, if for a charitable use, will be good and vest in the society when it is subsequently incorporated.^ But no one can be made a devisee against his will. The title only vests in him when he assents to it. The law, however, presumes an acceptance in ordinary cases where the devise is a bene- ficial one. And it seems doubtful that any disclaimer, short Atl. 144; In re Bishop's Will (1890), 10 N. Y. S. 217; Hartmanw. Strick- ler, 82 Va. 225; In re De Baun's Est. (1890), 9 N. Y. S. 807. 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 512, 513. 2 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 685; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 530; Ex parte Fuller V. Story, 327; Ives v. Allen, 13 Vt. 629; Lofton v. Murchison (Ga. 1888), 7 S. E. Rep. 322. But very often a devise to a person not in esse will be construed as an executory devise, if such a construction does not appear to be contrary to the intention of the testator. See ante, sect. 533. 3 Burdett v. Hopegood, 1 P. Wm. 486; Mogg v. Mogg, 1 Meriv. 664; Pratt ». Flamer, 5 Harr. & J. 10. * Bartlett v. King, 12 Mass. 536; Burr v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241; Ziminer- man v. Anders, 6 Watts & S. 218; Zeisweiss u. James, 63 Pa. St. 465; Am. Tract Soc. ». Atwater, 30 Ohio St. 77; Estate of Ticknor, 13 Mich. 44. Contra, White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144; Owens v. Missionary Soc, 14 N. Y. 380. And see State v. Warren, 28 Md. 338; Craig v. Secrist, 54 Ind. 419; White v. Hale, 2 Coldw. 77; Tilden v. Green (1888), 2 N. Y. S. 584. See also post, sect. 884. 899 § 882a TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. of a deed of renunciation, will be sufficient to vest the title in the heir to the exclusion of a subsequent claim of the de- visee.^ But this presumptive acceptance of the devisee will not be sufficient to bind the devisee by the charges and con- ditions upon the estate. Generally some affirmative act, such as entry into possession, will be required to make him liable. But if he enters into possession of the estate, he takes it subject to all the conditions and burdens imposed by the testator.^ § 882a. Devisee incapacitated by murder of the testa- tor. — In a late case of the New York Court of Appeals, it has been held that a devisee or legatee will be restrained from participating in the provisions of the will where he is guilty of the murder of the testator. The loss of such leg- acy or devise is declared to be a penalty or forfeiture imposed by the law by implication for the crime of murder, on the general ground that it could not have been the in- tention of the law, and it is certainly against good morals, to permit such a beneficiary to profit by his crime. " What could be more unreasonable than to suppose that it was the legislative intention in the general law passed for the or- derly, peaceable and just devolution of property that they should have operation in favor of one who murdered his ancestor that he might speedily come into the possession of his estate? Such an intention is inconceivable. We need not, therefore, be much troubled by the general language contained in the laws." ^ Whatever may be thought, as a question of morality or as a proposition for future legis- lation, of the justice of depriving such a beneficiary from all benefit under the will as a punishment for the murder 1 Co. Lit. in a; 4 Kent's Com. 533; Doe v. Smyth 6 B. & C. 112; Wil- kinson V. Leland, 2 Pet. 627; Webster u. Gilman, 1 Story, 499; Ex parte Fuller 2_ Story, 327; Pickering v. Pickering, 6 N. H. 120; Tele v. Hardy,, 6 Cow. ko; Bryan u. Hjre, 1 Rob. (Va.) 94. 2 Perry v. Hale, 44 N. H. 65. 3 Opinion by J. Earl, Eigg v. Palmer, 115 N.. Y. 506. 900 CH. XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 883 of the testator, it is certainly a very remarkable case of judicial legislation for the court to impose such a penalty, when the criminal law or the law of wills does not contain any express provision to that effect. § 883. Devisee and devise must be clearly defined — Parol evidende. — No particular formality is required to be observed in defining the subject-matter of a devise, the only general rule being, that the matter must be stated in language sufficiently clear to enable the courts to ascertain the person and property intended. The devise will not be void from uncertainty, as long as the property devised and the person of the devi- see can be identified by the description in the will.^ A devise of the income of certain lands operates as a devise of the land, and vests in the devisee a perfect legal title thereto. 2 Where a devise is made to the "children" of one, the ordinary construction, in the absence of circum- stances pointing to a different intention, is that only the immediate offspring of the person are included in the devise, and that the child of a deceased child cannot take under it.' But where there are statutes which provide that the devise upon the death of the devisee shall not lapse but shall vest 1 Trustees, etc., ». Hart, 4 Wheat. 1; Bartlett v. King, 12 Mass. 537; Sutton V. Cole, 3 Pick. 232; Button v. American Tract See, 23 Vt. 336; Smith©. Smith, 4 Paige, 271; Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Watts, 214; Newell's Ap- peal, 24 Pa. St. 197; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 7 N. J. Eq. 211; Vansant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119; Calhoun v. Turgeson, 3 Rich. Eq. 160; Alabama Con- ference V. Price, 42 Ala. 39; St. Louis Hospital v. Williams, 19 Mo. 609; Xepage v. McNamara, 5 Iowa, 124. 2 Ryan v. Allen, 120 111. 648; Seiber's Appeal (Pa. 1887), 9 Atl. Rep. 863; King v. Grat, 55 Conn. 166; Bell v. Fowler, 55 Conn. 364; Davidson V. Bates, 111 Ind. 391; Davidson v. Hutchins' (Ind. 1887), 13 N. E. Rep. 106;' Dodd v. Winship, 144 Mass. 461; Davis v. Williams, 1 Pickle, 646; Post V. Rivers, 40 N. J. Eq. 21 ; Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514. 3 In re Coble's Will, ION. Y. S. Rep. 692; Demill «. Reid, 71 Md. 175; Hunt's Appeal, 25 N. W. C. 450; Wood's Appeal, 25 W. N. C. 464; Hayne V. Irvine, 25 S. C. 289 ; Campbell v. Clark, 64 N. H. 328 ; Pugh v. Pugh, 105 Ind. 552. 901 § 883 TITLE BT DEVISE. [PAKT 111. in such devisee's children, this rule of construction must give way.^ And the same result is reached where the con- text shows that the word " children" is used in the sense of issue. ^ The devise may be limited to the survivors of two or more.^ And while the " children " may be construed to mean " heirs," where such appears to be the intention of the testator giving the first taker an estate in fee, instead of a life estate,* yet the presumption is always against such a construction, and in favor of holding the words to be one of purchase instead of limitation, giving to the children a remainder, and the parent a life estate,^ or permitting them to take jointly with their parents.® The courts always endeavor to ascertain the intention of the testator, if possible, and for that purpose give the widest latitude possible to the construction of wills, so that any misconception of the force and meaning of words will not prevent the will from taking effect or give it a wrong ap- plication. Thus, it is often necessary to substitute one word for another in a will, in order to carry out the inten- tion of the testator. It is very common to substitute " and" for "or," and vice versa, " all" for " any,' and the like. But this can only be done where the intention is clearly shown on the face of the will to be contrary to the ordinary meaning of the words used.^ It has also been ' Wooley V. Paxton, 46 Ohio St. 307; Pond v. Allen, 15 R. I. 171; Stockbridge v. Stockbridge, 145 Mass. 517; Patchen v. Patchen, 49 Hun, 270; Chenault's Guardian v. Chenault's Estate (Ky. 188S), 9 S. W. Rep. 775; Outcalt v. Outcalt, 42 N. J. Eq. 500. ^ Miller xi. Carlisle (.Ky.), 14 S. W. 75; Cody v. Buun's Exr., 4G N. J. Eq. 131; Schedel, In re, 73 Cal. 5fl4; Hall v. Hall, 140 Mass. 2G7. 2 Davis V. Davis, 118 N. Y. 411 ; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 41 N. J. Eq. 414. ■• Lockwood's Appeal, 55 Coun. 157; Smith v. Fox's Adrnr., 82 Va. 763; Mason v. Ammon, 117 Pa. St. 127. See ante, sect. 434. 5 Foster v. McKenna (Pa. 1888), 11 Atl. Rep. 674; McDonald v. Dun- bar (Pa. 1888), 12 Atl. Rep. 553; Jones «. Cable, 114 Pa. St. 586; A ff niter U.May, 115 Pa. St. 54. « Proctor V. Proctor, 141 Mass. 1G5. ' Story Eq. Jur., sect. 179; Johnsbn v. Simcock, 7 H. & Norm. 344; Jackson v. Blanchan, 6 Johns. 64; Jackson v. Topping, 1 Wend. 396; 902 CH. XXIII. J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 883 held proper to construe "heirs" to mean children, when the context shows that the word was used by the testator in that sense.i So, also, it has been held that a devise to S.'s family and M. may be construed to give one-half of the property to M. and the residue only to the children of S., instead of making M. share alike with the children of S.^ But if the words " share and share alike " had been insert- ed in the clause of the will, this construction would not have been sustained.^ The word " family " is generally con- strued to mean the children of the person named and his wife, if there be one.* "Personal representatives" can be construed to mean "next of kin."^ And many such examples of elastic construction may be referred to.* It is Dexter v. Gardner, 7 Allen, 243; Holcomb v. Luke, 25 N. J. L. 605; Eoe V. Vengut, 117 N. Y. 204; Gray v. Missionary Society (N. Y. 1888), 2 N. Y. S. 878; Massay v. Davenport, 23 S. C. 453. 1 Barton v. Tuttle, 62 N. H. 558 ; Moore v. Lewis, 4 Ohio C. C. 284 ; In re Session's Estate, 70 Mich. 297; Wiggins v. Perkins, 64 N. H. 36; Lock- wood's Appeal, 55 Conn. 157; Anthony v. Anthony, 65 Conn. 256; Bal- lentine v. Wood, 42 N. J. Eq. 552; Myrick u. Heard, 31 Fed. Eep. 241; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 41 N. J. Eq. 414. But see Reniston v. Adams, 80 Me. 290; Fabens v. Fabens, 141 Mass. 395; Randolph v. Randolph, 40 N. J. Eq. 75. 2 Silsby V, Sawyer, 64 N. H. 580. 3 In re Swinburne (B. I. 1888), 14 Atl. Rep. 850. " Langmaid v. Hurd, 64 N. H. 526; Silsby v. Sawyer, 64 JSf. H. 580, ' Davies v. Davies, 55 Conn. 319. * Jenkins v. Jenkins, 64 N. H. 407, " issue " means legitimate off- spring; Dexter v. Inches (Mass.), 17 N. E. Rep. 551; " issue" including grandchildren; Russell ». Russell, 84 Ala. 48; "my children" does not include a child legally adopted; to same effect, see Session's Estate (Mich. 1890), 38 N. W. 249; Eeinders v. Koppelman, 94 Mo. 338; God- dard u. Amory (Mass. 1888), 16 N. E. Rep. 725, " my nephews and nieces "" does not include the wives of the nephews of the testator ; Lockman v. Hobbs, 98 N. C. 541; "heirs" held to mean children and to exclude grandchildren; Locke u. Locke (N. J. 1888), 16 Atl. 49; " nearest rela- tions " means brothers, to exclusion of nephews and nieces; Mayer v. Hover (Ga. 1888), 7 S. E. Rep. 562, " children of H. & M." held to take per stirpes and not per capita ; to same effect, see Shepard's Heirs v. Shepard's Estate (Vt. 1888), 14 Atl. Rep. 536; Byer u. Beck (Mich. 1888), 38 N. W. Eep. 20; Erazer v. Dieton, 78 Ga. 474; Lockwood's Appeal, 55 Conn. 157; Alston's Appeal (Pa. 1887), 11 Atl. Rep. 366; Woodward v. James, ' 903 § 883 TITLE BT DEVISE. [PART III. the general rule, subject to exceptions to be mentioned hereafter, that parol evidence is not admissible to prove the intention of the testator.^ The explanatory rule, which has' been recognized as the prevailing test since the days of Bacon, is that parol evidence is not admissible to explain away a patent ambiguity, while it may control and remove a latent ambiguity. The ambiguity may concern the per- son intended to take or the thing devised. The distinction between latent and patent ambiguity, in respect to the ad- missibility of parol evidence, lies in a rule already given, 14 Abb. N. C. 246; Swinburne, In re (R. I. 1888), 14 Atl. Eep. 850; Cum- ming's Exr. u. Cnmmings (Mass. 1888), 16 N. E.Eep. 401. Contra, Camp- bell ». Clark, 64 N. H. 328; Dole v. Keyes, 143 Mason, 237; Hugging v- Hugglns, 72 Ga. 825; Klndro v. Johnston, 15 Lea, 78; McKelvey v. Mc- Kelvey, 43 Ohio St. 213; De Laurencel v. De Broom, 6T Cal. 362; Avery o. Everett, 110 N. Y. 317; imprisonment for life does not amount to death, inalimitationoveronthedeathof first taker; Simon's Will; In re, 55 Conn. 239; " family" construed to include wife and daughter, but exclude an adult son; Weeks v. Cornwell, 104 N. Y. 325; " legatees " construed to mean "devisees;" Wilcox' Appeal, 54 Conn. 320; limiting the meaning " the above named devisees;" to the same effect, Brabham u. Crosland, 25 S. C. 525; Wyeth v. Stone, 144 Mass. 441; devise of one's "farm" held to include outlying tracts of land, commonly known as a part of it; West !). Eandle (Ga. 1887), 3 S. E. Eep. 454, " aU the property " limited in its meaning by the context; Stewart's Estate, 74 Cal. 98, devise of " one-half of all my estate " to the wife held to pass to her only the one- half of the community property, which of wife excluded she could claim without a devise. 1 Farrar v. Ayres, 5 Pick. 407; Barrett v. Wright, 13 Pick. 405; John- son V. Johnson, 18 N. H. 494; Avery v. Chappell, 6 Conn. 270; Jackson V. Lill, 11 Johns. 201; White v. Hicks, 33 N. Y. 383; Dey v. Dey, 19 N. J. Eq. 137; Kelly u. Kelly, 25 Pa. St. 460; Mordecal v. Jones, 6 Jones Eq. 365; Coffin v. Elliott, 9 Eich. Eq. 244; Willis v. Jenkins, 30 Ga. 169; Mitchell V. Walker, 17 B. Mon. 61; Judy v. Williams, 2 Ind. 449; Fitz- patrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Iowa, 674; Bradley v. Bradley, 24 Mo. 311 ; Eob- inson v. Bishop, 23 Ark. 378; Love v. Buchanan, 40 Miss. 758. This holds true as to fatal misdescriptions of the land; parol evidence cannot supply the true description. Ehrmann v. Hoskins, 6 So. Eep. 776 (Miss.) ; Sturgis V. Work, 122 Ind. 134; Morelock v. Barnard (Tenn.), 2 S. W- Eep. 32; Whitesidesu. Whitesides (S. C. 1888), 5 S. E. Eep. 816; Christy V. Badger, 72 Iowa, 581; Bowen v. Allen, 113 lU. 63; s. c. 55 Am. Rep. 398. 904 CH. XXIII.J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 884 that the intention must be gathered from the will itself. If it is a patent ambiguity the will does not express any cer- tain intention, and it is, therefore, void from uncertainty. But if the ambiguity is latent, i. e., discovered dehors the will, there would be no ambiguity as to the intention of the testator if the investigation was confined to the will itself. The ambiguity, arising from extraneous facts, may in like manner be explained away without violating the rule of ev- idence, that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict a writing.^ It is always admissible to show by extraneous evidence that certain rights are appurtenant to the land de- vised, and hence they too pass to the devisee, although not specially named in the will.^ § 884. Devises to charitable uses. — A notable exception to the rule, requiring the devisee to be definitely ascertained, occurs in the case of devises to charitable uses. It will be impossible to do more than give a general outline of this most interesting and difficult subject. The subject has been discussed and treated by many of America's most emi- nent jurists, and yet it does not seem to be definitely settled in all its details, no uniform rule having been adopted or discovered which would be reliable and applicable in all the States.^ It is here laid down that gifts to charitable uses 1 Miller v. Travers, 8 Bing. 244; The Lady Franklin, 8 Wall. 325; Shaw V. Shaw, 60 Me. 94; Billings u. Billings,- 10 Cush. 178; Cabot ». Windsor, 11 Allen, 346; Pickering v. Pickering, 60 N. H. 349; Spencer v. Higgins, 22 Conn. 521; Mann v. Mann, 14 Johns. 1; Hinneman v. Rosen- beck, 39 N. Y. 98 ; NiohoUs v. Williams, 22 N. J. Eq. 63 ; Stokely w. Gordon, 8 Md. 496 ; Love v. Buchanan, 40 Miss. 758 ; Stephens v. Walker, 8 B. Men. 600; Worman v. Teagarden, 2 Ohio St. 380; Grimes ■». Harmon, 35 Ind. 246; Penton ». TefEt, 22 111. 366; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Iowa, 674. See Smith v. Kimball, 62 N. H. 606. 2 Nye V. Hoyle, 120 N. Y. 195. ' The subject constitutes more properly a part of the general sub- . jects of Equity Jurisprudence and Uses and Trusts, and to standard works on these subjects, together with Prof. Theo. W. Dwight's argu- ment in the Kose Will Case, published in book form, the reader is re- ferred for a full and comprehensive discussion of it. 905 . § 884 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. will be sustained, although there are no trustees and no defi- nite beneficiaries, provided the general intent of the testator can be ascertained. It has already been explained ^ that courts of equity will never suffer a trust to fail for the want of a trustee. But in ordinary trusts the cestui que trust must be definite and ascertained. The statute of 43 Eiiz. ch. 4, enacted that where a devise was made to a charitable use, and no trustee was appointed, the court of chancery shall have the power to appoint trustees, who shall administer the trust in conformity with the testator's wishes, if they could be definitely ascertained and carried out, and if not, then as nearly as possible, the latter provision being known as the cy pres doctrine. It has always been a matter of considerable doubt whether the provisions of this statute constituted a part of the American jurisprudence, but the general importance of this question has been dissi- pated by the almost unanimous conclusion of the courts, that the statute was only remedial and confirmatory of the power which the court of chancery had previously possessed and exercised.^ The uncertainty which in private trusts would invalidate the devise, but which could be cured under the ^ See ante, sect. 508. 2 Vidal V. Gerard, 2 How. 127; Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. 107; Baptist Ass. u. Hart, 4 Wheat. 1; Wltraan v. Lex, 17 Serg. & R. 88; Green o. Dennis, 6 Conn. 282; Earle v. Wood, 8 Gush. 430; Dexter ». Gardner, 7 Allen, 246; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 577; Burbank v. Whitney, 24 Pick. 152; Potter v. Thornton, 7 R. I. 263; Bell Co. v. Alexander, 22 Texas, 362; Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 140. Con- tra, Owens V. Missionary Soc. 14 N. Y. 380; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 618. But whether the court of chancery had original jurisdiction, or it was conferred upon it by the statute of Elizabeth, the doctrine of Charitable Uses is generally recognized throughout the United States. SeeTappau v. Dtblois, 45 Me. 122; Drew t>. Wakefield, 54 Me. 295; Burr's Exrs. v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241 ; Dashiel v. Atty.-Gen., 5 Har. & J. 392 ; , Gallego V. Atty.-Gen., 3 Leigh, 450; Beall ti. Fox, 4 Ga. 404; Am. Bible Soc. V. Wetmore, 17 Conn. 181; Atty.-Geu. v. Moore, 19 N. J. Eq. 503; Trustees, etc., v. Zanesville C. & M. Co., 9 Ohio, 203; Gals ». Wilhite, 2 Dana, 170 ; Griffin v. Graham, 1 Hawks, 96 ; Miller v. Chittenden, 2 Iowa, 315. 906 CH. XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE, § 884 doctrine of charitable uses, may refer either to the trustee, to the beneficiary, or to the object of the devise. In all charitable uses the beneficiaries are indefinite and uncertain, usually consisting of a class, the individuals of which are constantly changing. Thus, where a devise is made to a university, or to found one, the beneficiaries are the students who from time to time enter its halls. But it is a general rule that the object of charity, and the class of persons who are to be benefited by it, should be sufiiciently described as to be capable of identification.^ Where there is a trustee or board of trustees appointed by the will to administer the trust, it seems to be the universal rule, adopted alike in all the States, that such a charitable trust will be sustained if the class of beneficiaries is definitely described. And I apprehend that a greater uncertainty is permissible in such cases than in those in which no trustee has been appointed.^ And where the trustees are authorized by the will to exercise their discretion in the selection of the beneficiaries, the devise has in many cases been declared definite and valid, while it would probably be invalid, if the trustees were not appointed by the will. Id certum est, quod certum reddi potest.^ It is also the rule, in perhaps ^ Wheeler v. Smith, 2 How. 55; Perin v. Carey, 2i How. i65; Loring V. Marsh, 6 "Wall. 337; Bartlett v. King, 12 Mass. 537; Atty.-Gen. v. Trinity Church, 9 Allen, 422; Treat's Appeal, 30 Con. 113; State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392; Newson v. Clark, 46 Ga. 88; i"ink v. Pink, 12 La. An. 301; Wade v. Am. Col. Soc, 7 Smed. &. M. 695; More v. Moore, 4 Dana, 354; Miller v. Teachout, 24 Ohio, St. 525; DeBruler v. Ferguson, 54 Ind. 549; Heuseri;. Allen, 42 111. 425; Lepage v. McNamara, 5 Iowa, 146; Elnell v. Universalist Gen. Convention, 76 Texas, 514. ^ Perry on Tr., sect. 732; Beekman v. Bonsor, 23 N. Y. 298; Downing «. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366 ; Going «. Emery, 16 Pick. 107; Treat's Appeal, 30 Conn. 113; Schultz's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 396; State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392; Needles v. Martin, 33 Md. 609; Bridges v. Pleasants, 4 Ired. Eq. 26; DeBruler u.'Eurguson, 64 Ind. 549; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; Schmucker v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; Lepage v. McNamara, 5 Iowa, 146; Mil- ler V. Chittenden 2 Iowa, 315. 3 Treat's Appeal, 30 Conn. 113; Witman v. Lex, 17 Serg. & R. 88; Beavers u. Eilson, 8 Pa. St. 327; Pickering u. Shotwell, 10 Pa. St. 23; 907 § 884 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. all the states except New York, that where the object of the devise is certain and ascertainable, it will be sustained, although there are no ascertained trustees or beneficiaries. The courts of equity have the power in such cases to appoint trustees to carry out the will and administer the trust. ^ Whether the English doctrine of cypres is appli- cable in this country to a devise to a charitable use, where no trustee is appointed, is a matter of some doubt. It is cer- tain, however, that the courts would not, in following the tendency of the English courts, go so far as to authorize funds, bequeathed to found a Jevjs' synagogue, to be trans- ferred to a foundling hospital, as was done in one case by an English court. ^ And if the doctrine is recognized, it is applied in subordination to the general rule, that the courts cannot supply the intention of the testator by con- jecture, but must act in strict compliance with a gen- eral intent, appearing on the face of the will, and then only when the special intent cannot be carried out.s Atty.-Gen. v. Jolly, 1 Rich. Eq. 99. But there must be some definite description of the class of persons from which the trustees are to select. Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 55; Fontain u. Eavenel, 17 How. 369; Levy V. Levy, 33' N. Y. 97; Gallego v. Atty.-Gen., 3 Leigh, 450; Miller v. Atkinson, 63 N. C. 537. i Preachers' Aid Soc. v. Rich, 45 Me. 552; Bliss b. Am. Bible Soc, 2 Allen, 334; Sanderson v. White, 18 Pick. 323; Bull v. Bull, 8 Conn. 47; Stone V. Griffin, 8 Vt. 400; McAllister v. McAllister, 46 Vt. 272; McLain V. School Directors, 51 Pa. St. 196; Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Pa. St. 465: DashiellB. Atty.-Gen. 5 Har. & J. 392; Walker v. Walker, 25 Ga. 420; Mason v. M. E. Church, 27 N. J. Eq. 47; Williams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299; Urmey I). Wooden, I Ohio St. 160; Trustees, etc., v. Zanesville C. &M. Co., 9 Ohio, 103; Gass ». Wilhite, 2 Dana, 170; Griffin v. Graham, 1 Hawks, 96; Miller v. Chittenden, 2 Iowa, 315. Contra, Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y. 97; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 Iowa, 584; Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366. But see Tildenu. Green (1888), 2 N. Y. S. 584. 2 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 521 ; Story on Eq. Jur., sect. 1169. s Pontain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 389; Loring v. Marsh, 6 Wall. 337; Harvard College u. Society, etc., 3 Gray, 283; Saunderson v. White, 18 Pick. 333; Brown v. Concord, 33 N. H. 285; Beekman o. Bonsor, 23 N. H. 308; Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y. 344; Philadelphia v. Girard, etc., 46 Pa. St. 28; Methodist Church v. Remington, 1 Watts, 226; McAuley v. Wil- 908 CH.' XXIII.] TITLE BY DEVISE. § 885 Finally the doctrine of perpetuity does not apply to charit- able uses.^ § 885. Lapsed devises — What becomes of them. — A will speaks from the death of the testator, and all the ele- ments requisite to the validity of the devise must be present and existing then, in order that the devise may take effect. If any one is wanting, as, for example, if the devisee has died before the testator, the devise lapses. And this is the case, although the devise is expressly limited to the devisee and his heirs. The word "heirs" in this connection is construed as a word of limitation, and the heirs cannot take as purchasers, unless it is the plain intent of the testator to give them the devise, as a limitation over in case of the death of their ancestor.^ But unless there is an explicit declaration of the person or persons who are to take the devise in the place of the deceased devisee, no declaration that the devise shall not lapse upon the death of the devisee will prevent it lapsing.^ A devise to two or more as joint tenants will not lapse upon the death of one, not even as to his share. The survivors will take the entire estate.* But son, 1 Dev. Ch. 276; Cromle's Heirs v. Louisville Home Soc, 3 Bush. 375. 1 Jackson i>. Phillips, 14 Allen, 550; Odell v. Odell, 10 Allen, 8; Hill- yard v. Miller, 10 Pa. St. 335; GriflSn v. Graham, 1 Hawks, 131; Gass v. Wilhite, 2 Dana, 183; Miller v. Chittenden, ,2 Iowa, 362. Contra, Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y. 130; Bascom ii. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 598. 2 Long V. Watkinson, 17 Beav. 471; Hinchliffe v. Westwood, 2 De G. & S. 216; Kimball v. Story, 108 Mass. 382; Armstrong v. Moran, 1 Bradf. 314; Hawn ». Banks,4 Edw. Ch. 664; Weishaupt b. Brehman, 5Binn. 115; Comfort V. Mather, 2 Watts & S. 450; Dickinson v. Parvis, 8 Serg. & E. 71; Hand I). Marcy, 28 N. J. Eq. 59; Davis v. Taul, 6 Dana, 52. 8 Williams on Ex. 1306; 2 Redf. on VCills, 163; Aspinwall D.Duckworth, 45 Beav. 307; Hutchinson's Appeal, 34 Conn. ,300; Craighead v. Given, 10 Serg. & E. 351. 4 Anderson v. Parsons, 4 Me. 486; Doyle v. Doyle, 103 Mass. 489; De Camp V. Hall, 42 Vt. 483; BoUes v. Smith, 39 Conn. 219; Putnam v. Put- nam, 4 Bradf. 308; Gross' Estate, 10 Pa. St. 360; Stephens v. Miller, 24 N. J. Eq. 358; Craycroft v. Craycroft, 6 Har. & J. 54; Luke v. Marshall, 5 J. J. Marsh. 357. 909 § 885 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PAET III. the share of one co-tenant in a devise to several as tenants in conimon lapses, the difference in the rule arising out of the distinction between the two kinds of joint estates. ^ If the devise is to a class, the individuals of which are chang- ing, such as, for example, a devise to my " children," not naming them or indicating in any other way that certain definite individuals were intended, those individuals of the class who survive the testator take the entire devise, and there can be no lapse of such a devise unless all the persons, who could be included in the class described, have prede- ceased the testator.^ And even where the members, of the class are given, it has been held that there will be no lapse of the devise, if there is nothing else^in the will to rebute the pre- sumption that the persons named are to take as a class. ^ It is now also provided in a number of the States that upon the death of the devisee before the testator, if he be a son or other relative of the testator, his lineal heirs will take the es- tate in his place. The statutes vary in detail, some confining the provisions to the lineal heirs of a deceased son or grand- son, others extending the benefit to the general heirs of any relative who is named as a devisee, while others go to the length of declaring the heirs of all devisees capable of taking in their ancestor's place, thus abolishing altogether the doc- 1 Uphamc Emerson, 119 Mass. 509; Cummings v. Bramhall, 120 Mass. 552; Floyd v. Barker, 1 Paige, 480; Van Buren v. Dash, 30 N. Y. 393, Allison V. Kurtz, 2 Watts, 185; Mason v. Trustees Methodist Cliurcii, 27 N. J. Eq. 47; Mebane v. Womack, 2 Jones Eq. 293; Gray v. JJailey, 42 Ind. 349; Appeal of Eyon, 124 Pa. St. 528. 2 2 Redl. on Wills, 170; 1 Jar. on Wills (5th Am. ed.), 623; Dlmond v. Bostick, L. R 10 Ch. 358; Schaffer v. Kettell, 14 Allen, 528; Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366; Young v. Robinson, 11 Gill & J. 328; Yeates v. Gill, 9 B. Mon. 206. 3 Schaffer v. Kettell, 14 Allen, 528; Stedman v. Priest, 103 Mass. 293; Warner's Appeal, 39 Conn. 253; Magaw v. Field, 48 N. Y. 668; Hoppock K.Tucker, 69 N. Y. 202; Springer v. Congleton, 30 Ga. 977;. Contra, Williams w. Neff, 52 Pa. St. 333; Frazier v. Frazier, 2 Leigh, 642. See also Morse v. Morse, 11 Allen, 36; Todd v. Tott, 64 N. C. 280; Starling V. Price, 16 Ohio St. 32. 910 CH. XXIII. J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 885 triue of lapse in case of the death of the devisee.^ After determining that in a given case a devise has lapsed, there is the further question, in whom does it vest. And it may be stated as a general rule everywhere, in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, that although lapsed legacies and bequests go to the residuary legatee, lapsed devises vest in the heir at law.^ A distinction is made in the English law, in this connection, between those devises which lapse from the death of the devisee after the execu- tion of the will, and those which are void ab initio for some cause, such as the death of the devisee before the execution of the will. In the latter case it is held, that the lapsed de- vise goes to the residuary devisee, on the ground that since the testator intends the residuary devisee to take all the property not previously disposed of, the testator intends him to take this void devise, for a void devise does not dis- pose of the property." But the weight of authority, in fact all the authorities except the case just cited, reject this distinction, holding that the attempt to make a specific de- vise indicates the intention at the time that the residuary devisee is not to take, and by the common law the residuary devisee only takes what was intended for him at the time of making the will.* The existence of the will is not at all affected by the lapse of devises. Even though all the devisees and legatees should die before the testator, the will / 1 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 523; 1 Jar. on Wills (5th Am. ed.) 638, Am. note; Moore v. Dimond, 5 R. I. 121; Sheets v. Grubb, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 340. 2 Doe-B. Uuderdown, Willes, 293; Doe v. Scott, 3 Maule & S. 300; Hayden v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. 528; Austla v. Cambridgeport Parish, 21 Pick. 224; Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 292; Remington v. Am. Bible Soc, 44 Conn. 672; James v. James, 4 Paige, 115; Van Cortlandt v. Kip, 7 Hill, 346; Gill v. Brouwer, 37 N. Y. 549; Lingan u. Carroll, 3 Har. & McH. 333; Adams v. Bass, 18 6a. 130; Starkweather v. Am. Bible Soc, 72 III. 50; Wilson v. Odell, 68 Mich. 533. " Doe V. Sheffield, 13 East, 526; Ferguson v. Hedges, 1 Harr. 524. * Van Kleek v. Dutch Church, 20 Wend. 427; Green v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 292; Brewster v. McCall's Devisees, 15 Conn. 297; State v. Whitbank, 2 Harr. 18; Lingan v. Carroll, 3 Har. & McH. 333. 911 § 886a TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III, would nevertheless remain operative outside of the devises and bequests.^ § 886. Revocation of wills- — Until the death of the tes- tator the will is ambulatory and can be revoked at the. pleas- ure of the testator. But in order that it may be revoked, something more must be done than a declaration to that effect. Revocationmay be express or implied. An express revocation results from an affirmative act of the testator, animo revocandi. ' A revocation is implied from some act of the testator inconsistent with the continued existence of the will, but not expressly intended to revoke the will, or from some subsequently occurring circumstances which the law has declared incompatible with the will, arid which in consequence works a revocation. These various modes of revocation will be discussed in the succeeding para- graphs. § 886a. Joint or mutual wills. — The only exception to the general revocability of wills occurs in the case of joint or mutual wills. Although these wills were at first looked upon as suspicious and doubtful instruments, they are now recognized as valid. Until the death of either party, the will is revocable by either, although such revocation may work a breach of a valid and effective compact.^ But after the death of one of the testators the vesting of his part of the will is considered as being so far the part performance of an executory contract, as to prevent the revocation of the will by the survivor.^ 1 Hoitt B. Hoitt, 63 N. H. 475; 5G Am. Rep. 530. ^ Gould V. Mansfield, 103 Mass. 403; Clayton v. Liverman, 2 Dev. & B. 558; Evans v. Smith, 28 Ga. 98; Schumacher v. Schmidt, 44 Ala. 454. In Breathitt v. Whittaker, 8 B. Men. 530, it was held that a joint will could not be revoked at all. = Dufour V. Pereira, 1 Dick. 419; Ex parte Day, 1 Bradf. 478; Izard v. Middleton, 1 Desau. 115; Elvers v. Kivers, 3 Id. 190; Schumacher o. Schmidt, 44 Ala. 454. 912 CH. XXIII. J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 887 § 887. Revocation by destruction of will. — Any burn- ing, cancellation, or other destruction of the instrument, although such destruction be only partial, will be sufficient to revoke a will. All that is necessary is some act conclu- sive of an intention to destroy it.^ But the act of destruc- tion must have been done animo revocandi, and it requires just as much capacity of mind to revoke a will as it does to make one.^ Loss or unintentional destruction of the will or its destruction by a third person without the consent or explicit ratification of the testator, will have no effect upon the force and validity of the will. Provision is always made for the proof by competent witnesses of contents of such wills .^ Not only is the intention to revoke necessary to give to an act of destruction the effect of a revocation, but the act is also necessary. A mere intention to revoke, without doing some act required by law to evince that in- tention, will not work a revocation; and this is also true, although the execution of the intention to destroy the will has been frustrated by the fraudulent or other interference of a third person.* But if the will is proven to have been in the possession of the testator, and there is no evidence to show that he ever gave it into another's keeping, the fact 1 Goods oJ Frazer, L. R. 2 P. & D. 40; Sweet, u. Sweet, 2 Redf. 451 j Avery «. Pixley, i Mass. 460; Evan's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 244; Johnson ».. Brallsford, 2 Nott & M. 272; Bohannon v. Wolcot, 1 How. (Miss.) 336. ' Laughton v. Atkins, 1 Pick. 535; Smith v. Wait, 4 Barb. 23; Forman's Will, 54 Barb. 274; Idley v. Bo wen, 11 Wend. 227; Burns v. Burns, 4 Serg. &R. 295; Smock v. Smock, 11 N. J. Eq. 156; Shades v. Vinson, 9 Gill, 169; Ford v. Ford, 7 Humph. 92; Wright ». Wright, 5 Ind. 389. 3 Mills V. MlUward, 15 Prob. Div. 20; Todd v. Rennlck, 13 Colo. 546; 22 Pac. 898; De Groot's WUl, 9 N. Y. S. 471. * Clark V. Smith, 34 Barb. 340; Delafield v. Parrish, 25 N. Y. 9 ; Clingaa V. Mitcheltree, 31 Pa. St. 25; Dunlop v. Dunlop, 10 Watts, 153; Mundy v. Mundy, 15 N. J. Eq. 390; Hise v. Fincher, 10 Ired. 139; Boyd v. Cook, 3 Leigh, 32; Gains v. Gains, 2 A. K. Marsh. 190; Kent u. Mahaffey, 10 Ohio St. 204. See Card v. Grinman, 5 Conn. 164; Blanchard v. Blancliard, 32 Vt. 62; Heise v. Heise, 31 Pa. St. 246; Pryor v. Coggen, 17 Ga. 444; Wright V. Wright, 5 Ind. 389; Runkle v. Gates, 11 Ind. 95; Smiley u. Gam- bill, 2 Head, 164; Rife's Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 232; 1 Atl. 226. 58 913 S 888 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PAET Itl that itl cannot be found raises the presumption that the tes- tator destroyed it.^ • § 887a. tefflect of alterations of will after execution. — Unless the will is republished and attested again, an alter- ation in the terms of the will, will not affect the operation of the original provisions ; and if the original terms have not been hopeletislj obliterated by the attempted change the will takes effect as if there had been no alteration. Unless the alteration has been made valid by a re-execution of the will, it cannot have the effect of a partial revocation of the original will. ^ o § 888. Revocation by marriage and issue. — As has al- ready been explained, a single woman could at common law make a will, but a married woman could not. In conse-- quence of this disability upon the married woman, it was held that the will of a single woman was revoked by her subsequent marriage.^ In some of the States married women are permitted to make wills, but in the same States it is generally provided that the husband shall be heir of an in- testate wife. It is, therefore, still generally enacted by statute in those States that the subsequent marriage of a testatrix will work an absolute revocation of the will,* The rule is, however, different in other States, ^the mar- riage being held to have no effect on their ante-nuptial wills. ^ But the marriage of a man does not at common law revoke his prior will, unless he has issue. The wife at com- 1 Kerrigan v. Hart, 40 Hun, 389; Bauskett v. Keitt, 22 S. C. 187. 2 Gardiner v. Gardiner (N. H. 1890), 19 Atl. 651; Tomlinson's Appeal, 25 W. M. C. 447 (Pa. 189-0), 19 All. 482. 3 3 Washb. on Real Prnp. 539; 4 Kent's Com. 527; Forse u. Hembling, 4 Rep. 01; Colter v. Layer, 2 P. Wms. 624; Morton v. Onion, 45 Vt. 145; Fausen's Appeal, 26 Pa. St. 204; Blods;ett v. Moore, 141 Mass. 75. * Statutes of tliis character are to be found in Alabama, Arkansas, California, ludiana, Missouri, New York and Oregon. 1 Jar. on Wills (filh Am. ed.) , 269, Am, note. ' NoyeS V. SoutUworth, 55 Mich. 173; 54 Am. Rep. 359. 914 CH. XXIH.J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 888 mon law could not be the heir of her husband, and she was considered amply provided for in her dower. There was, therefore, no change effected in the man's circumstances by his marriiige, which would call for a revocation of his will, until issue was born to him.^ But in a great many of the States the widow is now by statute made an heir to the husband, and, although there are statutes in some of these States expressly declaring a man's will revoked by his sub- sequent marriage, his marringe would revoke tlie will with- out any express enactment.^ But the subsequent marriage and having of issue will only work a revocation, as a gen- eral rule, where the testator has not provided in his will for the contingency of his marriage. If he has made pro- visions for his future wife and children, the will will stand.* If a child has been unintentionally omitted from the provisions of a will, it is generally provided by statute that the will will be revoked pro tanto, and the share which this child would have received of his fathers estate, had he died intestate, will be given to it.* But a testator may disin- herit a child if he wishes, and it may be shown by parol that the omission of his name was intentional.® But in some of the States it is held that the intention to disinherit cannot be shown by parol evidence, and that the intention must be gathered from the will.* There are similar statu- o 1 Warner v. Beach, 4 Gray, 162; Havens v. Van den Burgh, 1 Denio, 27; Tomlinson v. Tornlinson, 1 Ashm. 224; McCuUum v. McKenzie, 26 Iowa, 610; Carey v. Baughn, 36 Iowa, 542. 2 See Walker v. Hall, 34 Pa. St. 483; Tyler v. Tyler, 19 111. 151; Am. Board v. Nelson, 72 III. 564 ; Stokes v. O'Kallon, 2 Mo. 29. 3 Wheeler v. Wheeler, 1 R. I. 364; Miller v. Phillips, 9 E. I. 141; Warner u. Beach, 4 Gray, 162; Bush v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 506; Ha- vens «. Van den Burgh, 1 Denlo, 27; Deupree v. Deupree, 45 Ga. 415; Yerby v. Yerby, 3 Call, 334. * In re Grider's Estate, 81 Cal. 571 ; 22 Pab. 908. 5 Doacec. Lake, 32 Me. 268; Wilson v. Fosket, 6 Mete. 400'; Ban- croft V. Ives, 3 Gray, 3(J7; Ramsdill v. Wentworth, 101 Mass. 122; Buck- ley «. Gerard, 123 Mass. 8; Lorieux v. Keller, 5 Iowa, 196; Coulam v. Doull, 4 Utah, 267; 9 Pac. 5C8; 133 U. S. 216. « Chace v. Chace, 6 R. I. 407; Guitar u. Gordon, 17 Mo. 408; Bradley 915 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. tory rules in most of the States, providing for a partial revocation of a will in fevor of posthumous children. But if the testator manifests an intention to disinherit posthu- mous children, as well as others, they cannot make any claim to a revocation of the will under these statutes. ^ But in all the cases of revocation by marriage and birth of issue the rule only applies to wills, which dispose of the testator's own property. It does not apply to wills executed under a power of appoint- ment, disposing of property which the wife or children of the testator could under no circumstances inherit.^ § 889. Revocation by alteration or exchange of prop- erty. — If the testator disposes of the property devised by alienation inter vivos, it will, of course., revoke the devise.* And this is also the rule in equity, where the testator has contracted to sell, but has made no conveyance ; that is, if specific perf(n'mance of the contract is asked for and granted: but subject to the vendee's right to specific per- formance, the devise will nevertheless take effect.* But al- though, under the old English rule concerning after-acquired V. Bradley, 24 Mo. 311^ Pounds v. Dale, 48 Mo. 270; Estate of Garrand, 34 Cal. 336; In re Steven's Estate, 83 Cal. 322; 23 Pac. 379. ■» Osbom v. Jefferson Bank, 116 111. 130. ' lioring ». Marsh, 6 Wall. 337 ; Blagge u. Miles, 1 Story, 426 ; Water- man i). Hawkins, 63 Me. 156; Warner u. Beach, 4 Gray, 162; Wilder v. Thayer, 97 Mass. 439; Brush b. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 506; Havens », Van den Burgh, 1 Denio, 27; Hargadine v. Pulte, 27 Mo. 423; Burchc. Brown, 46 Mo. 441; Schneider v. Koester, 54 Mo. 500; Bresee v. Stilas, 22 Wis. 120; Estate ol Utz, 43 Cal. 200, s Bosley v. Bosley, 14 How. 390; Carter v. Thomas, 4 Me. 341; Hawes V. Humphrey, 9 Pick. 350; Brown «. Thorndike, 15 Pick. 388; In re Van Mickel, 14 Johns. 324; MoNaughton v. McNaughton, 34 N. Y. 201; Bal- liett's "Appeal, 14 Pa. St. 451; Brush e. Brush, 11 Ohio, 287; Floyd!). Floyd, 7 B. Moo. 290; Wells v. Wells, 35 Miss. 638. 4 4 Kent's Com. 527; Darley v. Darley, Wils. 36; Walton v. Waiton, 7 Johns. Ch. 258; Kean's Case, 9 Dana, 25; Chadwlck o. Tatem (Mont. 1890), 23 Pac. 729. 916 €K. XXIII. J TITLE BY DKVISE. § 890 property, the rule might be different, it is now held that the subsequent conveyance of the land to the testator will revive the devise without any formal republication.^ Not only does the actual conveyance of the land revoke a devise, but it has also been held that an unsuccessful or void con- veyance will have the same effect as indicating an intention to revolve the devise.^ This rule would hardly be followed at the present day. The revocation by exchange or sale of the property devised is only implied from the act of sale ; and implications are never permitted to operate bej'ond what it is made necessary by the act, which gives rise to the implication. If, there- fore, an attempted conveyance fails, it should not operate as a revocation of the devise.^ But these acts will not in any case constitute a revocation of the will itself; their only effect will be upon the particular devise.* § 890. Kevocation by subsequent will or credit. — A will may also be revoked by a subsequent will or codicil. A codicil is nothing more than a supplementary will, and onlv revokes the will pro tanto. A subsequent will or cod- icil may revoke the prior will by implication, where the two are inconsistent and cannot stand together; or the tes- tator may in his subsequent will expressly declare the prior will revoked. And in the absence of an express revocation the prior will will be revoked only as to those, provisions, which are inconsistent with the dispositions made in the subsequent will or codicil.^ And the burden is upon the 1 Brown v. Brown, 16 Barb. 569; Woolery v. Woolery, 48 Ind. 523. 2 8 Washb. on Real Prop. 538, 539; 4 Kent's Com. 529. * Morey v. Sohier, 63 N. H. 507; 56 Am. Rep. 538. * Hoitt V. Hoitt, 63 N. H. 475; 50 Am. Kep. 530. 5 Pickering v. Langdon, 23 Me. 413; Derby i). Derby, 4 K. I. 414; Brant v. Wilson, 8 Cow. 56; Van Vechten v. Keator, 63 N. T. 62; Den v. Van Cleve, 5 N. J. L. 589; Smith v. McChesney, 15 N. J. Kq. 359; Bartholomew's Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 169; Boudinot v.. Bradford, 2 Dall. 266; Fetters ». Patters, 4 McCord, 151; Brownfield u. Wilson, 78 111. 917 § 890a TITLE BY DEVISE. [PAKT III. one opposing the earlier will to show that the testator in- tended to revoke it.^ Of course, an instrument which is strictly a codicil, could only revoke expressly or by impli- cation some provision of the will to which it is annexed. There could not be an express revocation of the entire will, for such a provision would make such a "codicil" an independent will.^ Where the prior will is only revoked by the subsequent will by implication from the inconsistency or its clauses, revocation by destruction of the second will will revive the prior will without any former republication.^ But if the prior will has been cancelled, or is revoked by express declaration, a republication as formal as the original execution is generally necessary to revive it.* But it has. been generally held that the execution of a codicil, contain- ing an express reference to the prior will, is a sufficient republication to bring the prior will into active operation again from the time, when the codicil was executed. ° § 890a. Defective will confirmed by codicil. — Where the codicil refers to and recognizes the existence of a will 467; Bobb's Succession (La. 1890), 7 So. 60; Sturgis v. Work, 122 Irid. 131; 22 N. E. 996. ' Richards v. Queen's Proctor, 18 Jur. 540; Leslie v. Leslie, 6 Ired. Eq. 332. 2 Gtlbke V. Gelbke, 88 Ala. 427; 6 So. 834. 3 4 Kent's Com. 5:iS; 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 540; Browne. Brown, 8 E. & B. 876; Wood v. Wood, L. R. I. P. & D. 309; Bohannon o. Walcot, I How. (Miss.) 336. In New York, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and Arkansas the prior wi 1 can only be revived by republication in any case. 3 Washb. on Rial Prop. 512; note. * James v. Marvin, 3 Conn. 576; Colvin v. Warford, 20 Md. 357; Eudi- siles V. Rodes, 29 Gralt. 147; Marsh v. Marsh, 3 Joues L. 77; Bohannon V. Walcot, 1 How. (Miss.) 336; Beaumont v. Keim, 50 Mo. 28; Contra, Lawson v. Morri.sou, 2 Dill. 286. See Taylor u. Taylor, 2 Nott& M. 482. ^ Havens v. Foster, 14 Pick. 534; Mooers v. White, 6 Johns. Ch. 375; Van Cortlandt v. Kip, 1 Hill, 590; Jones v. Jones, 1 Gill, 395; Rose v. Drayton, 4 Rich. Eq. 260; Jones v. Shewmake, 35 Ga. 151; Stover v. Kendall, 1 Coldw. 557; Barker v. Bell, 46 Ala. 210; Armstrong v, Ann- strong, 14 B. Mon. 33;?; Duncan v. Duncan, 23 111. 364; Harvey u. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 587; Payne v. Payne, 18 Cal. 291. 918 CH. XXIII. J TITLE BY DEVISE. § 8D2 which has been defectively executed, or which has been altered after its execution, it has been held that such adop- tion of the will by the codicil renders it a valid testament as it stood on the date of the execution of the codicil. ^ But it has been held that the will must have been signed or acknowledged by the testator in order that it may be validated by a codicil. The mere reference to a written instrument by what purports to be a codicil will not make it a valid will, if it is not signed or acknowledged by the supposed testator or written by him.^ § 891. Contingent wills. ■ — In connection with the sub- ject of revocation, it may be well to state something con- cerning contingent wills. A will can be made to take effect or to fail upon the happening of the contingency. A com- mon ease is a will made expressly, to take effect only upon the death of the testator away from home or while on a journey. If the testator survives the contingency, the will cannot be admitted to probate.^ § 892. Probate of will. — In the States of this country, different from the old English law, it is provided that wills of real property shall be admitted to general probate, and when they have been admitted, and placed on record, the probated will becomes conclusive evidence of its own proper execution in any case arising collaterally in another court.* It is also provided by the Statutes of Probate that a copy of the will certified by the judge of probate or his clerk is 1 Burge V. Hamilton, 12 Ga. 568; Anderson v. Anderson, L. E. 13 Eq, 381; Mooers v. White, 6 JoliDS. Cii. 360; Van Cortlandt v. Kip, 1 Hill 690; Wilsoff's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 281; Harvey v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 587. 2 Sharp V. Wallace, 83 Ky. 584. 8 In re Porter, L. R. 2 P. & D. 22 ; Lindsay v. Lindsay, L. B. 2 P. & D. 459; Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Pet. 174; Turner v. Scott, 51 Pa. St. 126; Bit- ter's Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 9; Wagner v. McDonald, 2 Har. & J. 346; Jacks V. Henderson, 1 Desan. 543; Maxwell, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 101. Bnt see contra, Damon v. Damon, 8 Allen, 192. * 3 Washb. on Eeal Prop. 508 ; 1 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 518. 919 § 893 TITLE BY DEVISE. [PART III. competent evidence of its contents. Tlie old English law only provided for the probate of wills of personal property. § 893. Agreements as to testamentary disposition of property. — Very often agreements are made by the owners of property with others, to the effect that, if the latter per- form certain duties or render certain services to them, they will make some testamentary provision in behalf of the person who agrees to render the service. If the services are rendered, the agreement will be enforced by the courts after the testator's death against his estate if he has refused or failed to make the testamentary provision.^ But the agreement must be clearly proven, and be a valid contract, in order that it may be enforced by the courts in opposi- tion to the will.^ 1 Lee's Appeal, 53 Conn. 363; Sohutt v. Meth. Epis. Missionary Soc, 41 N. J. Eq. 116; McKeegan v. O'Neill, 22 S. C. 454; Whetstine v. Wil- son, 104 N. C. 385; 10 S. E. 471; Andrews v. Brewster, 9 N. Y. S. 114. 2 Davis V. Hendricks, 99 Mo. 478; 12 S. W. 887; Snyder v. Snyder, ("Wis. 1890),45N. W. 818. 920 INDEX. [^TTie references in index are to sections. 1 ABANDONMENT OF TITLE, 739-741. general discussion, 739. of title by adverse possession, 74:0. by surrender of deed, 741. ACCEPTANCE, of deed, when presumed, 812. dedication to public, 611. trust necessairy, 510. rent creates a tenancy from year to year, 216. ACCOUNTING, between mortgagor and mortgagee, 353. ACCRETION AND ALLUVION, definition of, 685, 686. in whom is the title to, 685, 686. . ACCUMULATION OE PEOEITS, how far permissible, 544. ACKOWLEDGMENT OF DEEDS, when required, 810. requisites, certificate of, 810. certificate, conclusive of what, 810. by married women, 810. ACQUISITION, title by original, 681-741. ACT OF GOD, when rent Is discharged by, 79. when performance of condition excused by, 274. when waste by, excusable, 79. ADULTEET, of husband, effect upon curtesy, 110. of wife, effect upon dower, 128. 921 INDEX. ADVANCEMENT, deflned, 672. intention of donor controls, 672. how manifested and proved, 672. ADVERSE POSSESSION, defined, 693. effect upon title, 693. dispossession distinguished from, 694. essentials of, 695-699. must be visible or notorious, 696, 697. distinct and exclusive, 698. hostile and adverse, 699. when entry was lawful, 700. title by, how defeated, 703. how made absolute, 704. nature of title by, 693. when it begins, 693. AFFINITY, relation of, 665. AGENT. See Attorney. ALIEN, capacity of, to acquire real property by descent, 674. by purchase, 797. ALIENATION, power of, historical outline, 22, 24. invariable incident to a fee, 38, 275. ^ > in respect to estate for life, 275. estate for years, 182. estate from year to year, 214. tenancy at will, 214. mortages, see assignment. trust estates, 448, 506. effect of, by husband upon dower, 126. when wife is capable of making, 794. effect of, by wife upon curtesy, 110, 794. of joint-estates, 253, 829ci. ALTERATIONS IN DEEDS, effect of, 790. legal presumptions as to time when made, 790. how they may be noted, 790. APPURTENANT, deflned, 842. w'.iat things pass as, 842. 922 INDEX, ASSIGNMENT, of dower, 134-137, 144, 145. executory devise, 630. lease, 182. mortgage, 328-330. rent, with and without reversion, 645. reversion, 386. vendor's lien, 294. ATTESTATION, of deeds, when necessary, 809 requisites of, 809. of wills, 877, 878. ATTOENEY, power of, to make deed, 805. by married women, 806. (See Powers.) BARGAIN AND SALE, 776, 777. BASE FEE, 44. BASTARDS, cannot inherit at common law, 674. statutory clianges in common law, 674. BETTERMENTS, 702. BOUNDARIES, elements of, 830. monuments, natural and artificial, 831. artificial monuments in United States surveys, 83a. non-navigable streams, 833. navigable streams, 834. ponds and lalies, SS6. highways, 837. walls, trees, fences, etc., 838. BRIDGES. See ■Frjus'Chises. BUILDINGS, included in lands, 2. CANCELLATION, of deed, 741. of will, 887. CHARITABLE USES, when valid, 884. devise to, when valid, 884, 023 INDEX. CHILD, birth, of, requisite to curtesy, 101. illegitimate, cannot inherit, when, 674. in ventre sa mere, when considered as born, 673. posthumous, can now inherit, 673. CODICIL. See Devise. COMIMON, rights of, 591-593. CONDITION, in conveyances, 846, 863. in leases, 191. in devises, 891 estate upon, 271-281. express or implied, 271. precedent or subsequent, 271, 273. effect of condition upon estate, 271. how estate affected by breach of, 273, 277. when void, 274, 275. impossibility of performance, 274. illegality of performance, 275. how estate affected by void, 274. time of performance, 276. estate upon, distinguished from trusts, 280. when performance excused, 274, 275, 278. when forfeiture is rolie\'ed by courts, 279. who can enforce forfeiture, 277. effect of waiver of performance upon the, 278. what acts constitute a waiver, 278. in an escrow, 812. CONDITIONAL LIMITATIONS, defined, 281. distinguished from condition and limitation, 281. CONFIRMATION, a common law conveyance, 769. CONSANGUINITY, relation by, 665. MndB of, C66, 667, 668. how degrees of relation are computed, 669. by what law is it governed, 664. CONSIDEEATION, when requisite to deeds, 801. when requisite to create a use, 444, 783. acknowledged under seal, an estoppel, 444, 783. CONTRIBUTION, between parties to mortaraa'c, 370-374. 924 INDEX. COPARCENARY, estates in, 241. CORPORATIONS, can take real property by deed, when, 797. can take real property by devise, when, 882. COTENANTS, defined and classified, 185, 849. enlarging estate, 849o. of seisin and right to convey, 850. breach of covenant of seisin, 851 . against incumbrances, 852. breach of the same, 853. for quiet enjoyment, 187, 854. of warranty, 855, 856. the feudal warranty, 857. special covenants of warranty, 858. exceptions to operation of covenant, 858. implied, 186, 189, 859. actions on covenants of warranty, 860, 861. running witli the land, 190, 863. wlien breach of covenant works forfeiture, 864, COVERTURE, estate during, 90. how husband's rights in wife's lands may be barred, '91. how prevented from attaching, 92. restrictions upon alienation of wife's property, 23. statutory changes in estate during, 94. CURTESY, defined, essentials of, 101. marriage, 102. estate of inheritance in wile, 103. In fees determinable, 104. in equitable estates, 105. seisin in wife during coverture, 106. In reversion, 107. necessity of issue, 108. liability for debts of husband, 109. how estate may be defeated, 110. CUSTOM, easement created in favor of public liy, 6H. DATE, in deed, 812. DEED, defined, 786. what are requisites of, 787-819. 025 INDEX. DEED — Continued. a sufficient writing, wliat constitutes, 788, 789. alterations and interlineations, 790. proper parties, the grantor, 701. infants and insane grantors, 792. ratification and disaffirmance, 793. deeds by married women, 794. . a disseisee cannot convey, 795. effect of fraud and duress upon, 796. proper grantees, 797. proper parties named in the deed, 798. a thing to be granted, 799. what can be conveyed by, 799, 800. consideration, when requisite to, 801. voluntary and fraudulent conveyances by, what are, 802. operative words of conveyance, 803. execution of, what constitutes, 804. power of attorney to execute, 805. power of attorney by married women, 806. signing, 807. sealing, 808. attestation, 809. acknowledgment or probate, 810. reading of, when necessary, 811. delivery and acceptance of, 812. what constitutes a sufficient delivery, 813. delivery to stranger, when assent of grantee presumed, 814. escrows, 815. registration or record of, 816. requisites of proper record, 816o. to whom is record constructive notice, 817. priority of unrecorded mortgages over judgment creditors, 817a. of what is record constructive notice, 8176. from what time does priority talce effect, 818. what constitutes sufficient notice of title — possession, 81&. poll and of indenture, 824. component parts of a, 826-846. the premises, 826. description — general statement, 827. contemporaneous exposition, 828. falsa demonstratio non nocet, 829. description in conveyance of joint-estates, 829a. elements of description, 830. monuments, natural and artificial, 831. artificial monuments in United States surveys, 83^ non-navigable streams, 833. navigable streams, 834. ■what is a navigable stream, 835. ponds and lal-ies, S3fi. 926 INDEX. 'D'E^D — Continued. highways, 837. walls, trees, fences, etc., 838. courses and distances, 839. quantity, 840. reference to other deeds, maps, etc., for description, 841. appurtenances, 842. exception and reservation, 843. habendum, 844. reddendum, 845. conditions, 846. covenants in, 849-863. covenants defined, 849. classes of covenants, 849. covenants enlarging the estate, 849a. covenants of seisin and right to convey, 850. breach of covenant of seisin, 851. covenant against incumbrances, 852. breach of covenant against incumbrances, 853 . covenant of quiet enjoyment, 854. covenant of warranty, 855. character of covenant of warranty, 856. the feudal warranty, 857. special covenants of warranty, 858. implied covenants, 859 . who may maintain actions on covenants of warranty, 860. what damages may be recovered on covenants of warranty, 861, what covenants run with land, 862. when breach of covenant works forfeiture, 863 DEDICATION, of lands for public highways, 611. acceptance by public, 611. rights acquired by public, 611. DELIVERY, of deed, 812-815. what constitutes, 813. absolute and conditional, 814. escrow, 815. . DESCENT, title by, 663-675. definition of title by, 663. what law governs, 664. consanguinity and affinity, 665. how lineal heirs talce, |666, 667. collateral heirs, 668. how degree of collateral relationship is computed, 669. ancestral property, 670. kindred of the whole and half blood, 671. 097 INDEX. DESCENT — Continued. adv^cement — hatchpot, 672. posthumous children, 673. illegitimate children, 67i. alienage, a bar to inheritance, 675. DESCRIPTION. Ske Deed and Devise. DEVISE, title by, 872-891.. definition and historical outline, 872. by what law governed, 873. requisites of a valid will, 87i. a sufficient writing, 875. what signing is necessary, 876. proper attestation, 877. who are competent witnesses, 878. who may prepare the will, holographs, 879. what property may be devised, 880. a competent testator, who is, 881. who may be devisees, what assent necessary, 882. devisee incapacitated by murder of testator, 882o!. devisee and devise must be clearly defined — parol evidence, 383^ devise to charitable uses, 884. lapsed devise, what becomes of, 885. revocation of will, 886. joint or mutual wills, 886a. revocation of will by destruction, 887. effect of alterations of will after execution, 887a. revocation of will by marriage and issue, 888. revocation of will by alteration or exchange of property, 889. revocation of will by subsequent will or codicil, 890. defective will confirmed by codicil, SOPa. probate of will, 891. agreements as to testamentary disposition of property, 891 DISSEISEE, cannot convey, 795. DISSEISIN, defined, 693. distinguished from dispossession, 694. what title gained by, 693. DIVORCE, effect upon curtesy, 110. effect upon dower, 128. effect upon husband's estate during coverture, 91, DOWER, 115-148. defined and explained, 115. in what estates, 116. in equitable estates, 117. 928 INDEX. DOWER — Continued. in lands of trustee, 118. In mortgage, 119. In proceeds of sale, 120. seisin in husband during coverture, 121. defeasible and determinable seis'ii, 122. duration of the seisin, 123. instantaneous seisin, 124. legal marriage, 125. lost or barred by act of husband (?), 126. lost or barred by mfe's release during coverture, 127. lost or barred by elopement and divorce, 128. lost or barred by loss of husband's seisin, 129. lost or barred by estoppel in pais, 130. lost or barred by statute of limitations, 131. lost or barred by exercise of eminent domain, 132. widow's quarantine, 133. assignment — two modes, 13i. assignment of common right, 135. assignment against common right, 136. by whom may dower be assigned, 137. remedies for recovery of, 138. demand necessary, 139. against whom and where action instituted, 140. action abated by death of widow, 141. judgment, what it contains, 142. damages, when recoverable, 143. assignment after judgment, 144. assignment, where two or more widows claim, 145. decree of sum of money in lieu of, 146. barred by jointure, 147. barred by testamentary provision, 148. DTTRESS, effect of, or validity of deed, 796. SASEMENTS, 697-622. defined and explained, 597. when merger takes effect, 59ts. how acquired, 599. by express grant, 600. by implied grant, 601. equitable easement, 602. implied from covenant, 603. rights of action in defence of, 604. lost or extinguished, how, 606. kinds of, 606. right of way, 607. 59 929 INDEX. EASEMENTS — Continued. private way, 608. ways of necessity, 609. who must repair the way, 610. public or highways, 611, In light and air, 612. In light and air, how acquired, 613. In right of water, 614. percolations and swamps, 615. ill artificial water courses, 616, in water courses, generally, 617. right of lateral and subjacent support, 618. implied grant of lateral support 619. party walls, 620. separate ownership in building — subjacent support, 621, legalized nuisances, 622. ELOPEMENT, of wife, bar to dower, 128 EMBLEMENTS, what are, 8, 70. who may claim, 71. EMINENT DOMAIN, defined, 753. nature of title acquired by, 763. ENCUMBRANCES, by whom paid off, 66, interest on, by whom paid, 66. if paid by tenant, what effect, 66. ENTIRETY, estates in, 242-244. doctrine of survivorship, 242. estates in, in a joint-tenancy, 243. how affected by statutes in United States, 242. EQUITABLE ESTATES, what are, 437-517. history and- origin of, 438. dower in, 117. curtesy in, 106. EQUITY OF REDEMPTION, defined, 299. invariable incident to mortgage, 299, 308. how affected by contemporaneous agreements, 808 how affected by subsequent agreements, 809. EQUITABLE MORTGAGE, what is, 287. 930 INDEX. EQUITABLE MORTGAGES — OonttnuecJ. by deposit of title deeds, 288-291. vendor's lien, 292-294, vendee's lien, 295. ESCROW, defined and explained, 815. ESTATE, what is an, 26. kinds and classes, 26. in fee simple, 36-39. tail, 44-52. for life, 60-82. per autervie, 61. joint estates, 235-265. during coverture, 90-94. curtesy, 101-110. dovrer, 115-148. homestead, 158-164. upon condition, 271-280. upon limitation, 280. equitable, 437-517. in reversion, 385-388. in remainder, 396-434. contingent use, 482. springing use, 483. shifting use, 484. executory devise, 630-546. conditional limitations, 281. for years, 171-201. at will, 212-219. at sufferance, 225-228. ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE, 36-39. ' defined and explained, 36. words of limitation necessary, 37. alienation of, 38. liability of, for debts, 39. ESTATES TAIL, 44-52. base or qualified fees, 44. fee conditional at common law, 45. estate tail .explained, 46. necessary words of limitation in, 47. classes of, 48. how barred, 49. merger of, 50. after possibility of issue extinct, 51. in the United States, 52. 931 INDEX. ESTATES FOR LIFE, 60-82. definition and classes, 60. peculiarities of estates jjey auter vie, 61. words of limitation in, 62. merger of, 63. alienation of , 64 . tenure between tenant for life and reversioner, 65. apportionment between life tenant and reversioner — of incum- brances, 66. same — of rent, 67. claim of tenant for Improvements, 68 estovers, 69. emblements, 70. who may claim emblements, 71. waste, definition and Mstory of, 72. what acts constitute waste, 73. waste, in respect to trees, 74. continued — in respect to mineral and other deposits, 75 continued — management and culture of land, 76. continued — in respect to buildings, 77. continued — by acts of strangers, 78. continued — by destruction of buildings by fire, 79. exemption from liability for waste, 80. ' remedies for waste, 81. property in timber unlawfully cut by life tenant, 82. ESTATES FOR YEARS, 171-201. history of, 171. definition of, 172. tenure defined, 173. interesse tei-mini, 174. terms commencing infuturo, 176. the rights of lessee for years, 176. how created, 177. form of a lease, 178. present lease distinguished from contract for future one, 179. acceptance of lease necessary, 180. , relation of landlord and tenant, 181. assignment and subletting, 182. involuntary alienation, 183. disposition of terms after death of tenant, 184. covenants in a lease, in general, 185. covenants, express and implied, 186. implied covenants for quiet enjoyment, 187 implied covenant for rent, 188. implied covenant against waste, 189. covenants running with the land, 190. 932 INDEX. ESTATES FOR YEAES — Continued. conditions in leases, 191. rent reserved, 192. rent reserved — ^ condition of forfeiture, 193. how relation of landlord and tenant may be determined, 194. what constitutes eviction, 195. constructive eviction, 196. surrender and merger, 197. how surrender may be affected, 198. right of lessee to deny landlord's title, 199. effect of disclaimer of lessor's title, 200. letting land upon shares, 201. ESTATES AT WILL AND EKOM YEAR TO YEAE, 212-219. what are estates at will, 212. how estates at will are determined, 213. estates at will and from year to year distinguished, 214, what now included under estates at will, 216. estates at will, arising by implication of law, 216. qualities of tenancies from year to year, 217. what notice required to determine tenancy from year to year, 218. how notice may be waived, 219. ESTATES AT SmFFEEANCE, 225-228. what are, 225. incidents of, 226. how tenancy at sufferance may be determined, 227. effect of forcible entry, 228. ESTATES TJPON CONDITION, 271-281. definition of, 271. words necessary to .creation of, 272. conditions precedent and subsequent, 271, 273. invalid conditions — impossibility of performance, 274. invalid conditions — because of illegality, 276. time of performance, 276. effect of breach of condition upon, 277. waiver of performance, 278. equitable relief against forfeiture, 279. distinguished from trusts, 280. distinguished from estates upom limitation and conditional limita- tions, 281. ESTATES TJPON LIMITATION, 281. ESTOPPEL, 724-631. defined, 724. in pais, 725. perfection of title by the operation of, 725. is fraud necessary to, 726. 933 INDEX. ESTOPPEL — Continued. by deed, in its relation to title by adverse possession, 727, 728. effect of estoppel upon the title, 729, 730. binding upon whom, 731. ESTOVERS, defined and explained, 69. ^ EVICTION OF TENANT, actual and constructive, 195, 196. effect of, 194. EXCEPTION and reservation distinguished, 8i3. EXCHANGE, technical conveyance at common law, 769. rule as to dower in technical cases of, 145. EXECUTION, title acquired by sale under, 757. of mortgages, 302, 303. of deeds, 804-809. of devises, 874-879. EXECTJTOEY DEVISES, 530-546. nature and origin of, 530. vested and contingent, 531 . classes of, 532. distinguished from devises inprcesentt, 533. reversion of estate undisposed of, what becomes of, 534. distinguished from uses, 535. distinguished from remainders, 536-540. may be limitation after a fee, 537. limitation after estate tail, a remainder and not an executory devise, 538. arising by lapse of prior limitation, 539. remainder may be limited after, 540. indestructibility of, 541. limited upon failure of issue, 542. use limited upon failure of issue in deed, 543. how affected by rule against perpetuity, 544. rule against accumulation of profits, 545. of chattel interests, 546. FEE, meaning of term under feudal system, 21. words of limitation in creation of a, 37, 47. base or qualified, 44, 271-281.' conditional at common law, 45. 934 INDEX. I^E SIMPLE, 36-39. defined, 36. words of limitation in a, 37, alienation of, 38. liability for debts, 39. FEE TAIL, 46-52. See Estates Tail. FEOFFMENT, explained and defined, 24, 770. when it will operate tortiously. 770, FERRIES. See Franchises. FEUDAL SYSTEM, principles of the, 19-26 what is tenure, 19. feudal tenure, 20. feud or fief, 21. subinfeudation, 22. the feudal manor, 23. feoffment and lively of seisin, 24. tenure in the United States, 2S. classes of estates, 26. FLDEI COMMISSUM, resembles uses, 438. FILUM AQUAE, 687. FINE, and common recoverieSj 49. FIXTURES, 3-7. defined, 3. who may claim, 4, what constitutes constructive annexation, 6, between landlord and tenant, 6. time for removal of, 7. FLOWING LANDS, when permitted to upper land-owner, 617. FORECLOSURE, 358-368. FRANCHISES, 633-636. defined, 633. kinds of, 634. mutual obligations arising out of, 635. confiicting franchises — constitutional prohibition against legislative, avoidance of, 636. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, what are, 802. q.,K INDEX. FEAUDS, STATUTE OF, In respect to leases, 178. in respect to uses and trusts, 607. in respect to conveyances generally, 783. does not require a sealed instrument, 783. in respect to mortgages, 308, 307. FEEEHOLD, defined, 23, 26. classes of, 26. distinguislied from leasehold, 172. seisin applicable only to, 24. cannot be created to commence in futuro, 386, 396, descends to heir. FUTTJEE USES, 478-487. GIFT, originally a feoffment in tail, 769. GEANT, 744-783. title by public grant, 744-747. title by involuntary alienation, 751-761. title by public grant, 768-783. GEANT, TITLE BT PUBLIC, 744-747. of public lands, 744. forms of public, 745. relative value of patent and certificate of entry, 746. pre-emption, 747 GEANT, TITLE BY INVOLUNTARY, 751-761. defined, 751. scope of legislative authority, 752. eminent domain, 753. from persons under disability, 754. confirming defective titles, 755. sales by administrators and executors, 756. sales under execution, 757. sales by decree of chancery, 758. tax-titles, 759. validity of tax-title, 760. judicial sales for delinquent taxes, 761. GRANT, TITLE BY PRIVATE, 768-783. defined and explained, 768. principal features and classes of common-lav7 conveyances, 769. feoffment, 770. common-law grant, 771. lease, 772. 936 INDEX. •GRANT, TITLE BY TBIYA'T^— Continued. release, 773. conflrmation, 7715. surrender, 773. conveyances tinder the Statute of TJses, 774-778. retrospection, 774. covenant to stand seised, 776. , bargain and sale, 776. future estates of freehold in bargain and sale, 777. lease and release, 778. ■what conveyances now judicially recognized, 779. statutory forms of conveyance, 780. quit-claim deed, 781. dual character of common conveyances, 782. is a deed necessary to convey a freehold, 783. GEOWING CROPS, vyhen part of the realty, 2, 799. GUARDIANS, may sell lands of ward upon order of court, 754. holding over are not tenants at sufferance, 225. HABENDUM, ' its use and necessity in deeds, 844. HAY-BOTE OR HEDGE-BOTE. See Estovers. HEIR, defined, 663. apparent and presumptive distinguished, 663. apparent's deed operates by estoppel, 800. HEIRS, as a word of limitation, 87, 47. HEIRS OF THE BODY, who are, 47. HEREDITAMENTS, term defined, 11. two classes of, 11. (see incorporeal hereditaments.) jHIGHWAYS, as a monument of description, 837. right of the public In, how acquired, 611. HOLDING OVER, by tenant makes him tenant at sufferance, 225. by guardian, and trustees makes them trespassers, 225. 937 INDEX. HOLOGRAPHS, 879. HOMESTEADS, THE LAW OF, 158-164. history and origin, 158. nature of the estate, 169. who may claim, 160. what may be claimed, 161. exemption from debt, 162. how lost — by alienation, 163. lost by abandonment, 164. HOUSES, generally part of the land, 2, 799. (see fixtures.) HOUSEBOTE. See Estovers HUSBAM) AND WIFE, when tenants by entirety, 24-2, 243. when tenants in common, 244. rights of property in each other's lands, 90-164. cannot convey directly to each other, may make joint conveyance of wife's property, 794. IMPEACHMENT FOR WASTES exemptions from, 80. IMPLIED, conditions, 191, 193, 271. covenants in deeds, 859 . In leases, 186-189. trusts, 498. INCOBPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS, 589-646. rights of common, 591-593. ' easements, 597-622. rents, 641-646. franchises, 633-636. INCUMREANCES, covenant against, 852, 853. when tenant must pay off and how payment apportioned, 66. INDENTURE, what is deed of, 824. INFANT, deed of, whether void or voidable, 792. not bound by estoppel, 731. cannot avoid deed during infancy, 792, 793, confirmation validates the deed, 792,793. 938 INDEX. INHERITANCE, estates of, 26. words of, 37, i7. INSANE PEESON, deed of, whether void or voidable, 792. effect of disaffirmance and ratification, 792, 793. INSOLVENT, assignee of, vrhen bounded by covenants in assignor's lease, 183. INSTJKANCE, mortgagor and mortgagee's right to effect, 327. rules for applying insurance money, 327. double insurance, 327. company's right of subrogation, 327. INSTANTANEOtrS SEISIN, in respect to attaching dower right, 124. INTEEESSB TERMINI, 174. IRRIGATION, right of riparian owners to water for, 614, 617. ISLANDS, forming, in whom is right of property, 687. JOINT ESTATES, 235-265. what are, 235. classes of, 235. joint-tenancy, 236. incidents of joint-tenancy, 237, 238. doctrine of survivorship, how destroyed, 238. tenancy in common, 239. whenjenancies in common, 240. tenancy in coparcenary, 241 . estates in entirety, 242, 243. tenancy in commcJn between husband and wife, 244. estates in partnership, 245. several interests of partners, 246. disseisin by one co-tenant, 251. adverse title acquired by one co-tenant, 262. alienation of, 253, 829a, waste by co-tenant, 254. liability of one co-tenant for rents and profits, 265. definition of partition, 259. voluntary partition, 260. Involuntary or compulsory partition, 261. who can maintain action for waste, 262^ 939 INDEX, JOINT 'EST ATBS— Contimwd. partial partition, 263. manner of allotment, 264. e£Eect of partition, 265. JOINT-TENANCY. See Joint Estates. JOINTURE, explained, a bar to dower, 147. JUDGMENT-LIEN, when takes precedence to mortgage, 339, 817a. when created by docket of judgment, 757. LAKES, as monuments of description, 836. LAND, what is, 2-10. what included in conveyance of, 2, 799, 800. never appurtenant to land, 842. LANDS, tenements and hereditaments, distinguished, 11. LAND WAERAJSTTS, to what extent legal title, 746. LANDLORD AJSTO TENANT, what constitutes relation of, 181* (see estates for years.) LEASE, form and requisites of, 178, 772. distinguished from contract for future lease, 179. (see estates for years.) LEASE AND RELEASE, defined and explained, 778. LEGISLATURE, may create franchises, 633. power of, over franchises, 635, 636. validity of sales of private property by, 752. exercise of eminent domain by, 753. LEGAL ESTATES, distinguished from equitable, 26. LESSEE. See Estates for Years. LESSOR. See Estates for Years. 940 INDEX. LETTING LAND UPON SHARES, 201. LICENSE, 651-654. defined and explained, 661. how and when revoked, 662, 663. how created, 654. LIEN, of vendor, 292-295. of vendee, 295. by deposit of title deeds, 288-291. by judgment, when takes precedence to mortgage, 339. when created by docket of judgment, 757. LIFE ESTATE. See Estates for Lute. LIGHT AND AIE, easement in, 612. how created, 613. LIMITATIONS, statute of, 713-717. what statute enacts, 713. requires continuous and uninterrupted possession, 714. runs against whom, 715. how and when statute operates, 716. effect of, 717. LINEAL AJSTD COLLATERAL WARRANTY, 857. LIVERY OF SEISIN, 24. LUNATIC, capacity as a grantor, 792, 793. capacity as a devisor, 881. MACHINERY, when passes as realty, 2. MAGNA CHARTA, provisions of, in respect to alienation, 22. MANURE, when part of realty, 2. MAP, may be made by reference part of description, 841. MARITAL RELATION, estates arising out of the, 90-164. estate of husband during coverture, 90-94. estate by curtesy, 101-110. dower, 115-148. homestead estates, 158-164. "*' INDEX MARRIED WOMEN, have dower in husband's estate, 115-148. how far able to convey legal estates, 793. rights to convey equitable estates 469. MARSHALLING OF ASSETS, between successive mortgages, 376. MERGER, of estate for life, 63. of estate for years, 197. of estate per auter vie, 61. of estate tail, 49. of mortgage, 321. of equitable estate, 461, 464. MINES, included in term land, 2. opening of, when waste by tenant, 75. widow has dower in, 116. MONUMENTS, element of description of boundary, 830. natural and artificial, 831. artificial monuments in United States surveys, 832. non-navigable streams, 833. navigable streams, 834. ponds and lakes, 836. highways, 837. walls, trees, fences, etc., 838. MORTGAGE, 287-376. defined, 287. by deposit of title deeds, 288-291. notice to subsequent purchasers, 289. their recognition in this country, 290. foreclosure of mortgage by deposit of title deeds, 291. vendor's lien, 292-295. whom does it bind, 292. what constitutes notice of vendor's lien, 292. lien how discharged, 293. in whose favor raised, 294. vendee's lien, 295. foreclosure of vendor's and vendee'a liens, 295. at common law, 296. vivum vadium, 297. Welsh mortgage, 298. equity of redemption, 299. in equity, 300. Influence of equity upon law in respect to the, 301. 042 INDEX. MORTGAGE — Continued. what constitutes a, 302. execution of the defeasance, 303. form of defeasance, 304. defeasance distinguished from agreements to repurchase, 305. defeasance clause in equity, 306. admissibility of parol evidence to convert deed into a, 307. how affected by contemporaneous agreements, 308. how affected by subsequent agreements, 309, debt necessary to a mortgage, 310. for support of mortgagee, 311. what may be mortgaged, 312. mortgagor's interest, 318. mortgagee's interest, 319. may be devised, 320. merger, 321. possession of mortgaged premises, 322. special agreements in respect to possession, 323 rents and profits, 324. mortgagee's liability for rents received, 325, tenure between mortgagor and mortgagee, 326. Insurance of the mortgaged premises, 327. assignment, 328. common law assignment, 329. assignment under Hen theory, 330. assignment of mortgagor's interest, 331. rights and liabilities of assignees, 332, effect of payment or tender of payment, 333. who may redeem, 334. what acts extinguish the mortgage, 335. effect of a discharge, 336. when payment will work an assignment, 337, registry of mortgages, and herein of priority, 338, rule of priority from registry, its force and effect, 339. registry of assignments of mortgages and equities of redemption, 340. tacking of mortgages, 341. priority in mortgages for future advances, 342. actions for waste, 351. process to redeem, 362. accounting by the mortgagee, 353. continued — what ai-e lavrful debits, 354. continued — what are lawful credits, 355. making rests, 356. balance due, 357. foreclosure — nature and kinds of, 358. continued — who should be made parties, 359, 360. 943 INDEX . MORTGAGE — Continued. effect of decree in foreclosure upon the land, 361. effect of foreclosure upon the debt, 362. with power of sale, 363. character of mortgagee in relation to the power, 364. purchase by mortgagee at Ms own sale, 365. extinguishment of the power, 366. application of purchase-money, 367 deeds of trust, 368. contribution to redeem — general statement, 369. contribution between mortgagor and his assignee, 870. between assignees of mortgagor, 371. between surety and mortgagor, 372. between heirs, widows and devisees of mortgagor, 373. between mortgaged property and mortgagor's personal estate, 374. special agreements affecting the rights of contribution and esonera- tion, 375. marshalling of assets between successive mortgages, a76. satisfaction of mortgages on the record, 343. NAKED POWER, what is, 560. NAMES, of parties to deed, essential for description, 798. when deed is void for uncertainty of, 798 of devisees must be plainly given, 883 NAVIGABLE STREAM, what is, 835. as a monument of description, 834, NECESSITY, way of, 609 NEMO EST HiERES VIVENTIS, 663. NON COMPOS MENTIS, power to make deeds, 792. power to make will, 881. NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS, as a monument cf description, 833. NON-USER, its effect iipou easement, 605. NOTICE TO QUIT, necessary to terminate tenancy from year to year, 214, 217, 21^ length of notice required, 219. 944 INDEX. NOTICE, actual and constructive, 816-819. constructive from registry of deed, 816-818. what actual notice puts purchaser upon inquiry, 819. OBSTRUCTION, of vrater course, how far lawful, 614-617. right of water, 614. of percolations and swamps, 615. of artificial water courses, 616. of water courses generally, 617. OCCUPANCY, TITLE BY, 681-683. defined and explained, 681. in estates per auter vie, 683. condition of public lands in United States, 682. OUSTER, of tenant, effect upon covenant for rent, 194-196. OUTSTANDING TEEM, to attend inheritance, 197. OWELTY OF PARTITION; 264. OWNERSHIP, double, in lands, 10. PAROL EVIDENCE, admissible to show a deed to be a mortgage, 807. may establish amount of consideration of a deed, 801. may prove location of monuments in a deed, 828, 832. PAROL LEASES, how far binding, 177, 216. PAROL LICENSE, nature of interest created by, 651. how far and when revocable, 652, 663. PARTICULAR ESTATE, what is a, 396. PARTIES, to deeds, who are competent, 791, 792, 794,796. to foreclosure of mortgage, 359, 360. redemption of mortgage, 334, 352. PARTITION, 259-265. defined and explained, 259. volimtary partition, 260. GO 945 INDEX. PARTITION — Continued. Involuntary or compulsory partition, 261. who can maintain action for, 262. partial partition, 263. mode of allotment in, 264. effect of, 265. FAETNERSHIP, estate In, 245. several interests of partners in estate in, 246. PARTY WALLS, as an easement, 620. PATENT OP LAND, from the State or United States, 745. its value compared with certificate of entry, 746. PAYMENT, of mortgage, effect of, 333, 335. when it works an assignment, 837. PERCOLATIONS, rights in and to, 615. PER MY ET PER TOUT, 238. PERPETUITY, rule against, 543, in its relation to powers, 575. does not apply to remainders, 417. PERSONAL PROPERTY, when it becomes part of realty, 2-7. estates for years are, 171, 172. when liable to contribution towards payment of mortgage, 374. PONDS, as monuments of description, 836. POSSESSION, constructive notice of deed, 819. title by adverse, 692-704. effect of naked possession, 692. seisin and disseisin explained, 693. disseisin and dispossession distinguished, 694. actual or constructive possession necessary, 695. what acts constitute actual possession, visible or notorious, 696, 69T. must be distinct and exclusive, 698. must be hostile and adverse, 699. when adverse after lawful entry, 700. disseisor's power to alien, 701. 94(1 INDEX. POSSESSION — Continued. title by adverse, how defeated, 703. how made absolute, 704. betterments, 702. POSSIBILITY OF ISSUE EXTINCT, estate tail "after, 51. POSTHUMOUS CHILDREN, right to inlierit, 673. how affected by will of parent, 673. POWERS, 558-577. of the nature of powers in general, 658. classes of, 558. POWERS OE APPOINTMENT, 659-577. kinds of, 660. suspension or destruction of, 561. how created, 562. distinguished from estates, 663. enlarging estate to which they are coupled, 664. who may be donee, 565. executed by whom, 666. mode of execution, 667. who may be appointees, 568. execution by implication, 669. excessive execution, 570. successive execution, 571. revocation of appointment, 672. cy pres doctrine applied to, 573. detective executions, 673. non-execution, 574:. rules against perpetuity applied to, 575. rights of donee's creditors in the power, 676. rights of creditors of beneficiaries, 577. POWERS OF ATTORNEY, to execute deed, 805. by married women, 80G. POWER OF SALE, in a mortgage, 363-368. explained, 363. character of mortgagee in relation to, 364. when extinguished, 366. purchase by mortgagee at sale under, 366. application of purchase-money, 367. in deeds of trust, 368. PRE-EMPTION, 747. 947 INDEX. PREMISES OF A DEED, 826-843. what contained in, 826. description of land, general statements, 827 Contemporaneous exposition, 828. falsa demonstratio non nocet, 829. elements of description, 830. monuments, natural and artificial, 831. artificial monuments in United States surveys, 832. non-navigable streams, 833. navigable streams, 834. ■what is a navigable stream, 835. ponds and lakes, 836. highways, 836. walls, fences, trees, etc., 838. courses and distances, 839. quantity of land, 840. reference to other deeds, maps, etc., for description, 841. appurtenances, 842. exception and reservation, 843 . PRESCRIPTION, applies only to incorporeal hereditaments, 599 . distinguished from limitation, 599. PRIMOGENITURE, 666. PRIORITY, in extraordinary use of water course, 617. of title by registration of deeds, 816-818. of mortgage from recording, 338, 359. in registry of assignments of mortgage, 340. in mortgages for future advances, 342. PRIVATE GRANT, TITLE BY, 768. defined and explained, 768. principal features and classes of common-law conveyances, 769. feoffment, 770. common-law grant, 771. lease, 772. release, 773. confirmation, 773. surrender, 773. conveyances under statute of uses, 774-778. retrospection, 774. covenant to stand seised, 775. bargain and sale, 776. future estates of freehold in bargain and Sale, 777. lease and release. 778. what conveyances now judicially recognized, 779. 948 INDEX. PRIVATE GRANT, TITLE BY — Continued. statutory forms of conveyances, 780. quit-claim deed, 781. dual character of common conveyances, 782. is a deed necessary to convey freeholds, 783. PRIVITY, of contract between lessor and lessee, 182. of estate between reversioner and particular tenant, 181, 199. PROFITS A PRENDRE, rights of common appurtenant and in grossj 591, 592. PROPERTY, divided into real and personal, 1. PUBLIC, rights of, in highways acquired by custom, 611. PUBLIC GRANT, TITLE BY, 744-747. \ of public lands, 744. forms of public grant, 745 . relative value of patent and certificate of entry, 746. pre-emption, 747. PUBLIC LANDS, in United States, 682. See PuBiiC Gbant. PURCHASE, what is title by, 659 •QUALIFIED EEE, what is, 44, 271-281. QUANTITY, of land, as an element of description, 840. quarantine; widow's right of, 133. quia EMPTORES, statute of, granted right of alienation of freeholds, 22, 38. forbids restraint of alienation of fees, 275. RAILROAD, rolling stock of, whether real estate, 2. franchise of. See Ebanohisbs. RATDFICATION of deed by infant or insatte person, 793. EEAL ESTATE 1 distinguished from real property, 171. ^^^ INDEX. REAL PROPERTY, defined, 1. what included in, 2. fixtures as a part of, 3-7. emblements, 8, 70, 7X', trees, a part of, 9. double ownership in, 10. includes lands, tenements, and hereditaments, 11. RECEIVER, to mortgaged property, when appointed, 324, n. to life estate when appointed, 66, n. RECITALS, how far estoppel arise from, 727. RECORD. See Registration. RECOVERY, as a mode of conveying lands, 49. REDEMPTION, equity of. See Equity op Redemption. right of. See Moktgagbs. REFORMATION OF DEEDS, 828. REGISTRATION OP DEEDS, 816-818. constructive notice, 817. rule of priority from, 818. of mortgages, 338, 339, 342. their satisfaction on record, 343. of assignments of mortgage, 340 RELEASE, common-law conveyance, 773. lease and, 778. REMAINDERS, 396-434. nature and definition of, 396. kinds of, 397, 401. successive remainders, 398. disposition of vested, 399. relation of tenant and remainderman, 400. vested and contingent, further distinguished, 401. uncertainty of enjoyment, 401. to a class, 402. after happening of contingency, 403. cross remainders, 404. nature and origin of contingent remainder. 411. classes of contingent remainders, 412. vested remainder after contingent, 413, 414. alternate remainders in fee, 415. 950 EEMAINDERS — Continued. restrictions upon natura of contingency — legality, 416. same — remoteness, 417. contingency must not abridge particular estate, 418. how contingent remainder may be defeated, 419. defeated by disseisin of particular tenant, 420. defeated by merger of particular estate, 420. defeated by feoffment by tenant, 422. defeated by entry for condition broken, 423. trustees to preserve, 424. origin and nature of rule in Shelley's case, 433. requisites of the rule, 434. . RENT, covenant of. See Estates fob Tears. RENTS, 641-646. defined, 741. service, 642. charge and seek, 643. fee-farm rent^ 643. how created, 644. how extinguished or apportioned, 645. remedies for recovery of, 646. REPAIRS, liability for, in estates for life, 77. in estates for years, 77, 189. in mortgaged property, 351, 355. in double ownership of house, 621. REPURCHASE, right to, distinguished from mortgagee, 805. RESERVATION, distinguished from exception, 843. RESULTING TRUSTS, 499, 500. RESULTING USES, 443. REVERSION, 385-389. defined and explained, 385. assignment and devise of, 386. descendible to whom, 387. dower and curtesy in, 388. rights and powers incitlent to, 389. REVOCATION of appointment under a power, 672. of a will — general statement, 886. by destruction of will, 887. q^-j IITDEX. KEVOCATION"— Continued. by marriage and birth of issue, 888. by alteration or exchange of property, 889. by subsequent mil or codicil, 890. by happening of expressed contingency 891. ETPAEIAN PEOPEIETORS, right to alluvion and accretion, 686, 687. right to use of water, 614-617. boundary of land of, 833-836. EITERS, what are navigable, 835. as boundaries to land, 883, 834. title to islands forming in, 687. EOLLING STOCK of railroads, whether real estate, 2. EULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE, nature and origin of, 433. requisites of the rule, 434. SALE OF LAND by legislative acts under eminent domain, 763. of persons under disability, 764. by administrators and executors, 756. under execution, 757. for delinquent taxes, 759-761. by decree of chancery, 758. SCINTILLA JUEIS, 480, 481. SEAL, necessary to a deed, 806. not necessary to will, 875. not necessary to a leasehold, 177. SEALED INSTRUMENT, when necessary to convey freehold, 783. SEISIN, what is, 24, 396, 397, 400, 770. , and disseisin explained, 698. SERVIENT ESTATE, 597. SEVEEALTY, estates in, 26, 235. SHAEES, letting land upon, 201. 952 INDEX. ■SHELLEY'S CASE, rule in, 433, 434. SIGNING, essential to deed, 807. essential to will, 876 . SOCAGE TENURE, 23. SPRINGS OE WATEE, rights in and to, 615. STIRPES, inheritance per, 666, 669. STREET or highway, as a boundary, 837. STREAMS, what are navigable, 835. as boundaries, 832f 834. SUBINEEUDATION, 22. SUBLETTING, distinguished from assignment, 182. SUBPOENA, WRIT OF, origin of, 440. SUBROGATION of insurance company to mortgagee, 827. of mortgagee to mortgagor's rights against assignee of mortgagor, 332. SUCCESSORS, a word of limitation in conveyance to corporations, when neces- sary, 37. in privity, acquire title by adverse possession, 701. SUFFERANCE, TENANCY AT, 225-228.^^ defined and explained, 225. incidents of the tenancy, 226. how deteamined, 227. effect of forcible entry, 228. SUPPORT, lateral and subjacent, 618. SURRENDER, a common law conveyance, 773. SURETY, when subrogated to rights of mortgagee, 372. 953 INDEX. SUBVIVOESHIP, EIGHT OF in esates in entirety, 212, 243. in joint-tancies, 237, 238. TABLES OF CHAJSTCES OF LIFE, 66, 146. TACKING OF MORTGAGES, 341. TAIL, ESTATES, 44-52. See Estates Tabl. TAX-TITLE, 759. its validity, 760. judicial sales for delinquent taxes, 761. TENANCY IN COMMON. See Joint Estates. TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE, 225-228. defined and explained, 225. incidents of, 226. how determined, 227. effect of forcible entry, 428. TENANCY IN ENTIRETY. See Joint Estates. TENANCY IN PARTNERSHIP. See Joint Estates. TENANCY AT WILL AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR, 212-219. what is a tenancy at will, 212. how is tenancy at will determined, 213. tenancy at will and from year to year distinguished, 214. what now included under tenancies at wUl, 215. tenancy at will arising by implication of law, 216. qualities of tenancies from year to year, 217. what notice required to determine tenancy from year to year, 218. how notice may be waived, 219. TENANCY FOR YEARS, 171-201. See Estates for Years. TENDER, of mortgage debt, effect upon mortgagee, 333. TENEMENTS, meaning of term, 11. TENENDUM, a component part of deed, 825, 844. TENURE, what is, 19. under the feudal system, 20. in the United States, 25. between landlord and tenant, 173. between tenant of particular estate and reversioner, 225-389. between mortgagor and mortgagee, 326. between remainderman and particular tenant, 400. 954 INDEX. TEKMS FOR YEARS. See Estates for Yeaks. TESTAMENTARY PROVISION, in lieu of ciowei', 148. THREAD or THE STREAM, 687. See FnuM Aqu.«!. TIDE-WATER, boundary line in, 834, 836 TITLE, general classification, 659, 660. by purchase and by descent, 659. original and derivative, 660. TITLE BY ACCRETION, 685-687. defined and explained, 685. alluvion, 686. filum aquae, 687. TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, 692-704. effect of naked possession, 692. seisin and disseisin explained, 693. disseisin and dispossession distinguished, .694. actual or constructive possession. 695. what constitutes actual possession — must be visible or notorious, 696, 697. must be distinct and exclusive, 698. hostile and adverse, 699. when lawful entry is converted into adverse possession, 700. .disseisor's power to alien, 701. when and how defeated, 703. when and how made absolute, 704. betterments, 702. TITLE BY DESCENT, 663-675. defined and explained, 663. what law governs, 664. consanguinity and afiinity, 665. lineal heirs, 668. how degree of collateral relationship is computed, 669. ancestral property, 670. kindred of the whole and half blood, 671. advancement — hotchpot, 772. posthumous children, 673. illegitimate children, 674. alienage, as a bar to inheritance, 675. TITLE BY DEVISE, 872-891. definition and historical outline, 872. by what law governed, 873. <);)5 INDEX. TITLE BY DEVISE — Continued. requisites of a valid will, 874. a sufficient ■writing, 875. what signing is necessary, 876. proper attestation, 877. who are competent witnesses, 878. who may prepare the will — holographs, 879. what property may be devised, 880. a competent testator, 881. who may be devisees — what assent necessary, 882. devisee, incapacitated by murder of testator, 882a. devise and devisee clearly defined — parol evidence, 883. devises to charitable uses, 884. lapsed devises, 885. revocation of will, 886. joint or mutual wills, 886a. by destruction, 887. effect of alterations of will after execution, 887a. by marriage and birth of issue, 888. by alteration or exchange of property, 889. by subsequent will or codicil, 890. defective wUl confirmed by codicil, 890a. probate of will, 891. agreements as to testamentary disposition of property, 893. TITLE BY EXECUTION, 757. TITLE BY GRANT, 744-783. title by public grant, 744-747. title by involuntary grant, 751-761. title by private grant, 768-783. TITLE BY INVOLUNTAHY GRANT, 751-761. defined and explained, 761. scope of legislative authority, 752. eminent domain, 753. from persons under disability, 754. confirming defective titles, 955. sales by administrators and executors, 756, sales under execution, 757. sales by decree of chancery, 758. tax titles, 759. validity of tax title, 760. judicial sales for delinquent taxes, 761. TITLE BY PRIVATE GRANT, 768-783. defined and explained, 768. principal features and classes of common law conveyances, 769. feoffment, 770. common law grant, 771. lease, 772. 956 INDEX. TITLE BY PEIVATE GBAST — Continued. release, 773. confirmation, 77£ surrender, 773. conveyances under statute of uses, 774-778. retrospection, 774. covenant to stand seised, 775. bargain and sale, 776. future estates of freehold in bargain and sale, 777. lease and release, 778. what conveyances now judicially recognized, 779. statutory forms of conveyance, 780. quit-claim deed, 781. dual character of common conveyances, 782. is a deed necessary to convey a freehold, 783. TITLE BY PUBLIC GEANT, 744-747. of public lands, 744. forms of public grant, 745. relative value of patent and certificate of entry, 746. pre-emption, 747. TITLE BY OCCUPANCY, 681-683. defined and explained, 681. condition of public lands in ITnited States, 683. in estates ^er auter vie, 383. TITLE BY OEIGINAL ACQUISITION, 681-741. title by occupancy, 681-683. title by accretion, 685-687. title by adverse possession, 692-704. statute of limitations, 713-717. estoppel, 724-731. abandonment, 739-741. TREES, a part of land, 2, 9. in whom is title to, when on boundary-line, 9. rights of adjoining owners therein, 9. TRUSTS. See Uses and Trusts, 493-617. defined and explained, 493. active and passive, 494. executed and executory, 495. express, 496. Implied, resulting and constructive, 497. implied, 498. resulting, in general, 499. resulting from payment of consideration, 500. constructive, 501. interest of cestui oue trust. 502. 957 INDEX. TRUSTS — Continued. liability for debts of cestui que trust, 503. words of limitation, SOi. remainders in, — their destructibillty, 605. how created and transferred, 506. statute of frauds in relation to, 507. how affected by want of a trustee, 508. removal of trustees, 509 . refusal of trustee to serve, 610. survivorship in joint trustees, 611. merger of interests, 512. rights and powers of trustees, 513. powers and duties of cestuis que trust, 514. alienation of trust estate, 515. liability of third persons for performance of trust, 61S. compensation of trustee, 617. UHDERLETTING, distinguished from assignment, 182. (see subletting.) USER, a mode of acquiring an easement, 699. (see prescription.) USES AND TRUSTS, I. Uses before the statute of uses, 439-461. pre -statement, 437. origin and history of uses, 438. use defined, 439. enforcement of the use, 440. distinction between uses and trusts, 441. how uses may be created, 442. same — resulting use, 443. same — by simple declarations, 444. who might be feoffees to use and cestuis que use, 445. incidents of uses, 446. what might be conveyed to uses, 447. alienation of uses, 448. estates capable of being created in uses, 449. disposition of uses by will, 450. how uses may be lost or defeated, 451. II. Uses under the statute of uses, 459-470. history of the statute of uses, 459. when statute will operate, 460. a person seised to use and in esse, 461. freehold necessary, 462. use upon a use, 463. 958 INDEX. USES AND TRUSTS — Continued. feoffee and cestui que use, same person, 464. a use m esse, 465. cestui que use in esse, 466. words of creation and limitation, 467. active and passive uses and trusts, 468. uses to married women, 469. cases in which the statute will operate, 470. m. Contingent, springing and shifting uses, 478-487. future uses, 478. contingent future uses, how supported, 479. importance of the question, 480. solution of the question, 481. contingent uses, 482. springing uses, 483. shifting uses, 484. future vses in chattel interests, 485. shifting and springing uses, how defeated, 486. incidents of springing and shifting .uses, 487. rV. Trusts, 493-617. defined and explained, 493. active and passive, 494. evecuted and executory, 495. express, 496. implied, resulting and constructive, 497. implied, 498. resulting, in general, 499. resulting from payment of consideration, 500. constructive, 501. interest of cestui que trust, 502. liability for debts of cestui que trust, 503 . words of limitation, 504. remainders in, — their destructibility, 505. how created and transferred, 506. statute of frauds in relation to, 507. how affected by want of a trustee, 508. removal of trustees, 509. refusal of trustee to serve, 510. survivorship in joint trustees, 511. merger of interests, 512. rights and powers of trustees, 513.' rights and duties of cestuis que trust, 514. alienation of trust estate, 515. liability of third persons for performance of trust, 616. compensation of trustee, 517. 959 INDEX. VENDEE, when occupying land under contract of sale, is tenant at will, 216.. VENDOR'S LIEN, 292-295. VENTRE SA MERE, child in, can inherit, 673. VESTED ESTATES, 26. VILLEINS, 23. VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES, 802. WAIVER, of notice by tenant from year to year, 219. WARRANTY, covenant of, 855, 856. the feudal, 857. special covenants of, 858. implied, 859. actions on covenants of, 860, 841. runs with the land, 862. WASTE, definition and history of, 72 what acts constitute, 73. in respect to trees, 74. in respect to mineral and other deposits, 75. in management and culture of land, 76. in respect to buildings, 77. by acts of strangers, 78. by destruction of buildings by Are, 79 exemption from liability for, 80. remedies for, 81. between mortgagor and mortgagee, S51. WATER COURSES, artificial and natural, rights in, 616, 617. WATER, easements in the use of, 615. what right of property in, 2. WAY, right of, 607. private, 608. of necessity, 609. who must repair the, 610. public or high, 611. 960 INDEX. WIFE'S SEPAEATE ESTAT]^, 93, 469. (see estates arising out of marital relation.) WILD LANDS, dower in, 116. WILLS. See Devise, or Title by Dbvisb. 872-892. WITNESSES, to deeds, 809. to wills, 877, 878. YEAR TO TEAR, tenancy from, 212-219. . See Estates at Will and From Year to Yeab. 61 961 KF 570 T55 1892 c.l Author Vol. Tiedem an, Cihristapher B Title Copy An elementary treatise on lAtteyiaan law of real prupa TM Borrower's Name